Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ryan_V

Ford 3.0 vs 4.0

12 posts in this topic

I'm looking at downsizing my full size ford for an older Ranger with a V6. I'm thinking I want to be strict and get only the 4.0. is this a good engine?? what kind of milage can I expect with one with 150K on it?? How about power? my dad has a '94 with that engine in a regular cab and loves it. I'm looking at an extended cab (preferrably stick shift).

what about the 3.0?? In looking I've seen quite a few of those around also.

Thoughts...suggestions???? 80% of the use is trips back and forth to/from Mille Lacs ice fishing.

thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.0 SOHC (2001 and newer) can be great or a nightmare. There is no in between. There are issues with intakes leaking vacuum. We have run into a few that have broken valve springs. They funny part is they have one timing chain in the front of the motor and one in the rear. In order to do any head work the motor comes out! These are not do it yourself friendly but not impossible to work on.

4.0 OHV - pushrod engine (2000 and prior) was pretty good. Every once and a while we'll see one with a burnt valve or a bad injector but overall not to bad.

3.0 OHV has been around forever and is own of fords better motors! About the worst thing you'll see is the water pump going bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What years are you thinking of?

The 3.0 engine doesn't have the power that the 4.0's have, but it is a very dependable motor, and if something breaks down, parts are cheap. As for the 4.0's, depending on the year you are looking for, there are 2 totally different 4.0 motors. One is a over head valve motor, the other is a single over head cam (SHOC) engine. The SHOC engine has a lot more power then the other, but costs more to repair when they do break down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 92 explorer with a 4.0L a/t. I had over 230,000 miles on it when the trany went out. the engine never used any oil and averaged 15 city 20 or higher on the highway. I pulled a 2 place aluminum snowmobile trailor with 2 slides on it cruised right along. Gas mileage dropped off while towing though. The 3.0 is a 12 valve which is basicly built proof. I have 2 Taurus's with this motor and both are at 150000 miles and run great with no oil use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know much about fixing them, but I had a 2.9v6 in '87 Ranger, and a 3.0 in an '86 Taurus. Everything about the Ranger was a POS except the engine itself. I solf it off at 168k with a junk tranny, but the engine was great. It did go through 02 sensors like I go through Slim Jims though wink

The 3.0 in taurus was good engine. Tranny was pos, and suspension was pos, but the engine was good. Last about 130k when a one armed drunken women hit it while it was parked on road in St. Paul. No kidding... Heh, that was the end of that.

I will say, the v6 with 5 speed Ranger got worse mileage than my '98 k1500 with 350. I personally would not go back to small truck, ever, especailly with the mileage big trucks get nowadays, but I know some folks like the smaller trucks.

Good luck whichever you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1992 Ford Ranger 4x4 4.0L ext. cab AT. When I had light duty tires I used to get 23-25mpg highway (60mph). I couldn't believe the mileage. When I went to 30" BFG AT/KO my mileage dropped to 20. Best "truck" I ever owned, traded it with 138K miles for a full size truck.

1993 Explorer 4.0L auto, bought from original owner (friend) and drove to 160K miles before I sold it. Used a fair amount of oil somewhere, no leaks, didn't burn oil...suspected bad ring(s) or valve(s)? Never let us down. It's still going down the road with 200+K miles. 20-22mpg highway.

I am partial to the older 4.0L motors. Trannys were very strong in both vehicles, originals too. They were maintained well too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What years are you thinking of?

The 3.0 engine doesn't have the power that the 4.0's have, but it is a very dependable motor, and if something breaks down, parts are cheap. As for the 4.0's, depending on the year you are looking for, there are 2 totally different 4.0 motors. One is a over head valve motor, the other is a single over head cam (SHOC) engine. The SHOC engine has a lot more power then the other, but costs more to repair when they do break down.

I'm looking '94 or '95. Will the 3.0 handle a wheeler or maybe a 16' boat?? When I do use the truck, there is usually something heavy in the bed and/or a trailer behind it. that is why I was leaning twards the 4.0, but want to hear what people think of the 3.0, since I've seen alot more of those around!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One four wheeler won't effect it much, or a light 16 foot boat with a small motor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled a 17' Alumacraft Tournament Pro 170 CS, it pulled it ok without overdrive. 16 mpg pulling it. I would get the 4.0 if pulling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing about a Ranger sized truck... I have had a 16' alum boat with a 90hp motor push me through a stop sign. The trailer did NOT have brakes, and the small truck is not very heavy. If you are used to a full sized truck, just give your self a lot of extra braking time. It will use it.

Now, granted, I was younger then, and drove differently than I do now wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

watch what gearing the rear end has. that can have a HUGE effect on power and gas mileage.

I have the 3.0L, 5 speed and 4:10 gears in my ranger. it pulls plenty good for a small truck. its no speed deamon, but it gets it done.

and I agree. the 3.0 is a dead reliable simple engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 3.0 in a 92 Aerostar and 4.0's in two more. I am a sales rep for a carpet manufacturer. Load them up with samples and your heavier than any boat you will pull. I have also had them fully loaded and pulled a 17.5' Stratos. The motor is not the problem. The issues to look into are brakes,drivetrain,springs and shocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • I think you, or the person at Ace, meant "Sheet metal". That's what they're used for....sheet metal and HVAC work. They have a self-tapping thread. Look on your furnace where the sheet-metal ducting is fastened...bingo!   Also called "sheet metal screws".  
    • Reminds me of a memorable morning at our place when  THREE male's landed on a front picture window ledge and just sat there for a few minutes looking in.  What a glorious sight!  They were likely just moving through because we do not see them during a normal summer. In fact this summer we have noticed a decline in many species; no bluebirds at all, only a couple doves, fewer swallows, not as many wrens (but still plenty of them) and for the first time a pair of cowbirds. Normal mornings are like a symphony around here just about daybreak.
    • forgot I made this post, I fished a lake here in SD last weekend that has a sunken road way and bridge completely submerged. Its gotten to the point the concrete has fallen apart under water but you can still see most of the structure in tact but also some rebar etc.   I wanted to get a screen capture but as usual that exact spot was popular and already occupied with other boats playing bumper boats to anchor and fish near and I didn't want to intrude on their fishing space just for a picture. 
    • Good post and discussion. I'm convinced not more than 10%, and that might be stretching it and I include myself in the 90%, know how to use their equipment. Every fishing site is loaded with similar posts.
    • I looked everywhere for the screws in the first post and nobody knew what I was talking about till I went to Ace, where I should have gone first. They are actually considered a sheetrock screw! I can't see any use for them with sheetrock but I was told it was because of the coating on them. I have a beat up old trailer house at hunting camp and they are perfect for putting warped metal siding back together and super sharp like a self piercing screw. Sometimes they are called gutter screws too. The hex ones do work great for boots and four wheeler tires.  
    • I liked Lavine too, but coming off ACL surgery you get the feeling that he will lose some of that explosiveness that made him fun to watch.
    • And remember, turkey is not pork and doesn't benefit from high internal temperatures.   It dries out if overcooked.  160 is plenty, maybe even a little less. 
    • Also, turkey doesn't need to be "low and slow" to get to be tender. Crank the heat to 250+ if you like. I've had the smaller breasts done in just 2 1/2 to 3 hrs. FWIW, I just rub it down with olive oil and apply your favorite rub.  If injecting at all, Creole Butter is a nice, quick, easy option. Apple mixed with cherry or hickory are my favorite woods to use.    
    • Well, that was interesting! The same trade that would have been good last year is seemingly brilliant this year. Butler immediately shores up our defense and creates additional scoring for this young, suddenly legitimate team. Great move to start the new year, and a good draft prospect at #16 to boot. While I do like Lavine, we seemed to do a bit better with him sidelined which is not an indictment on his talent, but rather proof that he didn't quite fit our scheme. All in all, this was about as lopsided a trade as I can think of and we should be pretty darn happy with the return we got!
  • Our Sponsors