Ask the Car People.SM


2001 4.0L or 2003 3.0L Ranger? - READ ONLY

16 messages,  Last post on Jul 20, 2004 at 4:38 AM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- see logJsError148.html for a stack trace discussion.

What is this discussion about? Ford Ranger, Engine, Truck

Messages Page 1 of 2

#1 of 16 2001 4.0L or 2003 3.0L Ranger? by wjl3

Mar 24, 2004 (7:46 pm)

I have to choose between two Ford Rangers: 2001 4.0L XLT SuperCap w/ 7,000 miles or a 2003 3.0L XLT S/C w/ 30,000 miles.These 2 Rangers are priced between $500.00 of each other. I will use this truck for my contract painting work. My 93' 3.0L Ranger worked fine for me. My concerns are the 4.0L gas mileage & it's relatiablity. Any suggestions?? Thank you.

#2 of 16 2001 4.0L fuel mileage by goldranger

Mar 26, 2004 (1:16 pm)

WJL3,
 
I have a 2001 4.0L x-cab with 37K miles & yesterday I drove 617 miles, round trip Jax, FL to Columbia, SC & return. All I-95 & I-26 no more than 20 miles off the interstate. Cruised 75-79 the whole way. Very little A/C, light traffic. Gas mileage 21.564 MPG. I also have K&N air filter & Gibson CAT/Back exhaust. It runs very good, but as you can see it likes fuel.
Where did you find a 01 with only 7K?
Goldranger

#3 of 16 by totheendoftime

Apr 03, 2004 (4:02 pm)

Go with the 2001. The gas mileage is about the same, it has less miles on it and tons of more power.

#4 of 16 4.0 vs 3.0 by atlgaxt

Apr 06, 2004 (11:48 am)

Mazdas are Ranger twins (I like both trucks, liked the Mazda styling better). I had a B3000 Regular Cab with 2wd. Sold it and bought a new B4000 extended cab with the four doors and 4wd.
 
The B3000 with 3.0 was a much lighter truck. It was slow, the damn engine pinged all the time (I had to run at least mid grade if not premium) and I got 15 in the city, upper teens on the highway.
 
The B4000 has much better acceleration (even with all the extra weight of the 4 doors and 4wd) and the engine is smooth. I get 15 in the city, upper teens on the highway. Two years, 45k miles, no problems. Cheaper overall fuel costs cause I can run regular and not a higher grade.
 
Get the 4.0!

#5 of 16 Whats the diference by dwrestle

May 03, 2004 (10:06 am)

between the 3.0 and the 2.9, which is more reliable.

#6 of 16 3.0 to 2.9 by atlgaxt

May 03, 2004 (2:18 pm)

I think they are basically the same engine. At some point in time (1990 +/- ?) they expanded the engine to 3.0.

#7 of 16 Re: 2001 4.0L or 2003 3.0L Ranger? [wjl3 #1] by cjharris

May 29, 2004 (9:44 am)

Replying to: wjl3 (Mar 24, 2004 7:46 pm)
I own a ranger xlt ext cab. I drive it all over the country and on the highway I can get 325 miles out of a tank. My husband owns a 99 ranger ext-cab 4door-4x4 with a 4.0 and gets the same gas mileage.we both love a ranger for the reliability of them. mine is automatic and his is a 5-speed. the only advantage that he has is the four doors. to me the extended cab is so much more accessible with those doors.

#8 of 16 no... by mjbwrtr

Jun 07, 2004 (8:13 pm)

the 2.9 was the engine ford put in the 4x4 rangers from 87 to 1990. in 1991 they went to the 3.0 which is a totally different engine that was designed for the taurus. the 2.9 is more of a truck engine...it gets its torque lower in rpms. the 3.0 is more reliable. i have a 4.0 (which IS a stroked 2.9) and it is a great engine...go for it!

#9 of 16 Well I knew the 2.9 had more low end torque by dwrestle

Jun 30, 2004 (12:09 pm)

170 Lbs Ft of torque at 2600 RPM,and 140 HP at 4600 RPM, and the 3.0 has 170 Lbs Ft of Torque at 3500 RPM and 145 HP at 5000 RPM more like a car. My grandpa has a RWD 1991 Ranger 3.0 Automatic, I bet if it were a 4WD it would have the 2.9 instead of the 3.0, I bet they didn't put the 3.0 in 4WD Rangers until they got rid of the 2.9 which was 1993.
 
What are the numbers on the 4.0 for the late 80's and early 90's, I never can find the numbers for any 4.0 except 2001 and up. What does stroked mean anyway, I never did understand that.

#10 of 16 stroked by mjbwrtr

Jun 30, 2004 (7:49 pm)

means they lengthened the pistons so that it moves farther up and down in the block and head, therefore giving it a longer way to travel and "creating" more space and thus "more" cubic inches. basically its a way of getting almost free preformance out of the same engine and so ford doesnt have to redesign a new engine lol.
cheap way out but it works.
 
and they didnt have a 2.9 in 1992 as far as i know.

Messages Page 1 of 2

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement