3 liter seems low on power

[94 Ranger Man]

Maybe I'm expecting too much, little truck idles good, no funny noises, fresh tune up, but seems like a turd to me on our hilly blacktops around here. It's a '94 5 speed, 4x4, short cab truck with 31x10.50x15 tires. Motor is all stock (got a Flowmaster 40 on it) with 85,000 on it. were these little trucks always kinda underpowered? Seems I gotta keep the pedal on the floor to pull the hills around here. Any and all opinions appreciated, Larry

 

[natenkiki2004]

With those larger tires, you're eating up torque. A big player in the torque game is what ratio your differential gears are. If you have a low ratio like 3.27 or something with larger tires, you'll have to have a whole ton of torque to get those moving. Whereas higher ratios like 3.73, 4.10 and up take away top end speed in exchange for torque, better for hill climbing.

It's likely you're just geared wrong.

 

[94 Ranger Man]

I speculated on the tire issue. Just put the bigger tires on it a month ago. My son drives it most of the time and made no comment on a power change, but next time I got in it, WOW, what a turd! Never was a powerhouse when we bought it last summer, really feels feeble now!

 

[RangerX]

Every thread here about the 3.0 engine says the same thing. But like Nate said, your axle ratio will make all the difference. What's yours?

 

[SoHK_alumni]

Hate to say it but the 3.0 was a silly engine in the Ranger. Yea, most find them on the under powered side.

The 3.0 splits the difference between the 4 cyls and the 4.0 but is low on both power and fuel economy. Not much more power than the 4 cyls and no better economy than the 4.0.

Only regret I have on changing out the 3.0 for a 5.0 in mine as waiting so long to do it!

Most of the 3.0's got 3.73 gear sets, but a fair number of the 4X4's got the 4.10. Even with stock tires the power band of the engine is really not where it needs to be and with your 31's, you're even further away.