3.0 vs 4.0 Ranger

[deviant mercury]

I am looking to buy a Ranger as my kids first car (truck). I have just bought my first Ford (mounty) and love the truck. The one I found is a 3.0 1994 109K. Most people I am talking to say to get the 4.0. No need for HP here. I have read that as long as you keep up with the cooling system and cam sensor the 3.0 is old school, push rod indestructable.....how do you guys, the experts feel?

 

[rwenzing]

The one I found is a 3.0 1994 109K. Most people I am talking to say to get the 4.0. No need for HP here. I have read that as long as you keep up with the cooling system and cam sensor the 3.0 is old school, push rod indestructable.....how do you guys, the experts feel?

The 3.0 is a good workhorse engine and should run a long time with reasonable care.

Bonus - the Camshaft Position Sensor wasn't introduced on the 3.0 Ranger until 1995MY, so the 94 you're looking at will still have a distributor and no CMP.

 

[Flag Gibby]

+1 for the 3.0 engine, I personally think that it is the better motor to start learning basic automotive repair on.

 

[Red FX4]

If power for towing or otherwise is not needed, the 3.0L engine is the way to go. It is a very durable engine if maintained well and will get better gas mileage. It has plenty of power to move a Ranger.

 

[Occ]

The 1994 4.0 has a propensity for cracked cylinder heads, which is annoying and potentially pricey. But it also has more power for only slightly worse MPG.

 

[4x4junkie]

The 4.0L is the more desirable engine, but as said, the 3.0L is a reliable workhorse too. It's limited low-end torque means you have to wind it up pretty good to get any decent acceleration from it (or to maintain on a grade), but it doesn't mind.
FWIW, the horsepower difference between the two engines is only 10-15HP, depending on which years you compare (the bigger difference is in their torque numbers).

The 1994 4.0 has a propensity for cracked cylinder heads, which is annoying and potentially pricey. But it also has more power for only slightly worse MPG.

Never heard this... :scratch:

The 2.9L from '86-'92 had this tendency, but the 4.0L far less so.

 

[Occ]

Never heard this... :scratch:

The 2.9L from '86-'92 had this tendency, but the 4.0L far less so.

Maybe I just had bad luck with mine (94 OHV 4.0 with 150k miles), but other people I talked to said it was a common problem. Could be they weren't aware of the size differences. I should clarify I don't know that it is more likely to have cracked heads than the 3.0, however.