3.0L vs. 2nd Gen 5.0L - My Personal Take (had both) for RR owners WISHING for a V8

[Lion77]

First, the proof, I did own a 2016 Mustang GT PP and at about 17k miles I decided to have the dealer install the Ford Performance Stage 2 Power Pack under warranty. See attached images of the Ruby Red GT PP.

Stock, the 2nd generation 5.0L (which has the former Boss 302 forged rods, high flow heads, valve lift etc. from the S197) was rated for 435 HP / 400 lb-ft of torque, but peak torque was up high at 4,250 rpm.

The Stage 2 Power pack was rated for up to 456 hp / 424 lb-ft torque, but added 40 lb-ft in the midrange where it really needed some boost...so a Stage 2 Power Pack Gen 2 Coyote 5.0L makes the same peak power as the Pro Cal tuned 3.0L V6 for the 2024 Ranger Raptor I now own...BUT is far more torque rich and with nearly 100 lb-ft more torque than the 5.0L!

In fact, it makes the same power and more torque than the 6.2L 5th Gen LT1 in the Camaro SS / Corvette (455hp / 455 lb-ft) which in my opinion is an excellent engine in terms of torque / power for road course and also for truck applications where its de-tuned a bit to 420 hp (from 455 in the SS, C7 vetts).

2015-2017 MUSTANG GT COLD AIR INTAKE AND CALIBRATION POWER PACK 2| Part Details for M-9603-M8A | Ford Performance Parts

My perception of the two engines is that unless you are boosting the 5.0L or doing some E85 custom stuff with forged Mahle internals, the 3.0L V6 with a Pro Cal is the more enjoyable engine with more usable power EVEN though it doesn't sound as amazing as the 5.0L Coyote did with a Power Pack and Corsa exhaust.

I would personally take the 3.0L any day over the 5.0L Gen 2 for a truck application. Now the Gen 3 5.0's were a whole new animal, much broader torque band (even if not higher torque), but with the 10 speeds...it's not really buying you much (the Gen 3's broader torque band would have been nice with the 6 spd Getrag's or the 6R80's in the autos since the gear spacing was wide).

I've seen several posts about people longing for a V8 in the Rangers....aside from the sound, you're NOT missing much and, in a truck, I'd MUCH rather have that massive low end for most "truck stuff" uses than the peaky 5.0L.

This is about as apples to apples as you can get between the 5.0L and the 3.0L, both Ford Performance Tuned. I think the 3.0L NANO is better than people give it credit for and makes very similar power (with a Pro Cal) to Audi's 3.0L and 2.9L V6 Turbos which also have a very similar CGI block design from the same supplier.

These are great engines and when factoring in their slightly differing characteristics, don't forget that you cannot even FIT a 5.0L DOHC V8 into a mid-sized truck chassis, so it's not even an option (especially with the much more capable Fox Live valve shocks / longer arms). So, the 3.0L offers more usable performance in a more compact package.

Even stock, the 3.0L is still pretty good and I don't think it's given enough credit for what it really offers at its size / weight. Unlike the 3.5L, the 2.7L and 3.0L were designed from the start specifically for Turbocharging applications.

Personally, I think Ford should kill the 3.5L aluminum block and design a new large displacement TT V6 for the F-150's with the same tech in the NANO's or since the F-150 and larger chassis can accomodate a DOHC V8, consider a TT Inline 6 like Dodge's 3.0L Hurricane (except more reliable than that thing).

Hopefully this gives some consideration to those loathing the 3.0L V6 as if the 5.0 was really that much better. It's not aside from the sound.

Sponsored

 

[Veloci-Raptor]

Well, the proof is in the performance, and since I've now smoked 4 or 5 Mustang GTs with my stock 2004 RR (0-60 approx), I'm 100% satisfied with my 3.0L. I'd just like to have the 107mph cap removed.

 

[Lion77]

The governor is there to prevent the tires from delaminating. The off-road tires cannot handle the centrifugal force and can literally delaminate if the speed rating is exceeded....I dont' recommend overdriving your tires in a lifted off-road truck at 107+ mph...

It's why pretty much ALL the off-road trucks have about the same governor limits at 107-112mph, including the Raptor R. Tires.

 

[LDHunter]

I traded my 2022 Mustang GT California Special Edition for my 2025 Ranger Raptor a month ago and can speak directly about the comparisons.

The GTCS had 460HP and 410FP of Torque.

The sound of that motor is possibly the sweetest sound I ever heard on anything but a full on race car and 0-60 is an amazing 4.3 seconds. It was governed at 163mph but reputedly was capable of 180mph ungoverned.

Having said all that I'm getting used to the sound of the RR exhaust and I truly believe that V-8 motors are a thing of the past. I'll always miss that sound and crazy acceleration but I'm moving on and doubt I'll ever own a V-8 again after I eventually sell my 2009 GMC 2500HD 4wd with the excellent 6.0L Vortec engine. It ain't a Mustang but it sounds sweet and pulls like a beast.

I have often wondered why that Coyote motor wasn't available in pickup trucks but the more I read, the more I'm convinced that the 3.0L Twin Turbo motor in the Ranger Raptor is the motor of the future and I'm looking forward to many years of service from it. I imagine I'll eventually have the Ford Tune done on it but for now I'm trying to just enjoy this excellent off-road truck that is also a lot of fun on paved roads.

Long live the Ranger Raptor. I even like it better than my 2019 F-150 Raptor I had for a couple of years which felt clunky next to my RR and it was just too wide for my taste.

 

[Lion77]

That's what I keep hearing about the F-150 Raptor, there's no question about its off-road performance, but it's just too darn BIG for most people's off-road use. Sand dunes or open desert, the F-150, especially the Raptor R, is unbeatable at this time in performance.

For trails, overlanding, mountain roads, on-road driving and everything else, the smaller trucks are just more manageable. I plan to take my RR, which is also stock except for having now worn in DLC coatings to the entire powertrain now which really woke it up, to the dunes in Michigan either this year or next (lots on the family schedule this year, so not sure I'll have time). With the smoother and more efficient power delivery, I'm leaning towards keeping my RR stock for high reliability.

Over in some other threads, I helped has out the Pro Cal and 10R60 questions. Sock, you have a transmission rated for 600 lb-ft of input torque and an engine putting out a maximum of 430 lb-ft, which means the 10R60 has 29% over capacity, about a 2/3 derating for high reliability. The Pro Cal cuts that margine down to just 10%, which is still well within it's designed limits, but well below the high reliability threshold.

I'm sure people running the Pro Cal will see good service life given proper maintenance and not straight up abusing it...but I want to be able to beat on this truck whenever throughout its life and still hit 200k without major powertrain failure and keeping it, stock is more likely to achieve that.

Also having now worn in DLC coatings in the 3.0L and powertrain, I've reduced friction losses enough that it feels like 1/2 a Pro Cal anyway as more of the available power is getting to the wheels, so I'm pretty satisfied with it as is. Maybe at some point I might go Pro Cal, but for now I'm keeping it stock.

Also, I doubt there's much utility of the Pro Cal in actual off-road conditions. Most of the time the terrain is limiting your speed far more than the available power and I'm not racing my truck, I'm just driving it off-road for fun like I would an ATV or Side by Side and it has way more power than the TRD Pro and Colorado already as both of those are using 4I Turbo engines. The RR is miles ahead of them...sometimes chasing more power can end up in major problems which ruins the fun. Balancing performance reliability is the key, so presently I'm focusing on regular maintenance, DLC coatings and just enjoying it as is.

 

[LDHunter]

Another good reason to keep the RR Stock is when you do the Ford Tune or probably any other tune you end up with an engine that strongly prefers 91 or more octane which is waaaay more expensive than 87 octane.

If your RR is also you daily driver that adds up to a LOT of money over the years of ownership.

 

[Lion77]

That is also true and a really good point for some use cases. For just putting around town, there's no need for 91 and it absolutely adds a lot of cost if you drive it frequently for trips or more mundane uses like a run to Home Depot for lumber...

For me personally, it's a 3rd vehicle, so that's not an absolute necessity to run lower octanes for cost savings since I only drive it 1-2x a week mostly because I want to, but it is nice to have that option.

I personally bought the truck as a fun "all around, do it all" vehicle. It's really nice family hauler for my wife and 5-year-old to go camping, do some beginner to intermediate off-road trails in our region, hot rod around back country roads or go to the fair / fireworks in summer etc. and eventually the sand dunes in Michigan (Silver Lake). My uncles used to take us kids there with their bone stock 4x4 Suburban's, it was a lot of fun and the RR is WAAAYYY more truck than a 90's suburban!

Given my use cases and knowing the 10R60 is only operating about 2/3 of its max input torque as the truck comes stock, it's a high reliability design configuration. If I had the truck paid off and was able to pay a shop to tear the trans down and replace the factory torque lock clutches with Raybestos clutch packs which have 20% more clamping force (which increases input torque capacity to 720 lb-ft), I'd do the Pro Cal in a heartbeat and expect it to hold up long term.

But as is, the Pro Cal cuts the 10R60's input torque safety margine from 29% down to just 10% and that to me is risky on a 60k truck I don't "need" and just started paying on!

Add to that what I mentioned before, I was considering a 2024 Tacoma TRD Pro and the Canyon ZR2 Bison before I got the RR....both of which are MUCH slower than a bone stock RR and have no factory upgrades for power. You get what you get.

The RR is already a fast truck and while FP has done additional durability testing on the engine and driveline with the Pro Cal, they didn't run the Baja 1000 or Finke with the Pro Cal, they didn't do ALL the original development and durability testing with the Pro Cal, that was done on the factory Ford cal. as its originally sold.

And once the FP supplemental 3yr/36k warranty is up, your technically vulnerable to damage if it is deemed to be caused by the Pro Cal, so it could be an expensive repair if something happens, even if not likely. To each his own. FP makes great stuff, they clearly were involved in the development of the RR, but with the Pro Cal there are some notable tradeoffs for a somewhat limited gain in power.

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

And once the FP supplemental 3yr/36k warranty is up, your technically vulnerable to damage if it is deemed to be caused by the Pro Cal, so it could be an expensive repair if something happens, even if not likely. To each his own. FP makes great stuff, they clearly were involved in the development of the RR, but with the Pro Cal there are some notable tradeoffs for a somewhat limited gain in power.

Nope, the FP warranty has nothing to do with the OEM factory warranty and doesn’t affect it in any way. The FP warranty, is for the Pro cal and the tune itself, nothing more. As long as you haven’t run out of factory OEM warranty, Ford pick up the tab.

I’ve never had a problem with the OEM warranty claim, with FP parts installed and never heard of any Ford owner being refused a warranty claim with them installed. It doesn’t affect the extended warranty either.

Again the 3 yr/36K FP warranty, is for the Pro cal and the tune. If there’s a problem with either, FP will replace them free of charge during this period. After this period it’s on your dime.

Sponsored