Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2001 6:25:28 PM EDT
Can anyone give pros and cons of these 2 engines? thx Paper
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 6:34:33 PM EDT
I would get the 4.0. The 3.0 is, IMHO, too small for a truck. It is the same engine they put in the Taurus and Windstar. The 4.0 will give you a little more truck like power.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 6:35:31 PM EDT
There is no replacement for displacement.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 6:39:33 PM EDT
Having driven 4.0 5 speed at dealer lot, and having rented 3.0 and 4.0 automatics at various times, I would recommend the 4.0 5 speed. I don't know if the 3.0 comes with a 5 speed, but the auto version is way too wimpy and you have to really stomp on the pedal to get it to downshift. It does get slightly better mileage than the 4.0 auto, but I don't believe it gets better than the 4.0 5 speed. The 4.0 auto has a lot more guts than the 3.0 auto, but again, not as much as the 5 speed. For sheer fun and lots more available power, the 4.0 5 speed wins hands down. Automatics should be illegal anyway. Think how many people that would take off the road and leave to those that can drive.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 6:39:37 PM EDT
I have the 4.0. I wouldn't want less. Good Luck
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 7:03:47 PM EDT
I've got a 3.0 5 speed and it's particularly wussy when going up any sort of incline at freeway speeds(80ish). It's hard to keep it above 70 when going uphill, and that's dropping into 4th.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 7:05:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Having driven 4.0 5 speed at dealer lot, and having rented 3.0 and 4.0 automatics at various times, I would recommend the 4.0 5 speed. I don't know if the 3.0 comes with a 5 speed, but the auto version is way too wimpy and you have to really stomp on the pedal to get it to downshift. It does get slightly better mileage than the 4.0 auto, but I don't believe it gets better than the 4.0 5 speed. The 4.0 auto has a lot more guts than the 3.0 auto, but again, not as much as the 5 speed. For sheer fun and lots more available power, the 4.0 5 speed wins hands down. Automatics should be illegal anyway. Think how many people that would take off the road and leave to those that can drive.
View Quote
I'm glad to hear that you don't mind having a sore clutch foot from driving in traffic. The 4.0 is the way to go, but the gas mileage sucks. My '97 XLT has all the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, that combined with the bigger V-6 gets me about 20 MPG highway. In 4wd off-road I get maybe 10 MPG. That 22 gallon gas system really comes in handy.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 7:12:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2001 7:12:50 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By rg00red: I'm glad to hear that you don't mind having a sore clutch foot from driving in traffic.
View Quote
Drove in Atlanta traffic for 29 years with nothing but manual transmissions. If you know what you are doing, you don't get a sore clutch foot and your brakes last a lot longer. Won't have a vehicle of any kind with an automatic transmission. Can't stand it when I rent and have to drive an automatic. Yeeccchhh.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 8:25:26 PM EDT
I have no experience with the 3.0 motor but a little with the 4.0. My old man's 94 Explorer has the 4.0 (same motor? correct me if I am wrong) and that wehicle has 230,000 miles on it with nary a whimper. It has had regular oil changes and upkeep and is still running strong. I can't remember anything ever happening to the motor that had to be fixed. I'd recomend it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 9:18:03 PM EDT
Ditto on the 4.0. You can get it now with the single overhead cam, which gets you a bit more power. My 1999 4x4 supercab averages about 18 MPG. The SOHC motor was not available in '99 or I'd have gotten it. (Hell, I'd have bought the 5.0 V-8 if they'd just offered it.) It's got the 5-speed manual and the 3.73 gears that come with the "Sport" package, not the 4.11's that come with the "4X4 Offroad" package. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't. My best all-highway mileage so far has been about 25 mpg. Worst (mixed offroad and highway) was about 15. I drove the 3.0 standard cab 2WD truck. The 3.0 is just barely adequate in it. IMHO the 4.0 is just barely adequate in the 4WD - no wonder they added the SOHC motor. (Disclaimer - I moved into my Ranger after having a 5.0 Mustang for ten years. God, I miss that car. What might be "adequate" power in my opinion could be just fine in yours.)
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 9:22:56 PM EDT
Do yourself a favor and get a Toyota.[:D]
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 9:47:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2001 9:47:57 PM EDT by sfoo]
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Do yourself a favor and get a Toyota.[:D]
View Quote
I was just looking for trucks, and would strongly disagree with this sentiment. I forget which truck magazine it was that said it, but after comparing a tacoma and a ranger said get the ranger, and take the extra $5000 you'll save and tow a skidoo or something behind it. i'll second that opinion. Guy at work got a Tacoma with most of the options I wanted....$22,000. Similarly equipped ranger? $17. Oh, and definantely get the 4.0. Gas mileage isn't going to be much different between the two, and the extra power will always be nice over the 3.0.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 9:55:57 PM EDT
Bigger is better. [(:|)]
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 10:03:55 PM EDT
Get the SOHC 4.o engine if possible. I have that in an Explorer with 68k miles and it has been a great engine. By all means get the 4.o. my buddy has it in a Ranger w 4 wd and loves it. good luck!!
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 10:07:28 PM EDT
Hell, go with the Chev. HDs and get arealy big engine. [(:|)]
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 11:53:04 PM EDT
LarryG: Are you crazy?? Make automatic transmissions illegal and the people that can’t drive anyway will be still be out there – only their driving will be worse!! (Forget smart guns that won’t let idiots use them, what we need are smart cars.) Anyway, I’ve got a 4.0 Ranger 4X4 automatic that is all I could ever want in an engine. It’s got over 150K miles without a single engine related problem. It gets about 20 MPG. The engine helps me get out of other people’s way (I live in the Washington, D.C. area). It also helps merging onto the D.C. beltway, where you are always within about one second of being killed. I wouldn’t have anything less.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 6:31:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sfoo: I forget which truck magazine it was that said it, but after comparing a tacoma and a ranger said get the ranger, and take the extra $5000 you'll save and tow a skidoo or something behind it. i'll second that opinion. Guy at work got a Tacoma with most of the options I wanted....$22,000. Similarly equipped ranger? $17.
View Quote
First, don't take any magazines word for anything, they go with who pays them the most. Second, I like the Ranger, especially over the Chevy or any other [b]G[/b]uaranteed [b]M[/b]alfunction product, but the Ranger does not come close to the Toyota or a Nissan pickup for that matter.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 6:38:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sfoo:
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Do yourself a favor and get a Toyota.[:D]
View Quote
I was just looking for trucks, and would strongly disagree with this sentiment. I forget which truck magazine it was that said it, but after comparing a tacoma and a ranger said get the ranger, and take the extra $5000 you'll save and tow a skidoo or something behind it. i'll second that opinion. Guy at work got a Tacoma with most of the options I wanted....$22,000. Similarly equipped ranger? $17.
View Quote
I will second the nomination for Toyota. Have had three since 1980. Had to have power steering pump replaced under warranty on my 2001. They called the day after the work was done and asked for my opinion of their service. Got a survey from Toyota corporate wanting to know about my experience. In contrast, my dad took his 2000 F250 Ford in yesterday for recall work. Took from 9 am to 3 pm to get windshield wiper part replaced! Yes, you are correct Toyota costs more, but you get more in the bargain.
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 6:43:32 AM EDT
Chevy!
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 6:59:27 AM EDT
paper,i could be wrong but,the 3.0 started as a car engine. The 4.0 came out in the Ranger as a truck engine. Both engines are fantastic period! I have the 4.0 litre in my 93 Ranger and i couldn't be happier unless they offered a 5.8 intead. I'm looking for an extra 4.0 to upgrade my bronco II's 2.9 litre. Here again a 5.0 would be preferable in this hunting rig,but the conversion wouldn't be easy. OOPS!! mind wandering again. Take the 4.0 and you won't regret it.Ben
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 8:26:00 AM EDT
I'd choose more cubic inches & horsepower every time!!!
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 5:14:59 PM EDT
Thx to everyone who posted. Hopefully ill have it in time to take to the webshooters event in September. Paper
Link Posted: 8/31/2001 5:32:49 PM EDT
I here good things about the 4.0 I DON'T here good things about the 3.0 it's to small! But I'm a Chevy guy with a 4.3l what do I know[:D]
Top Top