Are all 3.0's Gutless??

dorman68 · 01-12-2009, 12:57 PM

I have a 1992 Ford Ranger 2wd - 3.0L with 5-speed trans. This thing is a gutless wonder just as yours. The truck runs excellent, descent fuel mileage, reliable. This just plain sucks for power. I am lucky to keep it at 80mph on the interstate, if I hit a hill forget about it, I'm lucky to keep a speed of 50mph in my slug.

plasx · 01-13-2009, 03:08 PM

I have an automatic 2WD 3.0 and yeah, the Ford Vulcan 3.0, though it has a very good reliability reputation, is a bit underpowered for a truck engine -- producing only 150 HP on a good day. Wanting a regular cab, the 3.0 was the largest engine offered. I definitely would have optioned the 4.0 if it were available with the short wheelbase models. Imagine the regular cab with the 4.0's 207 HP. The future Rangers will have different powertrain options.

ridge903 · 01-13-2009, 05:48 PM

I had a 2001 3.0 Edge Manual Trans and i thought it was ok as it was an upgrade from a 88 2.0 5 speed ranger...but was disappointed on how it acted like a 4cyl having to at times shit into 3rd gear climbing hills running in the mids 3k+ rpms...about a year ago i bought a 2005 FX4 and totally love the 4.0 with 5 speed like said before felt like i was going from a 4cyl to a v8 pulls way better load or not...in my opinoin the should have quit putting the 3.0 in the ranger it is a car motor all around...

tradar · 01-13-2009, 08:21 PM

I have a 94 supercab w/ 6 ft box, 4x4 , 3.73 grears, 5 speed.
I pull a double waverunner trailer that with skis fueled up is 2000#.
It does a good job, but I work the hell out of it. It is nothing to run it up into the 4000-4500 rpm range tking off.
5th gear will NOT pull up a hill.
The truck has 254,000 miles on it. the motor has 145,000 on it. the trans was BRAND new at 218,000.
I run 235/75r tires on it.

I WILL NOT EVEN TRY to pull the skis out of the water in 2wheel drive. 4 high is a work out. BUT 4LOW now that is where that truck can pull.

I want to switch over to a 5.o motor but am not sure what I need to do it.

patrick112390 · 01-13-2009, 08:28 PM

idk about the 3.0s,... but my buddy has a 4.0 5speed edge 2wd with 4.10s and he'll burn through second gear all day ! haha

plasx · 01-14-2009, 01:48 PM

A little more on the 3.0. When Ford developed the Vulcan 3.0, it was engineered as a general purpose engine, and it actually "sat on the shelf" for awhile. It of course, ended up being used in, among other vehicles, the Taurus/Sable series. Like most powerplants it isn't specifically a "car" engine, though as we all seem to agree, it is a bit underpowered for its' use in the Ranger. The Vulcan does, however, have a good reputation for reliability and durability. I was laffin' about it just this morning, as while driving, I started up a slight hill with a pretty good headwind. My speed "automatically" adjusted to within the speed limit of 60 MPH. Maybe Ford can market this attribute as a safety feature.

McCormack · 01-14-2009, 03:43 PM

If you want to spend a little time and money, the 3.0's power (especially the low end) can be significantly improved with the following mods: intake manifold hot-water bypass (where applicable), 180* t-stat, restrictive airbox silencer removed, MAF mod (MAF hogged out for greater airflow), and electric radiator fan.

*RFR2212* · 01-14-2009, 04:05 PM

I bought mine a year ago and knowing what I know now, never would have bought it. The gas stations around here screw us on e85. If I was living in southern WI I'd have been in hog heaven this past summer as e85 was alot cheaper than gas. Chicago area, not so much. I think I'm going to pay it off and either keep it as a winter vehicle or sell it next winter. Gotta see how the jeep does with the new upgrades.

tradar · 01-14-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFR2212

I bought mine a year ago and knowing what I know now, never would have bought it. The gas stations around here screw us on e85. If I was living in southern WI I'd have been in hog heaven this past summer as e85 was alot cheaper than gas. Chicago area, not so much. I think I'm going to pay it off and either keep it as a winter vehicle or sell it next winter. Gotta see how the jeep does with the new upgrades.

help me out.

what does E85 have to do with anything? does the 3.0 run well on E85?

ridge903 · 02-18-2011, 06:19 PM

the 3.0 engine is a flex fuel engine they can either run off gasonline or they are able to run of ethanol alternative fuel it is a cleaner burning and more eco friendly fuel but the fuel economy from what i understand is not as good as running gasoline threw them...

jetson · 03-24-2011, 02:17 AM

yep it not a truck motor its a car motor

anchorshot · 03-27-2011, 08:42 PM

The 3.0L has been around since the mid 80's and gone threw very minor changes. It was first put in the Ranger in 91' I believe. Of all the Ranger engines this is arguably the most reliable. With many of them running past 300K. The 03-04 motors created the most HP with 154. I will agree that it is a dog to drive on the highway if your trying to run 80 but for my city driving and off-road it's a great motor. My dad had one in his 94' and he sold it with 245K on the clock and it was still running strong. Personally I like the motor. I guess it really just depends on what you use your truck for.

Carguy3J · 03-27-2011, 09:57 PM

Even in a Taurus, the 3.0L is underpowered; let alone in a heavier truck.(same motor, just turned sideways) I always preffered the 3.8L, in the Taurus. On the other hand, the 3.0L is a very reliable motor. The only known issue is that the oil pickup/pump will clog up, if you don't keep the oil clean.

anchorshot · 03-28-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carguy3J

Even in a Taurus, the 3.0L is underpowered; let alone in a heavier truck.(same motor, just turned sideways) I always preffered the 3.8L, in the Taurus. On the other hand, the 3.0L is a very reliable motor. The only known issue is that the oil pickup/pump will clog up, if you don't keep the oil clean.

As well as the camshaft syncro. It's recommended to replace it every 100k miles.

badcrc · 04-29-2011, 02:54 PM

I bought a 2001 Mazda B3000 3.0 automatic and I was wondering about this. It's fine most of the time for me until I hit a decent hill, then I have to really get on it hard just to keep up with traffic. Other than that I love it. I get 20+ mpg. I also have a 1984 Mustang hatchback with a V6 3.8L automatic and it gets 24+ mpg, has a lot more power and is much quicker. I drive the Mustang for commuting and the Mazda for hauling.

Old_as_dirt · 05-12-2011, 01:23 AM

I must have gotten one of Ford's 'special' 3.0s back in 2002. My 98: ext cab, 2 wd, 5 speed, 3.73 on 14" wheels was rarely passed on the interstate on the level or up hills. Around town, in traffic, 5th was good down to 20mph and would pull smoothly (if slowly) back up to speed. My best gas mileage was 27 for several tankfuls with 100% gas (no ethanol). I've flat towed my 66 Bronco and 83 Turbobird with no problems keeping up with traffic.

My 01 3.8 Windstar automatic and my son-in-laws 03 4.0sohc 5 speed FX4 do feel torqueier though.

I said was in my first paragraph because it's specs have changed recently... on one of my trips to the local pic-a-part there was an Exploder with almost new 255r70x16 on Ford alloys. $150 for all four. The little I've run it the past couple of weeks haven't shown much performance loss, and with a 20% effective change in drive ratio, I'm hoping to break 30mpg.

Bob in IDaho

*BrianDye* · 05-12-2011, 01:34 AM

My buddies Ranger has the 3.0 in it (Automatic, 4x4, extended cab, reg. bed)

And its just a dog. TERRIBLE on gas, loud, and he really has to get on it to go. I dont care for it, and ill never understand why the 4.0/5.0s werent offered in the Rangers.

01-13-2009, 03:08 PM	#22
plasx Wannabe Elite Explorer Nashville, TN 1987 XL, 2008 Sport Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 21 Vehicle Specs	Pretty much... I have an automatic 2WD 3.0 and yeah, the Ford Vulcan 3.0, though it has a very good reliability reputation, is a bit underpowered for a truck engine -- producing only 150 HP on a good day. Wanting a regular cab, the 3.0 was the largest engine offered. I definitely would have optioned the 4.0 if it were available with the short wheelbase models. Imagine the regular cab with the 4.0's 207 HP. The future Rangers will have different powertrain options. Last edited by plasx; 01-13-2009 at 09:02 PM.

01-13-2009, 05:48 PM	#23
ridge903 Wannabe Elite Explorer Pheonix, Az 2005 Ranger FX4 Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 221 Vehicle Specs	I had a 2001 3.0 Edge Manual Trans and i thought it was ok as it was an upgrade from a 88 2.0 5 speed ranger...but was disappointed on how it acted like a 4cyl having to at times shit into 3rd gear climbing hills running in the mids 3k+ rpms...about a year ago i bought a 2005 FX4 and totally love the 4.0 with 5 speed like said before felt like i was going from a 4cyl to a v8 pulls way better load or not...in my opinoin the should have quit putting the 3.0 in the ranger it is a car motor all around... __________________ 2005 Ranger FX4 325/60 BFG MT Coming Soon 4in Super Lift W/ 33x 12.5

01-13-2009, 08:28 PM	#25
patrick112390 Wannabe Elite Explorer chesterfield,va 97' mountaineer 5.0 4406 Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 689 Vehicle Specs	idk about the 3.0s,... but my buddy has a 4.0 5speed edge 2wd with 4.10s and he'll burn through second gear all day ! haha __________________ 97' mountaineer 5.0 V8 4406- k&n intake, hunter brush guard, shackles, TT, aal front/rear tow hooks, 35X14.50 Mud Grapplers, crager soft 8 rims, remote start, cb, 3'' pa body lift, 4'' superlift, 4406 swap, 4.88 gears and a full carrier Detroit Locker

01-14-2009, 01:48 PM	#26
plasx Wannabe Elite Explorer Nashville, TN 1987 XL, 2008 Sport Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 21 Vehicle Specs	Ford Vulcan 3.0 A little more on the 3.0. When Ford developed the Vulcan 3.0, it was engineered as a general purpose engine, and it actually "sat on the shelf" for awhile. It of course, ended up being used in, among other vehicles, the Taurus/Sable series. Like most powerplants it isn't specifically a "car" engine, though as we all seem to agree, it is a bit underpowered for its' use in the Ranger. The Vulcan does, however, have a good reputation for reliability and durability. I was laffin' about it just this morning, as while driving, I started up a slight hill with a pretty good headwind. My speed "automatically" adjusted to within the speed limit of 60 MPH. Maybe Ford can market this attribute as a safety feature. Last edited by plasx; 01-14-2009 at 04:59 PM.

01-14-2009, 03:43 PM	#27
McCormack Wannabe Elite Explorer S.E. WI 2000 Ranger Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 108 Vehicle Specs	If you want to spend a little time and money, the 3.0's power (especially the low end) can be significantly improved with the following mods: intake manifold hot-water bypass (where applicable), 180* t-stat, restrictive airbox silencer removed, MAF mod (MAF hogged out for greater airflow), and electric radiator fan. Last edited by McCormack; 01-14-2009 at 06:44 PM.

01-12-2009, 12:57 PM	#21
dorman68 Wannabe Elite Explorer Colmar, Pa 1993 Ranger 2.3L/2wd/5spd Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 47 Vehicle Specs	I have a 1992 Ford Ranger 2wd - 3.0L with 5-speed trans. This thing is a gutless wonder just as yours. The truck runs excellent, descent fuel mileage, reliable. This just plain sucks for power. I am lucky to keep it at 80mph on the interstate, if I hit a hill forget about it, I'm lucky to keep a speed of 50mph in my slug.

01-13-2009, 08:21 PM	#24
tradar Wannabe Elite Explorer Muskegon, michigan 1999, mountaineer Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 42 Vehicle Specs	I have a 94 supercab w/ 6 ft box, 4x4 , 3.73 grears, 5 speed. I pull a double waverunner trailer that with skis fueled up is 2000#. It does a good job, but I work the hell out of it. It is nothing to run it up into the 4000-4500 rpm range tking off. 5th gear will NOT pull up a hill. The truck has 254,000 miles on it. the motor has 145,000 on it. the trans was BRAND new at 218,000. I run 235/75r tires on it. I WILL NOT EVEN TRY to pull the skis out of the water in 2wheel drive. 4 high is a work out. BUT 4LOW now that is where that truck can pull. I want to switch over to a 5.o motor but am not sure what I need to do it.

01-14-2009, 04:05 PM	#28
RFR2212 Typing Police In the mug by Chitown 95 JEEP Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 5,359 Vehicle Specs	I bought mine a year ago and knowing what I know now, never would have bought it. The gas stations around here screw us on e85. If I was living in southern WI I'd have been in hog heaven this past summer as e85 was alot cheaper than gas. Chicago area, not so much. I think I'm going to pay it off and either keep it as a winter vehicle or sell it next winter. Gotta see how the jeep does with the new upgrades. __________________ My Truck Registry For those who can't spell, click HERE!!

02-18-2011, 06:19 PM	#30
ridge903 Wannabe Elite Explorer Pheonix, Az 2005 Ranger FX4 Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 221 Vehicle Specs	the 3.0 engine is a flex fuel engine they can either run off gasonline or they are able to run of ethanol alternative fuel it is a cleaner burning and more eco friendly fuel but the fuel economy from what i understand is not as good as running gasoline threw them... __________________ 2005 Ranger FX4 325/60 BFG MT Coming Soon 4in Super Lift W/ 33x 12.5

03-24-2011, 02:17 AM	#31
jetson Wannabe Elite Explorer montreal '97 ranger xlt Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 3 Vehicle Specs	yep it not a truck motor its a car motor

03-27-2011, 08:42 PM	#32
anchorshot Wannabe Elite Explorer Florida 04 Ranger Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6 Vehicle Specs	The 3.0L has been around since the mid 80's and gone threw very minor changes. It was first put in the Ranger in 91' I believe. Of all the Ranger engines this is arguably the most reliable. With many of them running past 300K. The 03-04 motors created the most HP with 154. I will agree that it is a dog to drive on the highway if your trying to run 80 but for my city driving and off-road it's a great motor. My dad had one in his 94' and he sold it with 245K on the clock and it was still running strong. Personally I like the motor. I guess it really just depends on what you use your truck for.

03-27-2011, 09:57 PM	#33
Carguy3J Wannabe Elite Explorer North East New Jersey '99 4dr. XLT SOHC A4WD Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,153 Vehicle Specs	Even in a Taurus, the 3.0L is underpowered; let alone in a heavier truck.(same motor, just turned sideways) I always preffered the 3.8L, in the Taurus. On the other hand, the 3.0L is a very reliable motor. The only known issue is that the oil pickup/pump will clog up, if you don't keep the oil clean. __________________ 1999 Explorer XLT 4dr, 4.0L-SOHC, 5R55E Auto, A4WD K&N FIPK Cold Air--XCAL3 w/ custom tunes from Henson Performance On The Way: Gibson Cat-Back,U/D pulley,Professional Products Polished 70mm Throttle Body **Planned soon:80mm MAFS,Removal of the Cats,Electric Fan Best Time 15.87 e/t @ 86.6MPH in the 1/4

04-29-2011, 02:54 PM	#35
badcrc Wannabe Elite Explorer WA 2001 Mazda B3000 3.0L Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 7 Vehicle Specs	I bought a 2001 Mazda B3000 3.0 automatic and I was wondering about this. It's fine most of the time for me until I hit a decent hill, then I have to really get on it hard just to keep up with traffic. Other than that I love it. I get 20+ mpg. I also have a 1984 Mustang hatchback with a V6 3.8L automatic and it gets 24+ mpg, has a lot more power and is much quicker. I drive the Mustang for commuting and the Mazda for hauling.

05-12-2011, 01:23 AM	#36
Old_as_dirt Wannabe Elite Explorer Boise, Idaho 1998 Ranger XLT ext cab Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 2 Vehicle Specs	I must have gotten one of Ford's 'special' 3.0s back in 2002. My 98: ext cab, 2 wd, 5 speed, 3.73 on 14" wheels was rarely passed on the interstate on the level or up hills. Around town, in traffic, 5th was good down to 20mph and would pull smoothly (if slowly) back up to speed. My best gas mileage was 27 for several tankfuls with 100% gas (no ethanol). I've flat towed my 66 Bronco and 83 Turbobird with no problems keeping up with traffic. My 01 3.8 Windstar automatic and my son-in-laws 03 4.0sohc 5 speed FX4 do feel torqueier though. I said was in my first paragraph because it's specs have changed recently... on one of my trips to the local pic-a-part there was an Exploder with almost new 255r70x16 on Ford alloys. $150 for all four. The little I've run it the past couple of weeks haven't shown much performance loss, and with a 20% effective change in drive ratio, I'm hoping to break 30mpg. Bob in IDaho

05-12-2011, 01:34 AM	#37
BrianDye Elite Explorer Michigan 04 CV LX Sport Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,607 Vehicle Specs	My buddies Ranger has the 3.0 in it (Automatic, 4x4, extended cab, reg. bed) And its just a dog. TERRIBLE on gas, loud, and he really has to get on it to go. I dont care for it, and ill never understand why the 4.0/5.0s werent offered in the Rangers. __________________ '13 Dodge Charger RT