When the Taurus development team started to solidify plans for the car that was supposed to save Ford, it was smaller than the production model that would arrive at dealerships in late 1985. But the requirements that the Taurus fulfill the company’s vision for a bread-and-butter family car demanded that the dimensions be enlarged. The end result was the truly mid-size Taurus. There was one major problem with the team’s decision though: the company immediately realized their new platform didn’t have an adequate V6 engine to propel it. Ford’s other V6 engines were either too heavy, too big, or unsuited for front-wheel drive applications altogether. Ford needed a durable, lightweight, and easy to manufacture six cylinder powerplant that was also reasonably powerful and efficient. And that’s precisely what they got with the 3.0 liter “Vulcan” V6, an engine that would see duty in four generations of Taurus and a multitude of other vehicles from 1986-2008.
Despite being an all-new engine for 1985, the Vulcan V6 didn’t push any technological boundaries. It was a conventional pushrod design with cast iron blocks and heads. While not technically innovative, Ford designed the engine around a set of specific requirements. In terms of performance, it needed to propel the Taurus from 0-60 mph in 11.5 seconds and generate at least 130 horsepower. The team also wanted an engine that would conform to the expectations of customers who wanted a car that was easy to own. As a result, they designed the Vulcan with a 7,500 mile oil change interval and the ability to accrue 100,000 miles without needing any major maintenance. Additionally, the engine contained a limp home mode and could run five minutes without its cooling system before encountering major issues. Ford’s EEC-IV on board computer was a major reason why a limp home mode was possible.
For the owners that wanted to check the fluid levels in their Taurus, Ford created easy to find dipsticks and clearly labeled reservoirs for windshield wiper fluid and engine coolant, among other things. They also wanted the engine to look good too. The team redesigned the engine manifold so it looked more attractive, a move that led to improved air flow as well. All of these features were irrelevant if the engine wasn’t durable, so the company extensively tested the engine. It was installed in the LTD, the predecessor to the Taurus, and driven around in various cold and hot weather environments around the country for about 100,000 miles. That figure was double the mileage Ford typically used for their evaluations. The team also equipped about thirty trucks with the Vulcan. They ran between 100,000 and 200,000 miles before the test was finished. Ford used the results from those vehicles to redesign the components that showed the most wear and conducted the same exact test one additional time to make sure the Vulcan was as durable as the team wanted.
When the Taurus debuted in production form, the Vulcan made 140 horsepower and 160 Ib-ft of torque. That was ten more horsepower than the team originally planned. Paired with the new four-speed AXOD automatic transmission, Car And Driver was able to get the Taurus from 0-60 mph in 9.8 seconds, which was significantly faster than the original 11.5 time that the engineers desired.
Despite those accomplishments, Ford did encounter some early issues with the Vulcan. Headgaskets were a common problem and water pumps were prone to failure. The Taurus also had problems related to its idle. All three of those issues were apparently fixed by the 1989 refresh. As for the Sable, the Vulcan was the only engine available on the Mercury until Ford adapted the 3.8 liter “Essex” V6 for both it and the Taurus in 1988.
With Ford lacking another modern V6 engine, the Vulcan soon found itself in other vehicles. Although it didn’t launch with the Vulcan, the 1986 Aerostar received the engine soon after its launch, which made the van the first rear-wheel drive Ford to receive it. It immediately replaced the aging 2.8 liter “Cologne” V6. Taurus engineers rejected that engine for being too heavy. Compared to the Cologne, the Vulcan made thirty more horsepower in the Aerostar. The Aerostar’s Vulcan also received a boost in output, which brought the V6 to 145 horsepower and 165 Ib-ft of torque. For the 1988 and 1989 model years, the Vulcan was the sole engine available on the Aerostar, as Ford rightfully dropped the 100 horsepower “Lima” 2.3 liter four cylinder from the lineup. The 4.0 liter Cologne V6 slotted above the Vulcan in 1990 and both engines were with the van until its demise in 1997.
The Probe received the Vulcan in 1990. It slotted between the naturally aspirated 2.2 liter four cylinder and the turbocharged version of that same engine. The Vulcan offered Probe LX shoppers a thirty horsepower bump over the base four, which would be increased to 35 in 1992. The turbo four boasted comparable horsepower but beat the Vulcan with its 190 torque figure. Ford offered buyers the chance to order a Vulcan-equipped Probe with a five-speed manual, the first time the engine could be had with anything other than a four-speed automatic. The second generation Probe dropped the Vulcan for Mazda’s 2.5 liter V6, which made 164 horsepower.
Towards the end of its first generation, Ford saw fit to equip the Ranger with the Vulcan, which saw duty on the truck for the final two years before its 1993 redesign. Like other Ford vehicles of the time, the Vulcan made 140 horsepower in this particular application. It was only offered in two-wheel drive models. With the 1993 redesign, Ford offered the Ranger as a mid-tier engine, and the Vulcan became available with four-wheel drive for the first time in its history. Like the Probe, the Ranger paired Mazda’s five-speed manual to the Vulcan. The Ranger and the Vulcan would actually become quite acquainted with one another for the next fifteen years. With the 1998 redesign, it once again served as a mid-tier engine option, slotting underneath the 4.0 liter Cologne V6. In 2001, the Vulcan became paired to Ford’s 5R55E five-speed automatic transmission, which gave the Ranger the distinction of being the only Ford vehicle to pair the Vulcan with an automatic with five forward gears. The Ranger also became the last Ford to feature the Vulcan after Ford cancelled the Taurus in 2007. The 2008 Ranger, which was the last model to feature the engine, offered the Vulcan with an output of 148 horsepower and 180 Ib-ft of torque. The closely related Mazda B-Series offered the Vulcan from 1994-2007.
In 1992, Ford extended the Vulcan’s reach to the Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz. It became tied to the GLS performance trimmed Tempo in its last year, which was also 1992. Otherwise, buyers could opt for the Vulcan if they went for the GL or LX trims. On the Topaz, Mercury paired the Vulcan to the XR5 performance trim, which was basically equivalent to the Tempo’s GLS trim. The 1992 XR5 was only available as a coupe and was discontinued after that model year. In both vehicles, the Vulcan made 135 horsepower and was paired to Ford’s ATX three-speed automatic. Aside from the short-lived performance trims, buyers could also opt for the Mazda five-speed manual in limited circumstances, although production figures were probably quite low.
The Windstar, which debuted in 1994 for the 1995 model year, sat on the same platform as the Taurus. Naturally, that meant at least some trim levels came equipped with the Vulcan. The Windstar didn’t initially launch with the Vulcan, but Ford opted to include it late into the 1995 model year. It made 150 horsepower and 172 Ib-ft of torque, which wasn’t substantially more than the Taurus, a fact that likely contributed to Ford relegating it to the lower trim levels. Ford dropped the Vulcan from the Windstar lineup two years into the second generation. As a result, the 2001 model solely offered the 3.8 liter Essex, which by that time boasted 200 horsepower. The Mercury Villager, while similar in appearance to the Windstar, was actually a rebadged Nissan Quest. It exclusively used Nissan’s powertrains.
Despite seeing duty in many other Ford vehicles, the Vulcan is best known as the workhorse engine for the first four generations of the Taurus and Sable. By 2007, Ford had increased output to 155 horsepower and 185 Ib-ft or torque. With extensive experience with the Vulcan in my 1989 Taurus wagon, 1997 Sable, and dad’s 2006 Taurus, it is an excellent highway cruiser and overall a very smooth engine. It is not the fastest or most thrilling engine but it gets the job done. The Vulcan doesn’t seem to have any major issues and a fair number of them have passed the 200,000 miles mark with relative ease.
When Ford originally conceived of the Vulcan, they envisioned a powerplant that could please middle America. Over its twenty two year lifespan, it essentially accomplished that goal in every vehicle that offered it. It wasn’t technologically sophisticated in 1986 and by 2008 it was pretty outdated. But technical accomplishments took a back seat to durability and the need for Ford to offer an engine that allowed owners to live with a car that could be as unobtrusive to own as anything made by the Japanese automakers. By the late 2000s Ford was using the Vulcan as a crutch. But that’s only a testament to the team that engineered the Vulcan with clear objectives in mind.
Related Reading:
Automotive History: Taurus RIP – The Legacy of the Ford Taurus
The more CC articles I read about 60’s Fords, the more the Vulcan seems like a spiritual successor to the old Thriftpower six, especially in 200 form.
I am a fan of the Vulcan. I got our ’05 Taurus with 20,000 miles, and it now has 169,000.
Never needed anything. Tune-up at 120,000. Original water pump, sensors, injectors, etc. Always performed flawlessly.
Well done, Ford.
My 2004 Taurus runs so well we have named it “The Appliance” all it does is run.
All through the 90s it seems like each of the US Big 3 offered a V6 engine with the classic American attribute of durability. GM had the old Buick 3.8, Chrysler had the 3.3/3.8 and Ford brought us the Vulcan.
It is odd that this was such a dead end design – was it ever offered in any displacement but 3.0 liters? It would seem that a design as good as this one should have been the basis for an entire family of engines, but . . . Ford?
It was available in 3.2L if you count the automatic SHO short block.
I’ve also noticed that the Vulcan was never developed beyond 3.0 liters and 140 to 155 hp (see my comment below) although it did receive some upgrades and refinements and upgrades through the years. As a major piece of the Taurus project, the engine design seems to have been built within a narrow and optimal band of design parameters. And perhaps that mission explains why all of the pieces of the Taurus came together particularly (and some say unusually) well.
It’s almost seems like the opposite of how Ford released the Windsor V8 as a 221 (3.6 L) and eventually enlarged it to the 351 (5.8 L).
“It is odd that this was such a dead end design”
It was also a dead end design in the aftermarket hop up industry. There’s very few performance or dress up parts for the Vulcan.
I’m sure that’s a reflection of the vehicles Ford put it in- Outside of the Ranger, Vulcan equipped vehicles weren’t well known in the customization world.
Now I’m wondering why they called it the “Vulcan”. Roman god of fire perhaps? But I thought the era of naming things after Roman and Greek gods was over by WWII.
I always heard it was because Vulcan is the god of metalworking and forging, as an homage to the engine’s use of iron in its construction.
Yes, it was named after the Roman god of fire. Ironically, that’s why Ford didn’t officially use the name until much later in it’s life. They thought people would not be interested in an engine that could plausibly associated with fire.
It was just getting out of date. Cast iron pushrod V6s were all being superseded by higher output DOHC 4 valve V6s, in Ford’s case the Duratec 3.0. The Duratec had aluminum block and heads, and thus was lighter too.
What kind of family would it have spawned? The vulcan was designed for a specific job, power level and technology-cost balance, and that all just got old by the mid-late ’90s.
I’d love to try an older Ranger with a 5spd+Vulcan, my own have both been 2.3L Limas, which aren’t bad to be honest, even with a load, but I’d imagine the 3.0L would feel a good bit peppier.
The 4.0 L was a certified hoss. It’d peel some rubber and carry a heavy load without struggling. Sometimes had some expensive issues. Guzzles fuel like a v8. The 3.0 I never drove, but did one with a smaller Cologne V6. Rangers were like S10s. Everybody had one and a lot of people have used one up. My family still has a 2.8 S10.
Yeah before I bought my 4cyl ’94 (XLT, RWD, 5spd,”Medium Aubergine” ie purple, reg cab, long bed), I had an opportunity to snag a extended cab ’94 5spd 4.0L truck, the older reliable OHV variant. If the opportunity presents itself I’d love to find a 93-97 4wd, 4.0L, 5spd. I always sell my Rangers after a quick spring/summer fling of commuting and landscaping/gardening work, never want to deal with a light RWD 1990s truck in the winter.
I have a 2001 Ranger 5 speed with the 3.0 Vulcan. Cats deleted. Straight piped each side to FlowMaster FX’s. New Head & Valves job. Cold air intake and waiting for the new performance chip.
For less than $600 I turned my Vulcan Ranger into
RACE TRUCK !
If you get the opportunity to buy a low miles but driven Vulcan ranger at a reasonable price, do so. You won’t likely regret it. I have a 1995 xlt ranger that I bought about four years ago. It only had 119k showing on the clock at the time. Mine is a lwb. She has a much sportier lol but, at the $2,000 I paid for a very nice truck, true aluminum msg wheels with original center caps, fantastic interior condition, good tires, etc., who cares? So, I didn’t quinbnlebsbout bed length. I hear people talk about the power of the 4.0 vs the anemic 3.0, etc., Now I don’t know about anyone else vehicle; but, I’ve owned every American brand truck…and car except Buick, from 327 to 454 Chevy’s, 392 to 460 ford’s, a very nice ’03 Dakota 3.9, and the nicest 98 Dakota 5.2 4WD five speed swb I’ve ever seen to this day, TWO Toyota supras…which I only parted with a few years ago due to an illness at the time, and my Vulcan ranger may be the “best”/most trouble free vehicle I’ve ever owned. I’m a union mile right and I’ve even used the little truck to carry my tools on long jaunts chasing TVA all over the southeastern U.S. I’ve also blown the doors off some 4.0 ford’s and done 4.3 Chevy’s too. Gets resonantly good mileage. That said, this truck is a bit of an anomaly…perhaps. Haven’t made my mind up on that because it’s the only Vulcan I’ve owned…but NOT the only ranger I’ve owned. I had a 2001 ranger 2.5 manual…which lacked the power to blow the hat off your head despite like 60k miles and ss-new appearance in every way. Got good mileage though. I say this ’95 may be a bit of an anomaly because the Ford dealer informed me that my ecm was different than any they’d seen and the number told them that it was made “for” Ford but not by Ford, a contracted company that no longer exists. Also the truck is o.e.m. obd-2, not obf-1 and that’s supposedly odd for any ’95. Asbi said, I don’t know because I’ve never owned any other Vulcan or ’95 ranger. It also has the 5R55E five speed automatic. It’s no supra, but from 0-to-90, the range wherein it just KEEPS ON RAPIDLY PILLING HARD, I have undoubtedly surprised no small number of v8 equiped albeit much heavier trucks to the point they’d either disappear behind me or flat out just give up early on. This truck belonged to an older gentleman, I’m 56 myself, who passed away. It sat in the garage of his former home for a long time before his passing on and a short time thereafter.untilnthe new purchaser of he estate could get the paperwork strait and complete then sold it to me. I’ve looked at several Toyota pre runner Tacomas, four runners, and even a couble really nice classic vehicles over the last year…but I’m still driving my little ranger!
I own a 2000 model with a vulcan and 5 spd, and ive had the thing bark tires going into third, its not fast by any means but its got a ton of torque for what it is.
The Vulcan was also the basis for the Taurus SHO V6 motor block (with Yamaha designed heads and intake), available in 3.0L (manual) and 3.2L (automatic) variants. Although not purely a Vulcan, that engine was mated with a five speed (MTX-IV) a year before the Probe’s pairing of the Vulcan and a five-speed (which I suspect was also an MTX-IV but am not sure).
The manual trans mated to the Vulcan in the Probe and in the Tempo/Topaz was the same MTX-IV from the SHO. I’m not sure if the gear ratios were the same, but it was the MTX-IV.
The V6 SHO engines did not share any components with the Vulcan at all. The engine was 100% Yamaha.
I’ve owned a 2000 Ranger since it was new with a Vulcan, backed by an automatic. So far, 147,000 miles and this week, I’m using it as my daily driver for commuting to the office and driving out to the farm every day.
On the online Ranger forums it’s always fun to watch the responses when someone asks how to get more power, and another person replies with, “The Vulcan is crap. Replace it with a 5.0.” After you read through the flood of responses after the “crap” comment, you quickly get a feeling for how many people appreciate the Vulcan’s durability, although in the Ranger application its fuel economy and power are not all that impressive.
But like JP mentioned in a comment above, it appears to have been perfectly purpose-built within a narrow band of design parameters, with little room for expansion of displacement or power.
Note: This comment about Vulcan power is longer than I planned.
Concise isn’t really my strong suit, so please indulge me.
Nobody ever suggests it, but if it’s a FFV car try using E-85 for more power. My ’05 seems to be able to advance the timing enough to make use of the high octane. (100-115 I think) Of course, economy goes to poo and it won’t start well when it’s below 45 degrees Fahrenheit out. But when I put the pedal down it growls and just plain GOES. And keeps going. In a Taurus SE. With a Vulcan. Seriously.
I know that E-85 contains around 30% less energy than gasoline per unit of measure, but I believe that my car is programmed to pump the extra fuel as necessary, because it literally sounds to me like an old 4-barrel carb from the 70s, just dumping in the fuel. It’s peak RPM goes higher, well over 6000 RPM according to the tach, and never gets near 6000 on regular or premium gasoline. Usually tops out at around 5700, at least on my car when it was (nearly) new. It’s old now, and I tend to baby it, though it still runs perfectly.
No one believes me I suppose. I can’t blame you. I wouldn’t have believed it either before I tried it. Of course I may have a freakish car, built on a Wednesday by Wizards, blessed by the Gods, and filled with good karma and cookie dough.
Either way, I love the Vulcan.
It’s only logical.
I had 2 Aerostars. The ’91 went to nearly 200k, the ’93 made it over 310k. That one needed a water pump around 200k, otherwise no complaints withe the engines.
Yup, I sing the praises of my Vulcan equipped Windstar here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1996-ford-windstar-anomaly%E2%80%8F/
Never had to touch the engine on that van, and it seemed to have more power than the 3.3 equipped Caravan that followed it.
It’s also worth mentioning the Ford 3.0 was available with a flex-fuel version (FFV badges on the fenders) as far back as 1997, perhaps earlier. I was assigned a ’97 at work that would burn E-85. It would be interesting to know the differences in its construct for it to burn ethanol.
Weren’t there also some durability issues along the way? Nothing widespread but enough to cause concern. The ’01 Taurus I had experienced excessive crankshaft bearing clearance at 57,000 miles – it was enough to make the oil pressure drop at idle and the oil light flash. A very large Ford dealer in Kansas City made the repair and the service manager disclosed they were seeing too many 3.0 engines of this vintage (give or take a year either way) with this issue.
That car also had serious spark knock issues on anything other than 91 octane fuel; even on 91 octane, it was flirting with it and the cause was never diagnosed.
You reference water pump issues on the early engines. Were those internal to the engine as on the current Taurus 3.5 or were they external? If external, I’m not certain how that would pertain to the engine.
This engine certainly powered a lot of different vehicles for countless millions of miles. Sometimes there is something to be said for low(er)-tech engines.
Now that you mention it, early on in my ownership of the Ranger I experienced a pinging issue on hills when I ran anything but premium gasoline. The dealer did something to the engine computer’s programming to fix the issue. I think it had something to do with timing, but that was so long ago I can’t recall. There’s a sticker under the hood that gives some sort of detail as to what the fix was.
As for E85, I recently tried running a tank of it just for kicks, and kept throwing codes every 20 miles or so. Since then, I’ve run nothing but E10/E15, without any issues.
I ran E-85 many times in a 2000 Taurus with the FFV 3.0 engine. Fuel economy was about 12 to 14 mpg highway while using it, but rebounded back to the low 20s with straight gasoline.
Thankfully I never had it throw any codes!
So at lunch today I decided to snap a photo of the “Ford Authorized Modifications” sticker that’s under the hood of my Ranger.
Not only did some Googling reveal a number of TSBs on how to solve pinging, it turns out that the number on my sticker (YU7A-12A650-UA) is the part number to the PCM for a 1999 to 2000 Ranger 3.0 L Flex Fuel. Don’t know if they replaced it or reflashed it, but whatever they did, it’s still working almost 18 years later.
Hi Jason,
That’s exactly the mpg my ’05 got/gets. In winter, around 17 (U.S./combined) Never got the 17/25 stated on the sticker when new.
I thought mine was below average. Guess not.
Was yours quicker with E-85, either in perception or reality?
I drove lots of E-85 / FFV Taurii; the only discernible difference when they burned straight gasoline vs E-85 was how quickly the gas needle dropped. So, I suppose one could say the E-85 version was quicker. 🙂
Jason, I’ve had exactly the same problem with a flickering oil pressure light on a fully warmed up engine, as well as pinging when running anything but 91 octane gas on my ’01 Taurus SE with a 3.slow Vulcan. It’s coolant was also rusty colour two month after exchange, thanks to the iron block and aluminium head. It was a comfortable highway cruiser, but a heavy drinker, especially in the city with constant rush hour.
That was our ’01 Taurus exactly – except the discolored engine coolant. If that car broke 20 mpg on the highway, I thought I’d won the lottery. The worst I ever checked on it was 12 mpg. My Crown Vic got better mileage, and not by a little.
The flickering oil pressure light in ours came about at idle in gear after about an hour of driving – so, in essence, when it was good and warm.
That Taurus made me apprehensive about Ford cars. Looks like I won’t have to worry about that anymore.
Great article about an engine which I have owned in four Taurus/Sables that I kept to 160,000 to 200,000 miles, and they all went to their next owners or traded as running cars. The only mechanical work any of the Vulcans ever needed was one water pump at 150,000 miles. They got regular maintenance: oil changes and tune-ups…plugs, wires, timing checked. Coolant changed, throttle bodies cleaned. They could have used more power and Ford had that in the 3.8 Essex V6 starting in 1988, but Vulcans kept going while Essex ate head gaskets. I avoided the Essex.
There was the whole Chinese made distributor shaft failure thing…. that sent many vulcan equiped Rangers to the scrap heap.
As a previous 3.0 manual Tempo, I can say that was a fun combo! 15.1 1/4 mile time, bone stock and not at low mileage.
+1 on that. But you’ve had a plenty of warning with squealing before failure. I’ve proactively replaced that shaft on my ’01 Taurus SE.
I also had a Vulcan/5spd Tempo… was a very fun little car.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1992-ford-tempo-gls-sho-little-brother-that-you-didnt-know-existed/
The Ford Ranger we got here dropped whatever V6 gas engine it had in favour of the turbo diesel which made similar power but much more torque that was before the current Ford Ranger/Mazda BT50 redesign and its 5 banger diesel.
that would have been the kludgy 4.0 SOHC Cologne V6, which the US Ranger and Explorer used up to 2011. I have one in my Ranger.
Thank you, Edward, for putting this story together for us. Puts a lot of information handily into one place, and I know I’ll be returning to this one and recommending to non-CC friends.
My first Taurus had the 3.8—though it was problem-free. I remember other early Taurus owners with the Vulcan who found its power overall pretty satisfying compared to the malaise-y cars that preceded it.
And how nice to see the engine labeling (oil, etc.) with those nice yellow highlights; probably cost Ford a few bucks extra, but sure was welcome and convenient.
In the Taurus Forum’s friendly “Vulcan-vs-Essex” talks, a point made again and again was that Vulcan did its job well enough and would likely run up plenty of miles with little trouble, with lots of testimony as evidence.
I remembered the splashes of yellow under the hood being among of the “wow” features of the Taurus when it first came out. Look: All the maintenance items are easy to find and clearly labeled. Why didn’t someone think of that before?
If I remember correctly, the car also came standard with a cargo net in the trunk. Another “wow” feature that wasn’t a big deal but helped convey that Ford had sweated the details.
I see Ford made note of this in the first-year brochure–including those handy “tethered caps” that couldn’t disappear:
When the Vulcan was installed in the Tempo/Topaz, it really gave that small car some scoot. Your article mentions that the Vulcan was only paired with the 3-spd ATX, which was not the case. The Vulcan could also be had with the same MTX-IV 5-speed manual that was available in the Probe, but it was a pretty rare combination. Even after the GLS/XR5/LTS were dropped in 1992, you could still get the Vulcan backed by a 5-speed, but I’m pretty sure it was a special order only. I’ve seen several 93 and 94 Vulcan/5-speed cars.
My 1992 Tempo GLS4-door had the Vulcan/5-speed combo. Its one of the cars I regret getting rid of.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1992-ford-tempo-gls-sho-little-brother-that-you-didnt-know-existed/
My experience is with the engine in our 98 Sable Wagon. Granted it could use a tad more power in basic pick up and go such as when entering a freeway but around town it was fine. I am also experienced with the very typical brown coolant problem seen in 97-99. Not sure about other years. This problem could lead to coolant flow problems in the engine since Ford had that strange maze of coolant hoses to feed the heater core. That would lead to water pump failure, seen below, and a resulting increase in bank 1 cylinder head temperature. That would next lead to cracks in #1 combustion chamber as I have dealt with one.
Currently the car has been sitting since an oil change three years ago caused something to happen where the engine sounded like it was grinding something on start up. That lead to a loud tap, like a pushrod against a metal valve cover, at a very steady pace when running although the engine is running smoothly. I have yet to locate where it comes from as it sounds like from all over. This after two tear downs of the top and one of the bottom. May simply replace the engine now at 207,000 miles.
You mention Ford having gone to some effort to make the engine look nice and the maintenance points easy to find. That jogged my brain—seems to me a new V6 ’86 Taurus was the first car I ever saw with the dipstick and other underhood check/fill points in bright yellow. Was this engine maybe the first with such?
It is the first I can recall. I remember a friend who bought one of the very first Sables showing me under the hood. “It clearly marks everything civilians are allowed to touch” was his description. 🙂
My ’84 Econoline had a yellow metal oil fill cap. I’m pretty sure the dipsticks did not have yellow on them.
Good point—now you mention it, I’m reminded that when my folks’ ’80 Stinkoln Clown Car needed a new oil cap—the filter mesh had clogged up in the original, which was Ford Engine Blue along with the rest of the valve cover—the dealer part was yellow (and massively overpriced, so we wound up with a grey Stant cap).
I had a 05′ Ford 500 with the Vulcan 3.0 and it returned decent mileage and despite the buff books saying it was down on power, I never cussed at it about a lack of passing or on-ramp capability. Between that and the Aisin 6 speed transmission, it was pretty capable, giving me 29-30 mpg on the highway and handling and riding like a big car. I just wish the rest of the car had been as reliable as the powertrain, I spent $1,400 on repairs in the 8 months I owned it – and that was with a shitty Ford extended warranty that either didn’t cover what broke or cost me a $100 deductible for each repair. All for a vehicle that had 81,000 miles on it when I traded. That experience soured me on Fords
Your 500 had the Duratec DOHC 2.0L V6, not the old school OHV Vulcan.
Yeah, you’re right. My bad.
I had a 93 Ranger with a Vulcan and automatic. It was very quick, got decent mileage and was very reliable except for one engine management hiccup that was ultimately fixed by resetting the ECU. An added bonus was that it sounded like a small V8 under acceleration. From anecdotal experience the 3.0 V6 was the sweet spot of the Ranger engines, more economical and only slightly less powerful then the 4.0 and more powerful and only slightly less economical than the 4 cylinder.
Unhappy memories of replacing Vulcan head gaskets in Aerostars. Not an easy job, and they seemed more failure-prone in those vehicles. Never knew why Ford didn’t design one 60 degree V-6 to fill the needs of the Taurus and replace the Cologne at the same time.
Interesting article, thanks.
We’re talking about a company that had three different 351 cubic inch V8s in the same time frame, not to mention the simultaneous existence of the FE-family 428 and the 385-family 429.
And in this case a 3.0 Duratec AND a 3.0 Vulcan both being sold in the same year.
I’ll simply say that, in hindsight, I wish our ’93 Sable had had the 3.0 Vulcan rather than the 3.8 Essex. The low-end torque of the Essex was very welcome, but the fatal flaw that eventually did it in was not.
My aunt had a ’93 Taurus GL )in that Honda greenish teal that so many seemed to be in those days) with the FFV engine that would run on E85. I borrowed the car one day and ran a tank through it. Didn’t notice much of a performance difference, but it got 30 MPG!
That Ranger brochure shows the 2.9 (4×4) and 3.0 (4×2) offered simultaneously with similar hp and same torque. Then I looked more closely, the 2.9 was a lower rpm engine, more suited to the 4×4 mission. I had the 2.9/M5OD combo in my ’88 Ranger and liked it a lot. I dont think it was primarily wieght that made the Cologne V-6’s not sutible for FWD cars. 60 degree engines were probably too tall to fit under the hood, hence the 90 degree designs. I dont think the Essex was a featherweight.
I had a 91 Probe with the V6, fun car, drove it 18 years. It eventually started burning oil like crazy, quart every 100-125 miles. It was a great car and it was quick enough. Never did check out why it burned so much oil. Just wasn’t worth the time or expense.
One other thing, it was a tricky car to drive in the snow, the rear end would come around on you if you did not pay attention. Probably should have put on a set of snow tires.
When I bought my 1993 Ranger with the 3.0 V6, all my friends said: Oh man, you got the wrong engine, you should have got the 4.0.
Well, when I sold the truck, it had 214.000 miles and the engine was as good as new. Obviously I had to replace some of the “stuff” around the engine like power steering pump, alternator, water pump, etc.
The 3.0L Vulcan was the 300-cubic-inch I6 of the Ford V6 engines in the durability department. For its time it made perfect sense as a base or mid-level engine choice in the Ford lineup, especially when used in the Taurus, Aerostar, & Windstar. By 2008–its final year–however, the base 4-cylinder in the Ranger (the 2.3L Duratec; same engine in my 2011) made nearly the same amount of horsepower while being vastly more fuel-efficient. Torque was likely no better but if you needed pulling power you should’ve opted for the 4.0 anyway. With similar output from a smaller & more efficient engine the Vulcan was simply no longer needed. That being said many examples of Ford vehicles equipped with this engine still exist & that is certainly a testament to all the engineering put into its design. Reliability is comparable to the 4-cylinders also–ditto for Toyota’s 3.4L (5VZ-FE) V6.
I had one in a ’90 Ford Probe LX (very smooth) with a 5-speed manual. One in a ’03 Ranger Edge (4.10 gears and 5 speed auto) and one a ’05 Ranger XL 5-speed manual. A delight in the Probe, and reliable and good all around in Rangers.
What are the main differences between the blocks in a FWD application vs. RWD?
My first car was a 1994 Taurus with the Vulcan Engine. By 200,000 miles the rest of the car was shot, but the Vulcan Engine still ran like new and didn’t burn a drop of oil and got at least 30mpg on highway. By far the best part of the car. I don’t think anyone knows how far these engines can go. They would have far outlasted the cars they were put in.
Why this engine wasn’t offered in the 1987-1993 Mustangs? Any insight? (Or the Essex V6 for that matter, but seems like this would have been better).
I’ve decided to do a complete rebuild on my 3.0 engine by this coming summer. Spent yesterday getting new NOS small parts for the engine and related. Have also decided to strip engine down to short block and remove from the top and then reinstall the same way. Machine shop will be doing the block and the rods. I have a second good standard crank which I will polish myself. Heads are of very recent vintage. I will document into two parts being disassembly and then re-assembly. The car body and interior are in too good of shape to just discard and besides no engine beats me.
I would pay extra to get a 3.0 Vulcan over the 1.5 Ecoboost anyday….dont need the extra power..or problems the Ecoboost have….Reliabity is more important than efficency….I owned 3.0 Vulcans…and the one Ecoboost has gave more problems than all the Vulcans together….got 252,000 on a 2005 Taurus…..only spark plugs..basic stuff….got more confidence in it….than a brand new Ecoboost…
Yep not serious car guy But.
Have 98 windstar cargo van with Vulcan 3.0
Very zippy van
Has two cat’s y pack exhaust and coil pack ignition that I heard is from a Mustang not sure.
Engine runs great . Rest of van was built disposable.
Have a 2003 Taurus wagon with the Vulcan V6 (“U” VIN code). It’s always been our “steady eddy” car. Easy to fix, solid as a rock, smooth and powerful. Sadly, at 120,000mi, it just spun a bearing (or maybe more than one) and the engine is finished. Getting the crank reground and new rod bearings put in it would cost at least as much as getting a remanufactured engine put in it. So we are exploring the costs of all the options (rebuild the existing engine, get a reman, get a used engine in good shape and just plop it in there). I was shocked that it did this at only 120,000mi. The way that engine ran, I was sure it was good for at least another 100k. Oil changes have been religiously done, and it wasn’t making any funny noises… until it did. Just one of those things, I guess.
2001 ford ranger super cab with 227,000 miles, 3.0 engine, runs very well I give it good care, it keeps running. 15 mpg in town, about 18 on the highway.
@jz78817
> “that would have been the kludgy 4.0 SOHC Cologne V6, which the US Ranger and Explorer used up to 2011. I have one in my Ranger”
The Cologne was the OHV 4.0L, which was more reliable than the SOHC 4.0L that replaced it.
I own a 2006 Ranger super cab sport which has 228,000 miles on the 3.0 liter V/6 .I put new heads new timing gears and chain ,water pump . oil pump ,radiator ,thermostat and newo2 sensors. she still running strong change oil on 4,000 mile intervals.