What Ford should've done instead of the Ranger
03-06-2018, 11:36 AM
#31
03-06-2018, 11:48 AM
#32
Large Member
a 2001 xlt supercrew 2wd had a base msrp of just under $30,000 usd, which is the equivalent of $41,000 in todays money. a 2018 300a xlt supercrew 2wd has an msrp of $40,770.
03-06-2018, 12:40 PM
#33
Senior Member
I don't know of a good one they used in Ranger. The 4-cylinder was a joke. The diesel couldn't hardly move the truck itself, let alone a load. The 2.9 V6 was Ok I guess, but wouldn't go the distance. The 3.0 Vulcan was garbage. And the 4.0 Cologne engine ate timing chain guides like candy and made very little power. The final SOHC version of the 4.0 was decent, but still had issues with the timing set and the occasional bottom end failure. A very long history of "just OK" engines plagued the Ranger.
However, back in the days of the Ford 4.0 V6 and Jeep 4.0 I-6, both of those engines became legendary because everything else on the market was actually worse.
I, too, came to this F-150 I'm in from a 2013 Nissan Frontier CC 4x4 and as far as Nissan goes, they had their fair share of issues. The payload was miserable. The rear ends were prone to failure. And the paint was razor thin and would scratch if you even looked at it the wrong way.
However, back in the days of the Ford 4.0 V6 and Jeep 4.0 I-6, both of those engines became legendary because everything else on the market was actually worse.
I, too, came to this F-150 I'm in from a 2013 Nissan Frontier CC 4x4 and as far as Nissan goes, they had their fair share of issues. The payload was miserable. The rear ends were prone to failure. And the paint was razor thin and would scratch if you even looked at it the wrong way.
The 4.0 SOHC was one of the most reliable engines I ever had in a vehicle. I got chain noise around 250k miles and when I crossed 300k miles it still ran fine and didn't burn a drop of oil. Literally never had a repair on the engine outside of the thermostat housing and ac compressor (went at 200k miles).
I would prefer a midsize truck in-between the Ranger and F150 myself .
03-06-2018, 01:00 PM
#34
Village Sociopath
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Nowhereville Barton City Michigan
Posts: 28,512
Received 10,047 Likes
on
6,496 Posts
I wish I'd have known back in 2004 what a 3.0 Vulcan was really like. I'd likely never have bought one of the most reliable engines I've ever had, short of possibly a couple 300 I6. 168K, zero, yes ZERO problems with my POS 3.0. I'll never win a Pikes Peak hill climb with it, or drive 600 miles between fill ups, but I have every expectation of this little guy lasting many more miles. I wish I could say the same for the frame, and the throttle cable stretch thing.
Looks like I must have lucked out and got the rare one.
Looks like I must have lucked out and got the rare one.
The following 3 users liked this post by johnday in BFE:
03-06-2018, 08:59 PM
#35
Senior Member
Love the review of the Ranger death traps. Funny, I put 2 Suzuki water buffaloes in the bed of a Ranger and 2 in a trailer behind and went 40+ miles on a hilly highway with no issues. Good thing I didn't know the 2.3L couldn't get out of its own way with a load.
In addition, the 4.0L and the 2.9L were essentially the same engine, so how the 2.9L could be good and the 4.0L terrible I have no idea, as the 4.0L was edited to fix the major issues with the 2.9L.
In addition, the 4.0L and the 2.9L were essentially the same engine, so how the 2.9L could be good and the 4.0L terrible I have no idea, as the 4.0L was edited to fix the major issues with the 2.9L.
The following users liked this post:
UncleG (03-07-2018)
03-06-2018, 09:13 PM
#36
Village Sociopath
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Nowhereville Barton City Michigan
Posts: 28,512
Received 10,047 Likes
on
6,496 Posts
I know the 2.9 had problems with oiling, I think, IIRC , the cam bearing towards the back of the engine would wear, oil pressure would drop, and once the engine got warmed up, you'd get a lifter ticking. That happened in an '89 BII I had. That was alright, it ended up with a 5.0 in it.
03-07-2018, 06:28 AM
#37
Well, the Tacoma and Frontier's V6 engines had excellent reliability AND power in their V6's. The older Ford 4.0 OHV was a pretty decent truck engine even if it did top out at around 160 hp. I wasn't as impressed with the newer 4.0 SOHC, but it was still relatively reliable. Still, it put out around 205 hp, while the Tacoma was doing 240ish and the Frontier 265. I loved my Frontier, I bet I redlined the engine every single day, beating the snot out of it for 11 years before I finally got rid of it only because I needed something larger.
But Ford did put a crappy engine in the Ranger. I had the 3.0 V6 for 18 months, it was nothing but trouble and underpowered to boot. I'd have traded it back for my 2.9 V6 in a heartbeat. I've never owned a car/truck for that short of period of time, but the 3.0 was that much of a turd I sold it as soon as I had enough to get something else. I'd love to know how many hours I spent troubleshooting and working on that thing, all engine related too. After that I had the 4.0 OHV, which like I said was a relatively good engine. Not much hp, but it was torquey and did well as a small truck engine.
But Ford did put a crappy engine in the Ranger. I had the 3.0 V6 for 18 months, it was nothing but trouble and underpowered to boot. I'd have traded it back for my 2.9 V6 in a heartbeat. I've never owned a car/truck for that short of period of time, but the 3.0 was that much of a turd I sold it as soon as I had enough to get something else. I'd love to know how many hours I spent troubleshooting and working on that thing, all engine related too. After that I had the 4.0 OHV, which like I said was a relatively good engine. Not much hp, but it was torquey and did well as a small truck engine.
The following users liked this post:
johnday in BFE (03-07-2018)
03-07-2018, 08:51 AM
#38
Mine probably was a lemon because I know that engine was pretty reliable in the Taurus. But it should have never gone into a Ranger. It had to work too hard to pull that truck around, when I switched to the 4.0 OHV with a truck that was the same year, same gearing, same everything, my fuel economy went from 16 up to 18. I've seen the same experience on the Ranger forums; it was a car engine that had no business being in a small truck and had no benefit except a lower upfront price.
03-07-2018, 07:54 PM
#39
I wish I'd have known back in 2004 what a 3.0 Vulcan was really like. I'd likely never have bought one of the most reliable engines I've ever had, short of possibly a couple 300 I6. 168K, zero, yes ZERO problems with my POS 3.0. I'll never win a Pikes Peak hill climb with it, or drive 600 miles between fill ups, but I have every expectation of this little guy lasting many more miles. I wish I could say the same for the frame, and the throttle cable stretch thing.
Looks like I must have lucked out and got the rare one.
Looks like I must have lucked out and got the rare one.
Last edited by RL1990; 03-07-2018 at 07:59 PM.
The following users liked this post:
johnday in BFE (03-07-2018)
03-07-2018, 08:32 PM
#40
Village Sociopath
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Nowhereville Barton City Michigan
Posts: 28,512
Received 10,047 Likes
on
6,496 Posts
Yep, it's a bullet proof little guy. I have changed out the exhaust twice, and replaced brakes, but nothing other than normal stuff on the engine. Still has original water pump and even the original freon. Like you, I'd have zero concern driving to Cali. if I wanted to.
