Looking for a few more HP on a 3.0 vulcan engine

[Lefty]

Way back when Ford introduced the SHO (Super High Output), a version of its Taurus, which offered a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter Vulcan that went as fast as an 8. Someone even put that engine in a Ranger. There's even a post about it here

Fords SHO Ranger Project Truck - The Ranger Station

This article was submitted by Forum Member BigBlockRanger. It originally appeared in the Spring 1990 issue of Minitruckin magazine. Overview: 1989 Ford Ranger with a 3.0L SHO engine, T5 Manual and Ford 8.8-Inch rear This article was first posted in … Continued

www.therangerstation.com

Buick also offered a 3.0L Fireball Six with similar performance characteristics. It proved to be a wonderful idea. Buick still makes them today.

Ford dropped that version of the SHO. Too bad.

 

[fastpakr]

Way back when Ford introduced the SHO (Super High Output), a version of its Taurus, which offered a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter Vulcan that went as fast as an 8. Someone even put that engine in a Ranger. There's even a post about it here

Fords SHO Ranger Project Truck - The Ranger Station

This article was submitted by Forum Member BigBlockRanger. It originally appeared in the Spring 1990 issue of Minitruckin magazine. Overview: 1989 Ford Ranger with a 3.0L SHO engine, T5 Manual and Ford 8.8-Inch rear This article was first posted in … Continued

www.therangerstation.com

Buick also offered a 3.0L Fireball Six with similar performance characteristics. It proved to be a wonderful idea. Buick still makes them today.

Ford dropped that version of the SHO. Too bad.

Ford themselves did the SHO Ranger project. I don't remember anyone on the forums building one over the years, though it's certainly been discussed a number of times.

 

[superj]

i really like the 3.0. having only ever previously driven the 4 cylinder versions, i always drive hte 3.0 like a 4 cylinder since i originally didn't know the truck was a v6 when i bought it. i thought it was 2.3 or 2.5 and never popped the hood. i just thought it was a really peppy 4 cylinder. i was talking with my oldest son about it and we were standing by the exhaust tip and i commented how it didn't sound like a 4 cylinder. we popped the hood and surprise, its a 6.

so now i will always look for the 3.0/5 speed version when i buy a ranger. i have had 4.0 powered ford explorer and driven the sport tracs with the 4.0 and i am perfectly fine with the 3.0 and its better gas mileage for the performance. i would rather have a dependable engine than one i have to do timing stuff on anyways and i don't tow or do anything but haul a bicycle in the bed so the ranger is just a cool run around vehicle for me

 

[pjtoledo]

Way back when Ford introduced the SHO (Super High Output), a version of its Taurus, which offered a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter Vulcan that went as fast as an 8. Someone even put that engine in a Ranger. There's even a post about it here

Fords SHO Ranger Project Truck - The Ranger Station

This article was submitted by Forum Member BigBlockRanger. It originally appeared in the Spring 1990 issue of Minitruckin magazine. Overview: 1989 Ford Ranger with a 3.0L SHO engine, T5 Manual and Ford 8.8-Inch rear This article was first posted in … Continued

www.therangerstation.com

Buick also offered a 3.0L Fireball Six with similar performance characteristics. It proved to be a wonderful idea. Buick still makes them today.

Ford dropped that version of the SHO. Too bad.

the Taurus SHOs 1989-1995 had Yamaha designed & manufactured engines.
other than the bell housing bolt pattern and bore/stroke dimensions they had nothing in common with a Vulcan.

yes, someone did recently put one in a Ranger.


What did you do to your Ranger today? (Part Deux!) | Page 537 | The Ranger Station

 

[Lefty]

i really like the 3.0. having only ever previously driven the 4 cylinder versions, i always drive hte 3.0 like a 4 cylinder since i originally didn't know the truck was a v6 when i bought it. i thought it was 2.3 or 2.5 and never popped the hood. i just thought it was a really peppy 4 cylinder. i was talking with my oldest son about it and we were standing by the exhaust tip and i commented how it didn't sound like a 4 cylinder. we popped the hood and surprise, its a 6.

so now i will always look for the 3.0/5 speed version when i buy a ranger. i have had 4.0 powered ford explorer and driven the sport tracs with the 4.0 and i am perfectly fine with the 3.0 and its better gas mileage for the performance. i would rather have a dependable engine than one i have to do timing stuff on anyways and i don't tow or do anything but haul a bicycle in the bed so the ranger is just a cool run around vehicle for me

I am inclined to agree.

the Taurus SHOs 1989-1995 had Yamaha designed & manufactured engines.
other than the bell housing bolt pattern and bore/stroke dimensions they had nothing in common with a Vulcan.

yes, someone did recently put one in a Ranger.


What did you do to your Ranger today? (Part Deux!) | Page 537 | The Ranger Station

Ford may have put the SHO V6 into a Ranger, but only as a concept car. They never explored the SHO's potential. GM, on the other hand, began with a similar small plain Jane V6 and continued to improve on it overtime, making it stronger, lighter, faster, and more economical. This from Wiki:

"The Buick V6 was an OHV V6 engine developed by the Buick division of General Motors and introduced in 1962. Originally 198 cu in (3.2 L) and initially marketed as Fireball, it later became popularly referred to as the 3800 for its various 3.8 l (230 cu in) incarnations.

The 3800 was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines of the 20th century list, made Ward's yearly 10 Best list multiple times, and is one of the most-produced engines in history. To date, over 25 million have been produced.[citation needed]"

I drove a Buick Fireball V6 for years. It was sturdy and fast. It also got great mileage, somewhere between the low and the high twenties.

Ranger owners can always upgrade to a bigger engine, but, in doing so, they sacrifice some degree of economy. Weight and weight distribution are also critical, especially on pickups.

So today, it is reasonable and relevant to look for any kind of tweak that could possibly wring a little extra horsepower and a little more mileage out of the Vulcan. It's just too bad that Ford never felt the same as GM.

 

[Lefty]

A larger throttle body is yet another option. There is a most intriguing and somewhat controversial article which can be read here.

60mm 3.0L Escape Throttle Body on 3.0L Ranger Intake - The Ranger Station

(2001-2008 Ford Ranger 3.0L (Vulcan) Composite Intake and 2002 Ford Escape 3.0L (Duratech) Throttle Body) The Ford Ranger was offered with the 3.0L OHV Vulcan V-6 from 1991-2008. Intakes: The 1991-2000 Ford Ranger 3.0L had a cast intake. The 2001-2008 … Continued

www.therangerstation.com

The author clearly explains how to install a 60mm throttle body from an old Ford Escape. He claimed that performance was improved, but did not say how much. There were no before and after acceleration tests.

Some suggested that a larger throttle body can only do so much, that the Vulcan is limited.

Has anyone here tried this?

 

[Blmpkn]

The 3.0 is similar to a 4 banger regarding where it likes to hang out in its rpm range.. it needs revs to produce its torque.

How a motor operates is a fine balance and a heaping of different sciences.. mods like a bigger TB or porting a maf ect ect can definitely increase performance in some way, yes. But with mods like that.. for every GIVE there is a TAKE...

Performance in an N/A motor is very heavily dependant on the speed at which air moves through the intake. Port velocity. This is especially important during low Rev operation to provide torque.

Stuff that affects port velocity needs to be done smart, or it can ruin performance.. and considering ince we're talking about trucks.. most of us want to do modifications that will either increase torque production or move its peak torque lower in the rpm range.

Larger throttle body's and porting assorted bits are modifications someone seeks out when they're craving more SPEED.. not more OOMPH. Mods like that will either decrease peak torque or at the very least move peak torque a meaningful amount higher in the revs. Not what someone wants to do to their truck that does truck stuff.

 

[RonD]

A larger throttle body is yet another option. There is a most intriguing and somewhat controversial article which can be read here.

60mm 3.0L Escape Throttle Body on 3.0L Ranger Intake - The Ranger Station

(2001-2008 Ford Ranger 3.0L (Vulcan) Composite Intake and 2002 Ford Escape 3.0L (Duratech) Throttle Body) The Ford Ranger was offered with the 3.0L OHV Vulcan V-6 from 1991-2008. Intakes: The 1991-2000 Ford Ranger 3.0L had a cast intake. The 2001-2008 … Continued

www.therangerstation.com

The author clearly explains how to install a 60mm throttle body from an old Ford Escape. He claimed that performance was improved, but did not say how much. There were no before and after acceleration tests.

Some suggested that a larger throttle body can only do so much, that the Vulcan is limited.

Has anyone here tried this?

Here's the issue with things like this, i.e. "bolt on" power

Car makers sell performance, and they have been designing and building engines for a long long time
They added scavenging exhausts(headers) and Cold air intakes in the late 50's early 60's
Then fuel injection, distrbutorless spark, roller rockers, overhead cams, 4 valves, ect....................

Why in the "wide world of sports" would they limit air flow into any engine to reduce performance
A 3 liter engine can pull in 3 liters of air every 2 RPM at wide open throttle, not rocket science, but it is science, lol

If another throttle body, especially from another Ford engine, was "better" why wouldn't they use it?

And no, its not "emissions", in the 1970's maybe, lol


The 3.0l OHV Vulcan engine was designed in 1984/85 and put into Fords in 1986 model year
So its 1980's technology

 

[fastpakr]

A larger TB can make the engine -feel- like it's performing better because you're effectively offering it 100% of the air it can use at a lower opening angle. So, for example, you may find that you now have more power at half throttle than you did before. The problem is that once the engine is operating without a vacuum, further opening the throttle doesn't generate any more power. So really all you've accomplished is making the throttle more touchy by compressing all of your control input to a shorter range of movement in the accelerator pedal.

 

[Lefty]

I just tightened up the accelerator cable by doing the zip tie trick. It is just one of many smaller changes. Now I can actually spin the oversize Cooper tires on my regular cab. The little Vulcan may never be a street rod, but it does have a little pep.

 

[O No 3.0!]

Here's the issue with things like this, i.e. "bolt on" power

Car makers sell performance, and they have been designing and building engines for a long long time
They added scavenging exhausts(headers) and Cold air intakes in the late 50's early 60's
Then fuel injection, distrbutorless spark, roller rockers, overhead cams, 4 valves, ect....................

Why in the "wide world of sports" would they limit air flow into any engine to reduce performance
A 3 liter engine can pull in 3 liters of air every 2 RPM at wide open throttle, not rocket science, but it is science, lol

If another throttle body, especially from another Ford engine, was "better" why wouldn't they use it?

And no, its not "emissions", in the 1970's maybe, lol


The 3.0l OHV Vulcan engine was designed in 1984/85 and put into Fords in 1986 model year
So its 1980's technology

Drivability is why they do it. Peak hp isn't /wasn't a concern for the 3.0, low end torque was. So yes they would sacrifice one for the other.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Drivability is why they do it. Peak hp isn't /wasn't a concern for the 3.0, low end torque was. So yes they would sacrifice one for the other.

I'll have to concur. I have an 04 with 2wd, a 4:10 rear and 5sp. It pulls and it pulls hard, taking me places I thought I'd never make it.

 

[99streetranger]

Here's the issue with things like this, i.e. "bolt on" power

Car makers sell performance, and they have been designing and building engines for a long long time
They added scavenging exhausts(headers) and Cold air intakes in the late 50's early 60's
Then fuel injection, distrbutorless spark, roller rockers, overhead cams, 4 valves, ect....................

Why in the "wide world of sports" would they limit air flow into any engine to reduce performance
A 3 liter engine can pull in 3 liters of air every 2 RPM at wide open throttle, not rocket science, but it is science, lol

If another throttle body, especially from another Ford engine, was "better" why wouldn't they use it?

And no, its not "emissions", in the 1970's maybe, lol


The 3.0l OHV Vulcan engine was designed in 1984/85 and put into Fords in 1986 model year
So its 1980's technology

They choked down the 3.0 because they had to turn a car engine into a truck engine. The Ranger 3.0 makes a little less power than the Taurus. The Taurus 3.0 is still choked down because the car is a boat. Manufacturers choke engines down when they want more torque than horsepower. They needed to get torque for a fat car, and torque for a truck that was pulling stuff.

If Ford had originally built the 3.0 for a smaller, more nimble car like the Ford Probe instead of the Taurus, it would likely be putting out something closer to 190 hp. The Probe LX had the 3.0, but it was an unchanged engine from the Taurus, added only as an in-between option. Ford had bigger plans for the 3.0 Vulcan as evidenced by some of their concept cars and their original plans for the SHO. The reason those plans died is because Ford had already given consumers the precedent that the Vulcan was a "look but don't speak" kind of engine. Ford didn't build any ranger concepts using the 4 liter. The rod ratio in the Vulcan is surprisingly good, and they are quite durable. Ford saw those characteristics as decent potential for aftermarket, but it just never took off.

 

[RonD]

The 3.0l in the Rangers makes more torque than a Taurus 3.0l, but less Horsepower, as with all engines this is done using different cams, and has always been done that way when the same engines are used in a car or in a truck

Trucks purpose of hauling loads is better served with more torque

 

[99streetranger]

The 3.0l in the Rangers makes more torque than a Taurus 3.0l, but less Horsepower, as with all engines this is done using different cams, and has always been done that way when the same engines are used in a car or in a truck

Trucks purpose of hauling loads is better served with more torque

Cams do make a difference's however the smaller than optimal intake runners and the small ports and valves that are on the Vulcan exchange potential horsepower for torque