694doorbird Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 What type of mileage can I expect from a 2000 extended cab with the 3.0 flex fuel, auto trans and four wheel drive? It's a step side bed if that matters. Will mileage be better or worse when using that corn fuel? I would be running 87 octane through it. One other question. Truck has 141,000 miles on it. Anything to look for? Will it have a timing belt or chain? Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjones944 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 The 3.0 really does suck large amounts of ass. The 2.3 or 2.5 are a little less powerful but return nearly mpg's whereas the 3.0 returns something like low 20's. I didnt think that the model year 2000's had an e85 option but you would certainly see your mileage go down even further. If you still do decide to go with it I would look at the front ball joints. Mine has 14x,xxx miles on it now and still runs like a top...minus replacing the ball joints around 125,000. If you are interested in the v6 i would opt for the 4.0 though. Too bad you cant get a 4x4 with the 4 banger. Somebody correct me if im wrong but the 3.0's did use a timing chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
694doorbird Posted May 1, 2008 Author Share Posted May 1, 2008 Thanks for the reply. I did a serch for fuel mileage and was directed to the epa site. What I found there was really pretty disapointing. Their claiming 14 city and 18 highway for it running on gas. 11 city and 14 running on e85. That's pretty close to what i'm getting in my 20 year old 4.9 powered F-150. Here's a link to the site. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/200...er_Pickup.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjones944 Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 The 3.0 really does suck large amounts of ass. The 2.3 or 2.5 are a little less powerful but return nearly mpg's whereas the 3.0 returns something like low 20's. I didnt think that the model year 2000's had an e85 option but you would certainly see your mileage go down even further. If you still do decide to go with it I would look at the front ball joints. Mine has 14x,xxx miles on it now and still runs like a top...minus replacing the ball joints around 125,000. If you are interested in the v6 i would opt for the 4.0 though. Too bad you cant get a 4x4 with the 4 banger. Somebody correct me if im wrong but the 3.0's did use a timing chain. Im still surprised that it runs on e85. That 3.0 was such a waste of space in every regard. I think todays 2.5L 4 has roughly the same power output as the 3.0 but maintains high 20's for mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordFanForEver Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 Im still surprised that it runs on e85. That 3.0 was such a waste of space in every regard. I think todays 2.5L 4 has roughly the same power output as the 3.0 but maintains high 20's for mileage. My ranger has the 3.0 V6 and i think its a good engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjones944 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 My ranger has the 3.0 V6 and i think its a good engine. If by good you mean that it should last you a very very long time then I agree. However, the mileage that it gets is similiar to the 4.0 and the hp is similiar to the 2.3..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.