engine mods
 

hello, i own a 2001 ford ranger with a 3.0 v6 engine. has anyone done any mods to this engine to increase acceleration? i like the engine in my truck but i have a heavy foot. lol mayb i shouldnt have even bought a ranger. anyways, i would just like some ideas on how to increase acceleration to this engine. i've also thought about buying a 302 but that's reaching deep into the pockets, however just for reference does anyone have a 302 in a newer ranger, and what kind of gas mileage does that get?

thanks any help is appreciated

Easyest mod would be a chip such as the SCT chip($260) from motor haven.com. People will just tell you things like exaust and an intake system such as the MAC air intake system($140). I have an SCT chip, hallowed out cats, flowmaster dual exaust and MAC air intake and i run about a 17.2 in the 1/4. Took almost a second off my quarter mile time.

whipple makes a supercharger kit but it's only for the 2002-2004 models. http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/ranger/

Keep your eye open for Keene-Bell SC.... they have one for the 3L Escapes...so I can see them possibly coming up with something.
I also have friend in the process of changing out his head gaskets plus some other things (rods, pistons, ie) on his '00 3L Ranger after he had done some damage with a modified T-bird SC on it. The SC was passed around ...it went from the T-bird to a Ford Probe then to his Ranger... good thing that's not his dd.

If you want to keep that dd without spending the $$ in the long run...I'd keep to Ragun's idea.

Keep in mind those internals can only take so much!...

Just my 2-cents...

Keep us posted to which ever way you decide to go... =o)

It's hard to swap a 302 into a newer ranger, and stay emissions legal. The 3.0 is a weak engine with not alot of aftermarket suport. The only thing that will really make a difference, would be forced induction, like a super charger. You could put the money that you would pay for sc, and trade in your ranger for a 4.0 sohc ranger, or a sports car, and be better off. A 4.0 sohc has 207 hp, thats about the same hp as a stock 5.0 had, mines fast, but my 4.0 isn't stock, bit it was still quick when it was stock.

The 3.0L in the Escape is a Duratech, entirely different from the 3.0L Vulcan in Rangers.

Thiers nothing keeping them from develping one for the Ranger tho...;)

I agree, all it takes is time and money!!!! I just wanted to clarify the difference between the Escape 3.0L and the Ranger 3.0L.

I added a flowmaster mufler, K & N FIPK, and a Bama Programer to my 2001 Ranger Edge 4x with a 3.0/Auto. While the first two made a little difrence, the programmer made quite a noticable difrence. It comes with 3 programs, you can choose between torque, HP, and then difrent octane ratings. Of my 3 programs I like what I got from the 93 octane torque program I have...I can best describe it as always pulling through the entire RPM range.....while the two HP programs I have (one for 87 octane and one for 93) seem to have a flat spot for lack of better words as you accelerate. Also the more solid shifting, and having the shifts happen in a much better rpm ranger really made a difrence. Anyway might be a less expensive upgrade than a supercharger or 302 swap, and I know there are others, but for sure wendell will testify to the fine work that Doug at Bama can do as far as a custome tune for your ranger.

"O YEAH", SCT is the bomb, it made my 4.0 pull like a rocket. On my 4.0 I put jba headers, gibson catback, k&N seres 77 intake, e-fan, udp, and bama programer, and the truck screams. Now Morana makes a 4.5 stroker kit, and supersix motorsports makes stage 2 heads, so I can go farther yet. If you really wanted a little more umph out of your 3.0, I would go with a bama programer, a bigger gear in the rear (4:56), electric fan, and udp, that would be a good start, and those are mods you would really notice. If you really wanted to throw some money at it, I would port & polish the heads, get a cam, headers, and intake, along with the other mods listed, it should get you around 200 hp at the wheels, that still may be cheaper than a sc, and more dependable. Also while your doing the head work, shave them a little to bring up the compression, that would give you some more torque. If you had a 4.0 sohc, you would be starting with 207 hp, before doing anything. Waves runs a slightly moded 3.0, and seems pleased, so it's possible.

It's possible to make a 3.0 run, I would get headers, caback, intake, e-fan, udp, and a bama programer, also shave, plus port & polish the heades, and get a good mid range cam. that should put you at about 200 hp at the wheels, then top it off with a set 4:56 gears, It should chug along nicely. It should be cheaper than a sc, and more dependable. If you just wanted a nice improvement, without spending alot, get the bama programer, e-fan, udp, and gears, those will make a big difference.

Wendell, There is NO WAY the mods you are talking about will give you RW 200HP!!! The Whipple Supercharger only gives you 230HP at the flywheel with the 3.0L!!!

Yes Bob there is away, with head work, and raising the compression, and a cam. Those who know, that have done it can better tell you at rps in the 3.0 section, or use the search function. There is no motor than can't be built with time and money, were not talking 500 hp, were talking 200. Plus I said around 200, and I'm going by what I've read from other with built 3.0's, I have never owned one, or would I. I would ranther have a duratec 2.3 than a 3.0 personaly. Instead of allways trying to correct somebody, tell this guy how he can boost his power alittle, you have a 3.0, I don't. I can tell him what works on a 4.0. All I can tell him is the basics that work on any motor, not 3.0 specific. In my opinion his best bet would be to sell it, and get a 4.0, or sports car, I don't know exactly how fast he wants to go, but it's probbley faster than a 3.0 will take him.

Lets see some facts Wendell, I presented facts from the Wipple!! DO you have any idea the difference between flywheel and RW HP???? I DO NOT
like to see you mislead people on performance MODS!!

Here go Wendell, the Wipple only produces 197HP at the wheels!!!

http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/...assis_test.asp


Let's see your facts now with the mods you are talking about!!!

Wendell - just my 2 cents worth regarding one comment:

I think the better statement might be this, and I can say this from my now first hand experience. I am sure you can make a 3.0 reach the HP level you spoke of, and I would guess Bob was probably thinking along the "normal" bolt on ways while you my friend were thinking outside the box...as always, both of you guys always have some good input on this board, although if I ever decide to build my 3.0 beyond this you will be the first person I ask for input from, at the same time I can't knock Bob's tehnical input - he seems to know some pretty technical stuff as well..he's just not big on mods and thats cool to, I have read many a good input and advice for fixes from him as well.

If there is a will and enough money, there is always a way to reach that HP number, but back to this comment. One thing I can say from having owned 5 Rangers (2 with 2.3's and 3 with 3.0's), and this one, with the mods I have done, being the fastest. You know my basic set-up, wich has been similar on the last 3, and with my Rangers I tend to first tackle this soft handling issue....stock the damn things are just waaaayyyyyy too loose/soft at highway speeds IMHO, and I hate the body roll issue, saying that, and knowing I always tackly this problem, I make my rangers stick to the ground, I get rid of the body roll and really firmen up on the shocks.

So my rangers handle pretty damn good, and are comfortable at speed...but my question is how fast do you really want to go in a ranger? IMHO, much past 85mph the trucks just get real light if you know what I mean, even mine, that are stuck to the ground so to speak, at higher rates of speed I know for the most part if something happens I am nothing more than a passenger.....I have driven and ridden in some pretty fast hot rods in my time...but I got a say my current ranger scared the hell out of me at 110 on a very long, smooth, highway here in Texas. Did a speed run with the programmer with the speed limiters removed and I can say it was the fastest I have ever been in a ranger, but I don't think I will be doing that again just for the fact that I don't think it's very safe to run those kind of speeds in a ranger....know what I mean? I did it the one time just to see what it had past a hundred and I still could have gone a little more but....like I said before the truck felt real light at that point. Much past 85 the trucks kind of scare me in that regard....I figure I got enough to run smoothly at the 80mph speed limits we now have in West Texas (if I ever make it out that far went) and realluy I did what I did to help towing and mine does that rather well, but like I asked, how fast do you really want to go in a Ranger? A sports car might be a better way to go if you really want to go fast just to be in somethingh that is made for it -

I totally agree with you on that Wendell!!! It is always best to buy something that is designed, and built for speed!!! There is more than just the engine to be concerned about, there is the suspension, brakes, cooling & lubrication, proper speed rating on tires, etc. ....

I've never been interested in speed in a ranger, I like lowend grunt, and power. Offroad is where I get most of my kicks, a 100 mph ranger has never been my objective, I would just keep building on my focus if that was my main concern. I traded my 06 zx3 focus for an 06 st focus, I pick it up today. It's pretty fast out of the box. Anyhow, the fact is any engine can achieve higher hp with internal, and external modifications. This, it can't be done mentality gets to be so lame when it's done every day. I just wish Bob would spend some time on other forums that deal with these issues on a regular basis, there are people out there with built 3.0's, who say there close to 200 hp, and I have no reason to call them a liar. I don't have a 3.0, but If I did, I bet ya I would be one of those who would get close to 200 hp , because I wouldn't quit until I did. Now that there is a 4.5 stroker kit for the 4.0, and sage 2 heads, I am sure I won't be going backwards to a 3.0 to find out.

Wendell, I'm not going to waste my time on a site like RPS, listening to a bunch of children's BS!!!!!

You make a very good point. I have seen several posts from those wanting to go beyond the programmed speed in a stock truck....... an accident looking for a place to happen.

There not all children Bob, and most of them know there stuff. You will believe whipples dyno sheet, but you won't believe k&n's dyno sheet, thats alittle pick, and chose isn't it? Your point doesn't even make sense, because a sc only makes 197 hp, that means you can't build the same motor to make around 200. Focus sport makes a turbo for the 2.3 duratec that makes around 220 wheel hp on a stock motor, cosworth makes a stage 1 , 2, and 3 kits that make around 240 wheel hp without forced induction, and they claim it's still very streetable. Golden sells a jeep 4.0 stroker motor that makes 265 hp, while avenger sells a sc for the jeep 4.0 that makes, I think it was a round 250 hp. Forced induction isn't the only way to make power. Your not the only one that knows something around here, and I resent the fact that you say I misslead people, I have a modded engine, you don't, but yet you know it all, even more so than the ones that have them. I don't knock your camras, and lense's, or gps toys, cause there your hobbies, and you enjoy them. So why can't you let those enjoy performance enjoy our hobby? And don't give that crap, it's because it doesn't work, it does work, and there's many people with cars , and trucks to prove it. Once again I'm done with this subject where your concerned, I'll let you do all the misleading, telling people that that performance parts don't work blah balh blah.

Waves, how fast did you get your ranger up to? My chip governs my truck to 125mph but i can only get 110.5mph even on 93octane power setting. Truck just lacks areo dynamics to be going at high speeds.

On a side note, i enjoy RPS forums and this place. Alot of good reading and people on both :)

Right at 110mph

You would be VERY hard pressed to get more than 1 hp per cubic inch from a naturally aspirated, ohv, 2 valve per cylinder engine, unless you spin it at insane rpm's and then it wouldn't be streetable. That is fact based on physics, not just my opinion.

haha wow. That's pretty neat.

Well like I said before, it was more of just a one time deal just out of curiosity, like Wendell I did what I did for power on the low end, and for more torque while towing my boat, I wasn't going for big top end, I just haven't ever had a Ranger without a speed limitor and I was curious....I think I was running in the low to mid 4,000's RPM wise in OD.....it was a trip man I 've never seen those kinds of rpm's in OD before and I've had 5 rangers...it's also the lightest any of them have ever felt on the road...don't think I will be doin' that again...lol

Wendell, doing the conversion for you, that's about 182HP (flywheel).

The simplest and fastest way to enjoy more HP will be to jettison the 3.0 and replace with a 4.0. For now, one quick and dirty would be to consider a different rear axle ratio, such as 4.10's. Do realize that horsepower in a system is constant, torque is not. As you ponder the 5.0 idea, be aware that some locations require that the engine be one that was intended for the vehicle, others don't care what it is so long as it passes emissions, then other could care less about anything (maybe for now though).

*This thread is so good I blew 7-up through my nose :-D.

You guys are cracking me up too...

I've got a 3.0 and I agree with the consensus opinion - want more power, ditch it for a 4.0 sohc.

go with a chip and a 2 or 4 chamber flowmaster with crossover with dual exhaust. also if you were interested in a 302 try the ford racing performance catalog they have a really good price on 302 shortblock unmolested, same block, crank, and cam from their early explorer run. done 2 for a 89 and 93 mustang the 93 is pumpin about 305 horses

There's alot of 302's making well over 300 hp, and thats more than 1 hp per cubic inch. There's alot of 460's making over 500 hp, 390's making over 400 hp, the list goes on. I don't see why you couldn't take an engine that makes a 150hp, and get another 50 hp out of it. The guys over at rps say it can be done, and they play with that stuff all of the time. I don't have a 3.0, but seeing's how the 3.0 is old school tech, why wouldn't the old tricks work, like flowing the heads, a cam, raise compression, and so on. It doesn't seem like getting 50 more ponies is so undoable, unless the motor is totally useless. I am only repeated what they were saying over on the other site, if I have mislead anybody, I'm sorry, but if you can't squeeze 50 more ponies out of a stock engine, it must be very badly designed, or something. You can get close to 90 hp more out of a duratec I-4 without forced induction, and cosworth says it's very streetable, and they know thier 4 bangers. so I'm totally lost if it can't be done with the 3.0, just to get an extra 50. I'm sorry for being stupid I guess.

200 + shouldn't be a problem for the 3.0 with good package. 2hp per ci isn't that much of a problem these days.

The Whipple example was for that particular engine combination, but was not limited to that combination.

And Wendell, you arent' stupid. One becomes stupid when he/she thinks they know it all and can no longer learn.

Don't worry about 'ole Ayers. He's had a love affair for years now with spark plugs. Beginnin' to worry about that boy. jim d

Thanks Jimdandy for the words of encouragement, I was begining to think I was crazy. It sure seems feesable that you could get a lousey 50 extra hp out of a stock motor with internals, heads, and some bolt on's, or whatever. Bob bust my chops every time a performance issue comes up, he hates performance for some reason, but yet he refuses to stay away from performance threads, and he's allways so negitive. Bob is one of my best friends on here, and he can be very helpfull, but the performance area is we clash all the time, "O well", I still think the world of him. "YEAH" I started second guessing myself, but I knew there were alot of engines out there that have more than 1 hp per 1 cubic inch, not from the factory so much, there were some, but mostly after hot rodders get thier hands on them. I had a 1970 boss 302 create motor that I put into a maveric, ford rated it at 290 hp for insurance purposes, but it dynoed out at 320 hp on the stand before it was put in.

I side with Wendell on the more than 1 HP per cubic inch is perfectly possible.

The 427 Cammer. STOCK it gave....658 ponies (the two carb version). That's from the factory. And it was underated from what I read.

However, the 3.0L, not a performance engine. Reliable as everything, but not a performance engine. Get a 4.0L, 5.0L, or take the plunge and drop a 351 in there, now you're talking SERIOUS horses.

I agree with Bob though, just what was mentioned wouldn't give 200 RWHP. (or was it 300...I dun remember). And the S/C measurements were probably done with no intake other than a filter on the front and no exhaust.

Just my two cents.

RP
Zach

What it was Zach, was some of the guys over at rps were saying they have gotten around 200 hp at the wheels of thier 3.0's with head work, raised compression, cam, and of course bolt on's. I don't know what they mean by around 200, is it 199, or 189. The 3.0 has about 150 stock, it just doesn't seem impossible to me to get another 60, or 70 hp going inside the engine, people do it with 4 bangers. Even 50 more would puy you at about 180 at the wheels, to them, that might be around 200. the low numbers on the SC maybe due to weak internals, it may can only take low boost on a stock 3.0, i don't know. Even though the 3.0 isn't no race engine, you should be able to squeeze 50, or 60 hp from any engine when you start going inside the motor, were not taking bolton's, like a cai, or headers, were talking cam, port & polish, larger valves, maybe even pistons, depending on what route they used to raise compression, I think it's doable, and thier telling the truth, Bob thinks it can't be done. I'm not a 3.0 expert, but it sure seems feesable to me. But Bob maybe right, I just don't see why those guys would lie about it, they seem to know thier stuff.

If you go inside the engine, you should not have any problem getting that power out of a 3.0. There is People in the 2.9 forum getting 200+ horsepower out of their engines and the 2.9 is far more poorly designed than the 3.0(Ive had both apart and its obvious). You can get 10hp from a Cold Air Intake alone on an 05 ranger. I would say that Bolts ons can give you around 25hp over stock and doing some smoothing of the ports, a nice cam and Compression bump could really make the bolt ons come alive. 200 hp at the wheels with a 3.0 is possible, just look at the duratec and SHO engines. The only benefit the duratec has is a little bit better flowing heads and overhead cams, work the vulcan heads over and you can get the same result.

Thanks, thats the way I feel about it, but some on here don't think a na 3.0 is capable of 200 hp, a pinto I-4 can make 200 hp for crying out loud. That was my estimate as well for bolton's, was 20 to 30 hp, depending on motor. on my 04 4.0, I have headers, catback, intake, e-fan, udp, and bama programer, and I know I have about a 25 to 30 hp increase, but on a 3.0, i'm sure it wouldn't be quit as much, but still it would be a decent bump.

Oooohhh, hey wait a second Wendell. Shaving heads, raising compression, new cam, that I can see. It just might push 200 ponies.

RacinNdrummin, the 2.9L is in a completely different engine family than the 3.0L, it's in the Cologne family with the 2.8L and 4.0L. Not to mention you should expect a 2.9L, with it's older heritage, to be of a lesser design than the 3.0Ls of today.

Pretty much, to get more power, you gotta first open it up. Intake and exhaust. If you just want minor gains, chip it and be done with it. That'll give you some ponies to play with.
After that you start getting into more expensive items. Cams, port and polish, headers, e-fan, etc.
Finally, forced induction. It'll require forged parts to have any huge gains. If you're interested, tear the block completely down and rebuild it as forged. Put a turbo (or two) or a supercharger up on top.
Then you've really reached your limit, provided the chip has been reburned to match all add-ons.

If you are looking for minor power upgrades, intake, exhaust, and chip. And keep it tuned up, that helps a ton!
If you have quite the budget, I honestly suggest a 351. There's a huge aftermarket support network for it, so you can add onto power that's already there.

Take your pick, we're here for support either way!

RP
Zach

I guess you don't realize that the Duratec has a 4 valve / cylinder head, which flows A LOT better than the 2 valve / cylinder Vulcan heads. I do
not know how you would rework the Vulcan heads to get the same result.

Also, just a comment, it seems like everybody is confusing flywheel and rear wheel HP specs. The original discusion was getting "around" 200HP rear wheel HP on the Vulcan 3.0L with mods, other than forced induction. Just for a comparison, showing the difference between flywheel and rear wheel HP, the Whipple SC, on the Vulcan 3.0L develops 230HP (flywheel), and 197HP (rear wheel).

The only other technology that gives you a substantial increase in HP, without forced induction is VVT (Variable Valve Timing). The Honda 2.0L in the S2000 is a good example, 240HP (flywheel) from N/A 2.0L!!! To increase HP at the higher RPMS, you have to increase the overlap spec on the cam (the time the intake and exhaust valves are both open). The problem with this, there is very low vacuum at low RPMs, killing torque, and it's hard to get the engine to idle. VVT solves this problem by decreasing overlap at low RPMs, increasing overlap at high RPMs.

Does Honda (or the 2.0L manufacturing company) have rights to the VVT? Just wondering if we might see this coming around in any of the Big 3 (or is it the Big 2 these days?) anytime in the future.

Sure would make our trucks a little more interesting.

RP
Zach

Zach, VVT is used on the Triton 3-valve 5.4L V-8 used in the F-150, a FORD!!!

Im Not an idiot, of course the DOHC Duratec has 4 valve heads, and yes they flow better than vulcan heads, but unless you have the flow numbers, dont tell me they flow A LOT better, you dont know that. Virtually the same thing can be done by opening the ports up, putting in bigger valves and running a cam with more lift and duration. 2 valves per cylinder does not mean that it is impossible to flow a decent amount of air, look at Top Fuel dragsters, they are still running 16 valve engines. As Far as Flywheel Vs. wheel HP, when I said that guys were getting 200hp out of 2.9s, that was at the wheels on a chassis dyno. 33hp difference on the SC 3.0 between the Flywheel and RWP is approx. 15%. That is very little as far as parasitic loss is concerned. The reason the supercharger puts out so little power is because the boost wasnt set that high on a completely stock engine. Put a more free flowing exhaust on there, kick the boost up a bit with some forged pistons and I wouldnt be suprised to see 275-300 hp out of an SC 3.0 at around 15psi. V-tec (not VVT, thats toyota) Increases both the overlap and the lift with a 3rd, more radical lobe on the intake cam that is used at high RPMs, it has nothing to do with Variable valve timing which advances or retards the camshaft according to driving conditions and demand. Ford is using VVT now in the f-150 and the new 3v 4.6 mustang. Even with V-tec, the engines that honda has are horrible for torque, the ports are still huge to benefit the increased flow at high RPMs.