Are all 3.0's Gutless??

medicbro2000 · 12-06-2008, 05:26 AM

Can someone honestly tell me if all 3.0's are gutless or is this just mine. I take a ride up the interstate and start headed up a hill and the thing has to stay in passing gear to make it up the hill. In a nut shell- it makes a lot of noise and has little pull to show for it.

I feel like a little 4cyl would smoke it!!

scotttmbolt · 12-06-2008, 09:24 AM

I have heard the 3.0's are junk... but don't hold me to it. I have the 4.0 SOHC and I love it. Maybe not the best on gas mileage but when towing I can't honestly even tell I am pulling something. Up hill climbs are easy, and it makes a nice sound

But yeah, when I bought my Ranger there were a few at the dealership that had 3.0's and 4.0's. There was a guy there looking for a used car for his son who told me he worked for Ford and that the 3.0's aren't made as good as the 4.0's and have very little power. Dealer said the same thing (because we all know they are sooooooo legitimate)

BUT again, I have never driven one. If I had the chance to I would do it just to compare.

HahnsB2 · 12-06-2008, 09:57 AM

I'd drive a 2.9 before I'd drive a 3.0. The 3.0 makes 5 less ft-lbs and has to spin 1000RPMs higher than a 2.9 to reach peak (2600 VS 3600). It's not a truck motor. The best thing you can do is rev the piss out of it like it was designed to do.

yellowford · 12-06-2008, 10:53 PM

I drive one on a regular basis it has the five speed and does fine for power, I don't have to downshift when passing just if there is a big hill. The towing I've done with it wasn't to bad but it was only a utility trailer and i could definitely tell it was there. But it doesn't compare to my 5.0 in my explorer but it gets better gas mileage than the explorer.

*yostyexplorer94* · 12-06-2008, 11:19 PM

My buddy has a 2000 5 speed 3.0 ranger and it does pretty good for a 3.0, I know someone else who had an automatic 3.0 and that thing was a dog.

atlranger · 12-07-2008, 07:38 AM

I've got a extended cab flare side 3.0 5spd with 145k+ and it is defiantly a dog.

I drive rental cars during the week, when I drive home from the airport I am always thinking why did I buy it with this engine? On the highway in 5th up any grade or against a headwind you have to put it to the floor or rev it out in a lower gear.

It does make my wife's 4.0 SOHC feel like a v8 in comparison.

I'm keeping my eye's open for a 5.0 I can drop intoit.

**MountaineerGreen** · 12-07-2008, 08:24 AM

My 93 3.0 5 Speed does pretty well, but I have learned how to make it do that. 3k plus is where the engine really starts to pull. I'd bet with an auto trans, it would be a dog, but the 5 speed, driven correctly, does well. Granted it's not an extended cab, so it weighs less.

I had a 2.9 Auto, the head warping issue with those engines steered me away from them.

billj9 · 12-07-2008, 11:27 AM

My '99 Ranger with a 3.0 automatic has served me well for just over 100,000 miles, but my previous truck was a 4 cyl. Toyota Tacoma 5 speed. You could really wind it out with that stick and it never seemed to lack for power. My earliest impression of my Ranger that first week was how slow it accelerated. Over time you learn to drive it. Keep your momentum up and avoid having to stomp on the gas pedal or brakes as much as possible.

**RangerX** · 12-07-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicbro2000

Can someone honestly tell me if all 3.0's are gutless or is this just mine.

What size tires are you running, larger than stock? What is the axle gear ratio, maybe it's not the best?

tnubigboy · 12-07-2008, 10:32 PM

I have an 03 3.0 and it used to act very sluggish up hills on the interstate. i bought a jet chip programmer item #15003, and the difference is quite noticeable. it performs much better even though its not a 5.0 like i am still looking for.

medicbro2000 · 12-08-2008, 01:03 AM

I definetly agree that the 3.0 is not a TRUCK motor. I have 31" tires on it, which, amazingly is a recommended tire size. I will not go anything bigger, as much as I would like to, because I know it wouldn't even go anywhere then. I definetly agree with all of you that for the most part the 3.0 is a dog. If I had only known 3 years ago I wouldn't have bought it. It doesn't even get BETTER gas mileage.

Off road though, the thing is pretty badass. Will climb anything you put in front of it. Definetly not a highway vehicle. Thanks for your replies all. I just had to get the overall opinion just to be sure it wasn't just my personal feelings getting in the way. I think I will pursue possibly dropping in a 4.0 down the road, as long as it doesn;t involve too much bs.......we'll see.

THANKS

HahnsB2 · 12-08-2008, 11:27 AM

Get lower gears, a set of 4.56s will do wonders for acceleration and mileage.

MDub · 12-09-2008, 05:59 PM

I have a 99 3.0 with a 5 speed, extended cab, topper shell, 31" BFG's and about 200-300lbs in the bed at all times. Plus I live at 9000' above sea level. It does OK if you keep the RPMs up. Below 3K it has virtually no power. I routinely run it at 4K in 3rd gear going up mountain passes as high as 12000 feet. It has 141,000 on the clock right now and runs great. In 4x4 Low I have no lack of torque. I love my truck, but I do wish I had the 4.0. The 4.0 I-6 in my 88 heep cherokee has WAY more pull. There's no comparison in power.

That said, my 3.0 has never left me stranded, even when driving 500 miles in the middle of winter with the number 6 cylinder not firing (bad wire/ fouled plug).

wrigley_1285 · 12-10-2008, 03:18 AM

i had a b3000 4x4 with a 5 speed. i thought it was really good with the manual trans. one of my buddies had a ranger 3.0 with an auto and it was a dog. the thing was seriously horrible. the trans makes a huge difference with those engines. one of my friends has a 4 cyl with an auto and i like it more than the 3.0 auto.

mr_roboteye · 12-11-2008, 12:41 AM

Are 3.0's gutless? Stock with an auto trans, yes. But a 5 speed with a little work, very nice. As others have said, it really comes alive after 3 grand.

Clicky----->http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=228343

later,

Dave R.

*4x4junkie* · 12-11-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HahnsB2

Get lower gears, a set of 4.56s will do wonders for acceleration and mileage.

+1,000,000

The 3.0L is only a dog because the gearing sucks. They NEED to SPIN! 4.56 will wake it up big time if you have 31s on it.

BTW, the 2.9L is 140 horse, the 3.0L is anywhere from 145-150 depending on year.

HahnsB2 · 12-11-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4x4junkie

BTW, the 2.9L is 140 horse, the 3.0L is anywhere from 145-150 depending on year.

I know but I'd rather have the 5 extra ft-lbs 1000RPMs lower...

*4x4junkie* · 12-11-2008, 09:47 PM

Actually it could be anywhere from 8 less to 20 more. But agreed, the lower RPM torque peak is way better.

dtl 2k2 sport · 12-11-2008, 10:31 PM

I bought an XL 3.0 4X2 LAST year, and it was great on gas, 25avg,mpg. But as far as power went it deff wasnt the greatest truck, and i have a 4.0 in my explorer. The truck got hit in a slow accident and folded horribly. Sense then i've sold it and bought a 07 colorado 4x4 w/ a 4cly. The power is much better and i run 31's on that every day and it'll go right down the highway no problem. BUT gas milage sucks! 19MPg IF i'm good. I never had a chance to take my ranger out to the mtns to see how it handled but i'm sure it would scream a little.

downzero · 12-13-2008, 02:42 PM

Mine has nearly 160,000 miles on it and seems fine to me. I have a 400+ horsepower/750+ ft lb Diesel truck as well, so it's not like I don't know what power feels like.

For a little truck, the 3.0 is fine if you ask me. Mine has a 5 speed; I won't own an automatic in anything.

Mine has 3.73s and 215/75R15s. With 31s, it certainly could use more power, but like everyone said, gearing makes a big difference. The trucks that come with the 3.0 and 30" tall tires from the factory have 4.10 gears.

12-06-2008, 09:57 AM	#3
HahnsB2 Wannabe Elite Explorer Battle Ground WA 88 Bronco II Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 783 Vehicle Specs	I'd drive a 2.9 before I'd drive a 3.0. The 3.0 makes 5 less ft-lbs and has to spin 1000RPMs higher than a 2.9 to reach peak (2600 VS 3600). It's not a truck motor. The best thing you can do is rev the piss out of it like it was designed to do. __________________ 88 Bronco II EB, 4.0L, M5OD, 4.56s, Aussie Locked 8.8, Aussie Locked D35 w/e-clip eliminator, Manual 1354, 3" PA Body Lift, 34x10.5 Swamper LTBs, Warn Hubs, U-Joint Drive shaft, OBA, Custom bumpers front/rear, 2 1/2" Exhaust w/flowmaster 40 series. 95 Dakota Sport CC, 5.2, 5-Spd(Hurst), 4x4, M1, HS 1.7 RR's, Aero Turbine 3030/Side Exit, 50mm TB, 30x9.50s on 15x8 Ultra 50 Series, 3.55s.

12-06-2008, 10:53 PM	#4
yellowford Wannabe Elite Explorer Gardner ks 97 xj Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 916 Vehicle Specs	I drive one on a regular basis it has the five speed and does fine for power, I don't have to downshift when passing just if there is a big hill. The towing I've done with it wasn't to bad but it was only a utility trailer and i could definitely tell it was there. But it doesn't compare to my 5.0 in my explorer but it gets better gas mileage than the explorer. __________________ 97 Heep Cherokee 01 explorer sport 2wd

12-06-2008, 11:19 PM	#5
yostyexplorer94 Slow and Steady Newburg, PA '94 Eddie Bauer Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 326 Vehicle Specs	My buddy has a 2000 5 speed 3.0 ranger and it does pretty good for a 3.0, I know someone else who had an automatic 3.0 and that thing was a dog. __________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ SAS <-> Car Trailer Build Thread <-> Explorer Registry <-> Clutch Pedal Swap Ryan Yost

12-07-2008, 07:38 AM	#6
atlranger Wannabe Elite Explorer Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 71 Vehicle Specs	I've got a extended cab flare side 3.0 5spd with 145k+ and it is defiantly a dog. I drive rental cars during the week, when I drive home from the airport I am always thinking why did I buy it with this engine? On the highway in 5th up any grade or against a headwind you have to put it to the floor or rev it out in a lower gear. It does make my wife's 4.0 SOHC feel like a v8 in comparison. I'm keeping my eye's open for a 5.0 I can drop intoit. __________________ 2000 Explorer Eddie Bauer 2wd Sold 1988 F250 7.3 IDI Diesel & C6

12-07-2008, 08:24 AM	#7
MountaineerGreen Towing Moderator North East Arkansas 2012 F150 4x4 Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,583 Vehicle Specs	My 93 3.0 5 Speed does pretty well, but I have learned how to make it do that. 3k plus is where the engine really starts to pull. I'd bet with an auto trans, it would be a dog, but the 5 speed, driven correctly, does well. Granted it's not an extended cab, so it weighs less. I had a 2.9 Auto, the head warping issue with those engines steered me away from them. __________________ -Evan Febuary 09 Feature Truck - Elite Registry - Photo Gallery - Feedback - Go Elite! - My Write Ups - EF Vendors

12-06-2008, 05:26 AM	#1
medicbro2000 Wannabe Elite Explorer Ludlow Vermont (1994 XLT) 00 RangerXLT Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 87 Vehicle Specs (Original Poster)	Are all 3.0's Gutless?? Can someone honestly tell me if all 3.0's are gutless or is this just mine. I take a ride up the interstate and start headed up a hill and the thing has to stay in passing gear to make it up the hill. In a nut shell- it makes a lot of noise and has little pull to show for it. I feel like a little 4cyl would smoke it!! __________________ Andy a.k.a. "The electronics nerd" 1994 Explorer XLT 4.0 RIP 2000 Ranger XLT 3.0 http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2915319 http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...t=e1ec7503.pbw

12-06-2008, 09:24 AM	#2
scotttmbolt Wannabe Elite Explorer Allen Park, MI 2002 Ranger Edge 4x4 Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 23 Vehicle Specs	I have heard the 3.0's are junk... but don't hold me to it. I have the 4.0 SOHC and I love it. Maybe not the best on gas mileage but when towing I can't honestly even tell I am pulling something. Up hill climbs are easy, and it makes a nice sound But yeah, when I bought my Ranger there were a few at the dealership that had 3.0's and 4.0's. There was a guy there looking for a used car for his son who told me he worked for Ford and that the 3.0's aren't made as good as the 4.0's and have very little power. Dealer said the same thing (because we all know they are sooooooo legitimate) BUT again, I have never driven one. If I had the chance to I would do it just to compare.

12-07-2008, 11:27 AM	#8
billj9 Wannabe Elite Explorer Pittsburgh, Pa. area '99 Ranger, 2x4, 3.0 lite Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1 Vehicle Specs	Anemic 3.0 My '99 Ranger with a 3.0 automatic has served me well for just over 100,000 miles, but my previous truck was a 4 cyl. Toyota Tacoma 5 speed. You could really wind it out with that stick and it never seemed to lack for power. My earliest impression of my Ranger that first week was how slow it accelerated. Over time you learn to drive it. Keep your momentum up and avoid having to stomp on the gas pedal or brakes as much as possible.

12-07-2008, 10:32 PM	#10
tnubigboy Wannabe Elite Explorer La Vergne, TN '03 Ranger XLT Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 2 Vehicle Specs	I have an 03 3.0 and it used to act very sluggish up hills on the interstate. i bought a jet chip programmer item #15003, and the difference is quite noticeable. it performs much better even though its not a 5.0 like i am still looking for.

12-08-2008, 01:03 AM	#11
medicbro2000 Wannabe Elite Explorer Ludlow Vermont (1994 XLT) 00 RangerXLT Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 87 Vehicle Specs (Original Poster)	I definetly agree that the 3.0 is not a TRUCK motor. I have 31" tires on it, which, amazingly is a recommended tire size. I will not go anything bigger, as much as I would like to, because I know it wouldn't even go anywhere then. I definetly agree with all of you that for the most part the 3.0 is a dog. If I had only known 3 years ago I wouldn't have bought it. It doesn't even get BETTER gas mileage. Off road though, the thing is pretty badass. Will climb anything you put in front of it. Definetly not a highway vehicle. Thanks for your replies all. I just had to get the overall opinion just to be sure it wasn't just my personal feelings getting in the way. I think I will pursue possibly dropping in a 4.0 down the road, as long as it doesn;t involve too much bs.......we'll see. THANKS __________________ Andy a.k.a. "The electronics nerd" 1994 Explorer XLT 4.0 RIP 2000 Ranger XLT 3.0 http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2915319 http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...t=e1ec7503.pbw

12-08-2008, 11:27 AM	#12
HahnsB2 Wannabe Elite Explorer Battle Ground WA 88 Bronco II Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 783 Vehicle Specs	Get lower gears, a set of 4.56s will do wonders for acceleration and mileage. __________________ 88 Bronco II EB, 4.0L, M5OD, 4.56s, Aussie Locked 8.8, Aussie Locked D35 w/e-clip eliminator, Manual 1354, 3" PA Body Lift, 34x10.5 Swamper LTBs, Warn Hubs, U-Joint Drive shaft, OBA, Custom bumpers front/rear, 2 1/2" Exhaust w/flowmaster 40 series. 95 Dakota Sport CC, 5.2, 5-Spd(Hurst), 4x4, M1, HS 1.7 RR's, Aero Turbine 3030/Side Exit, 50mm TB, 30x9.50s on 15x8 Ultra 50 Series, 3.55s.

12-09-2008, 05:59 PM	#13
MDub Wannabe Elite Explorer Silverthorne, CO 99 XLT Flex Fuel Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 28 Vehicle Specs	I have a 99 3.0 with a 5 speed, extended cab, topper shell, 31" BFG's and about 200-300lbs in the bed at all times. Plus I live at 9000' above sea level. It does OK if you keep the RPMs up. Below 3K it has virtually no power. I routinely run it at 4K in 3rd gear going up mountain passes as high as 12000 feet. It has 141,000 on the clock right now and runs great. In 4x4 Low I have no lack of torque. I love my truck, but I do wish I had the 4.0. The 4.0 I-6 in my 88 heep cherokee has WAY more pull. There's no comparison in power. That said, my 3.0 has never left me stranded, even when driving 500 miles in the middle of winter with the number 6 cylinder not firing (bad wire/ fouled plug).

12-10-2008, 03:18 AM	#14
wrigley_1285 Wannabe Elite Explorer Decatur, Illinois 00 Sport Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 514 Vehicle Specs	i had a b3000 4x4 with a 5 speed. i thought it was really good with the manual trans. one of my buddies had a ranger 3.0 with an auto and it was a dog. the thing was seriously horrible. the trans makes a huge difference with those engines. one of my friends has a 4 cyl with an auto and i like it more than the 3.0 auto. __________________ Trail Rig - '00 Sport 4X4, Mobile 1 Full Synthetic, K&N Air Filter, Cherry Bomb, TT/shackle & 3"BL, 35x12.50/15 ProComp MT's Daily Driver - 04 F150 - Silver, 4X4, Black 20x9 American Racing Clash rims with 275/65R20 Goodyear Wrangler AT/S, dual straight pipes, tinted windows

12-11-2008, 12:41 AM	#15
mr_roboteye Wannabe Elite Explorer New Westminster / Vancouver, BC, Canada 92' Ranger 4x4 RC SB Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 20 Vehicle Specs	Are 3.0's gutless? Stock with an auto trans, yes. But a 5 speed with a little work, very nice. As others have said, it really comes alive after 3 grand. Clicky----->http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=228343 later, Dave R. __________________ 92' ranger 4x4. RC / SB, 2.9 V6, 5 spd, manual T-case, manual hubs, 8.8 rear, D35 front with c-clip eliminated. 4"susp, 2"body, 31" muds.

12-11-2008, 09:47 PM	#18
4x4junkie Elite Explorer So.Calif.(San Fernando Valley) '94 Ranger, '90 Bronco II Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,190 Vehicle Specs	Actually it could be anywhere from 8 less to 20 more. But agreed, the lower RPM torque peak is way better. __________________ '90 Bronco II XLT 5" lift (Skyjacker jeep coils), locked D35 & 8.8", 5.13s, double T-case, 35x12.50s & cut fenders '94 Ranger XLT 6" Skyjacker, ARB D44 front, Detroit 8.8" rear, Atlas 4.3, 33s

12-11-2008, 10:31 PM	#19
dtl 2k2 sport Wannabe Elite Explorer stafford Va 2002 SPORT Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,281 Vehicle Specs	I bought an XL 3.0 4X2 LAST year, and it was great on gas, 25avg,mpg. But as far as power went it deff wasnt the greatest truck, and i have a 4.0 in my explorer. The truck got hit in a slow accident and folded horribly. Sense then i've sold it and bought a 07 colorado 4x4 w/ a 4cly. The power is much better and i run 31's on that every day and it'll go right down the highway no problem. BUT gas milage sucks! 19MPg IF i'm good. I never had a chance to take my ranger out to the mtns to see how it handled but i'm sure it would scream a little.

12-13-2008, 02:42 PM	#20
downzero Wannabe Elite Explorer Champaign, IL 2000 Ranger Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4 Vehicle Specs	Mine has nearly 160,000 miles on it and seems fine to me. I have a 400+ horsepower/750+ ft lb Diesel truck as well, so it's not like I don't know what power feels like. For a little truck, the 3.0 is fine if you ask me. Mine has a 5 speed; I won't own an automatic in anything. Mine has 3.73s and 215/75R15s. With 31s, it certainly could use more power, but like everyone said, gearing makes a big difference. The trucks that come with the 3.0 and 30" tall tires from the factory have 4.10 gears.