Ranger VIN 8th Digit Question

[Thick_propheT]

I'm hoping there are some Ranger experts out there that can help me with this odd problem I'm faced with.

My engine recently died and I need to get it replaced. When I called the guy at a local shop, he told me to find out what the 8th digit of my VIN was, because it determines the motor. My VIN 8th digit is a V. After searching for a while for a new motor, I got the distinct impression that the V must be for Flex Fuel engines, since all of the results I was finding specified that the listing was for a Flex Fuel engine.

The problem is, I KNOW the current motor is not a Flex Fuel model. It is usually pretty obvious that you've got a Flex Fuel model. Isn't there usually a Flex Fuel logo on 3 sides of the vehicle? Plus I heard Flex Fuel models usually have a yellow gas cap. My truck has none of these things. In addition, I've owned the thing since around 08/09. I've put parts into it before and the guy at AutoZone ALWAYS asks if the part is for a Flex Fuel truck, to which I respond no. After all these years, you'd one of those parts would not have been correct if the motor was a Flex Fuel engine.

Now the guy at the repair shop says, "Luke, use the VIN..."

My gut says to stick to what I know.

What do you guys think? Is the VIN wrong? Should I get the regular gas motor?

Thanks for any help,
Adam

 

[snake]

I'm not sure it makes much difference, so someone correct me if I'm wrong- my understanding is the only difference in flex fuel and a regular engine is the fuel lines and throttle body are somehow coated with something or upgraded to tolerate the poison we know as ethanol. So the rest of the engine should be the same. If you need an engine try www.car-part.com it is a nationwide network of boneyards. I've gotten some good stuff off their site and haven't been screwed yet.

 

[RonD]

VIN decoder here
https://www.fleet.ford.com/maintenance/vin-decoder/

If you just want the heads and block then it doesn't matter, regular gas or flex fuel.
If you are buying a whole used engine then why pay for things you will need to swap, like the fuel rail and injectors.
So get what the VIN indicates

All fuel injected engines can run at least 15% ethanol, Flex fuel is for up to 85% ethanol.
Ethanol hasn't hurt fuel systems for 30 years, raises octane and lowers emission, best additive there is

 

[snake]

Sorry to disagree there Ron, but the stuff sucks. You let it sit in a vehicle for a few years and you're screwed. I've got a carb in my shop I saved for demonstration purposes, ruined by ethanol. Had to replace it, because after it sat in the carb vat for 48 hours, it still looked like it had metal cancer. Not the bowl where the gas was, but above it where all the moisture was. Alcohol attracts moisture. I've also had to replace fuel valves in my dirtbikes for the same reason, clogged, broken off, etc. Talk to a lawn mower shop and let them tell you about this junk. They are getting rich fixing this crap. I pay $65 for 5 gallons of non-ethanol gas for my small engines to avoid this junk. In some states you can buy pure gas but nowhere around where I live, so its the VP big buck gas for the things that sit. If you haven't experienced problems you are lucky.

 

[ab_slack]

Our 99 is a 3.0L flex fuel. There are no indicators at all it is a flex as far as body emblems and such and the gas cap is not yellow. So the things you said you would expect aren't there is not our case.

I am very confident about this as I always thought it was a 4.0L but always seemed anemic on power. We had to get engine replaced, they called said it wasn't a 4.0L but was a 3.0L flex. I looked up the VIN and found yes it was 3.0L flex. Engine was replaced and what we got back looked identical to what it started so I am confident they were right.

I've seen flex emblems but they seemed to be much newer models. I can't say for any other model years. I do recall when getting engine replaced, since all the bolt on stuff gets moved over it isn't a simple matter to just put in a new engine.

I think the 3.0L is the only flex fuel but I could be wrong on that.

If you post a couple pics of your engine compartment I am sure there are people who could eyeball it and tell you what engine. I can compare it with our 3.0L Flex.

 

[BRUTUS_T_HOG]

Yes you can have a flex fuel without any special labels. The difference is the fuel system is more resistant to corrosive ethanol.

E10 doesn't cause much trouble in fuel injected engines but carbureted engines hate ethanol, it rots the hoses and gaskets and I have seen many times it turns to goo and gel inside fuel bowls.

Flex fuel vehicles running E85 over a long time can actually get goo built up around the injectors from water

 

[RonD]

Yes, in the Stone Age the cave men didn't like ethanol in their foot powered engines.

Fact of the matter is that carbs, fuel lines or anything else adversily effected by ethanol should simply be thrown out or put in a Museum with horse drawn carriages, which by the way many still feel are way better to get around than internal combustion powered vehicles, same argument, older is better, because...........well I don't like new stuff, lol.

Ethanol eats carbs, lol, and gasoline was bad to feed horses, so your point is.........

Ever try to clean that varnish that used to be 100% gasoline out of a lawn mower or snow blower engine, lol, ethanol gets gooey, I'll take the goo.

Just having some fun

I just don't think ethanol is quite the devil some make it out to be on newer systems

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

I don't really have anything against ethanol other than the source. I don't like that the government mandated a food source to be made into fuel when there are other options.

Richard

 

[pjtoledo]

in Ford-speak, V stands for 3.0 Vulcan engine.
It is the only engine/fuel system modified for flex fuel use for a few years around 2000.
If its a flex fuel engine there will be a very expensive alcohol content sensor in the fuel line about under the drivers seat, for certain years.
At some point the newer electronics were able to use exhaust gas content to determine how much fuel was needed for different ratios of gas to alcohol and the very expensive alcohol content sensor was deleted. The engine remained about the same.


Perry

 

[RonD]

I don't really have anything against ethanol other than the source. I don't like that the government mandated a food source to be made into fuel when there are other options.

Richard

Yes, I would agree, but this is a slippery slope.

A vegetarian would argue, with the same correctness, that feeding cows corn and grains is the same waste as using it for biofuels.
9lbs of corn/grain to get 1lb of meat


Now I like my meat so I like this joke:
Vegetarian, old tribal word for the village idiot who can not hunt or fish.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

Yes, in the Stone Age the cave men didn't like ethanol in their foot powered engines.

Fact of the matter is that carbs, fuel lines or anything else adversily effected by ethanol should simply be thrown out or put in a Museum with horse drawn carriages, which by the way many still feel are way better to get around than internal combustion powered vehicles, same argument, older is better, because...........well I don't like new stuff, lol.

Ethanol eats carbs, lol, and gasoline was bad to feed horses, so your point is.........

Ever try to clean that varnish that used to be 100% gasoline out of a lawn mower or snow blower engine, lol, ethanol gets gooey, I'll take the goo.

Just having some fun

I just don't think ethanol is quite the devil some make it out to be on newer systems

Ethanol has been proven to be a poor additive to gas, all it takes is a little research. If it wasn't for crazy government subsidies, ethanol would not be worth producing for fuel because it costs far more to produce than gasoline and it puts out less energy. Yes, it is a higher octane than gasoline, but it produces far fewer BTUs of energy. Not to mention it has a nasty tendency to settle out of suspension in gas, attracts moisture, and because it's a higher octane rating, they cut back the octane in the gasoline. So if the ethanol settles in the tank, you burn that first, then when you burn all of that off, now you're running on gasoline which is no longer the 87 octane you purchased but more like 83 octane, which your engine was not designed to run on.

And as far as the argument that carbs should go the way of the dodo bird, when was the last time you saw a small engine other than a diesel that did not have a carb? It's not cost effective to produce them with fuel injection so they use carbs. Ethanol trashes carb'ed systems, has a nasty tendency to dissolve the fuel lines which are NOT rated for ethanol.

Some other food for thought... My 2000 Ranger is a flex-fuel rated truck, says I can run on E-85. I kept careful track of fuel economy from the day I got the truck brand new (and you could get real gas then). Once the motor was properly broken in, my fuel economy numbers settled. With an aluminum cap on the back and my usual amount of gear I was getting a solid 19 mpg around town and around 25 mpg highway. When I took the cap off, downsized the gear I carried and put a soft bedcover on, I was getting a steady 21 mpg around town and 28-31 mpg highway. When we started getting E-10, my fuel economy took a dump. 17/18 mpg around town and 21 mpg highway. When it dropped off like that and stayed there, I did a full tune-up, new fuel filter, seafoam'd the motor, new o2 sensors, etc. Didn't change the mileage at all. Mind you, there was less than 100k on the clock too (still is under that) and I run full synthetic oil with a Motorcraft filter.




And to answer the OP's question....

It seems the 3.0L Flex Fuel Rangers could be a bit of an odd bird at times. From the factory the only thing that they typically had to indicate the flex fuel was a sticker in the fuel door (sometimes) and/or a little highway with a green leaf sticker on the tailgate. Everything else looked normal. I think maybe the tag on the radiator support would specify 3.0L Flex Fuel but it's been awhile since I looked. I ran into problems a few times specifying the flex fuel when I bought parts only to find that I ended up with the wrong part.

 

[Thick_propheT]

@RonD Thanks for that VIN decoder. That's pretty neat.

@lil_Blue_Ford I hope this:

ended up with the wrong part

does not happen to me.

In any case, I'm just gonna go with a V motor. If anything isn't correct, then I guess I'll just have to deal with it when the problem arises.

Thanks for all the helpful responses guys!

 

[RonD]

@RonD Thanks for that VIN decoder. That's pretty neat.

@lil_Blue_Ford I hope this:



does not happen to me.

In any case, I'm just gonna go with a V motor. If anything isn't correct, then I guess I'll just have to deal with it when the problem arises.

Thanks for all the helpful responses guys!

Your welcome

Sorry to high jack the thread, just having some fun

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

And as far as the argument that carbs should go the way of the dodo bird, when was the last time you saw a small engine other than a diesel that did not have a carb?

Craftsman used to make (maybe they still do) propane string trimmers that ran on the little green Coleman bottles. I found the concept interesting but don't know anyone that has actually ever used one.

Propane is far nicer to an engine than the best gasoline.

In the winter ethonal freezes in the fuel line of my Ranger, both with the 2.8 and the 5.0. Dunno why, add heet and it will run like it is summer. Thankfully it there are still three stations in town that sell straight non-premium gas.