4.0L preferences

[James Morse]

Between the '98-00 4.0L and the '01-11 4.0L, aside from the power difference, is one considered "better" or more durable etc? Just talking about the engine not other differences.
I realize the earlier group can take a 5.0L swap; which I'm not currently planning, I think the 4.0L is fine as long as it's running nice.

 

[Shran]

Are you referring to the OHV engine vs the SOHC engine? IMO the former has weaker heads, makes less power and the latter suffers from the timing chain tensioner issues but makes more power. Honestly I think if you maintain them both correctly they will last an equally long period of time - I have seen a bunch of both that have way over 300k on them and still running good.

The SOHC engine is in my mind, more of an enthusiast engine, for those who have time/money/desire to keep them alive. If you don't have those then they are a disposable 150k chunk of metal.

 

[Roert42]

A lot of people will argue that the OHV motor will be the more durable option because you don't have as many moving parts as the OHC motor.

Generally I would agree with that.

The big thing people will hang their hat on is the Tensioner issues with the early SOHC motor. At this point in time any early SOHC motor has either had the bad tensioners changed out or been rebuild. They are 20 years old now.

The tensioners take about 30/45 minutes to change out, can be done at the same time you're changing your oil. Should be done around 70k miles, for most people that's every 6/7 years. not bad.

However, I've got multiple 4.0 SOHC motors without any issues. One is north of 250K miles. So, for me, it's a moot point. The power of the OHC motor is great so I would go with the OHC motor over the OHV any time.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I kinda think it depends on what you’re after. I’ve been pretty happy with the OHV 4.0 aside from slagging a couple pistons. When they are running good, they’ve done what I needed them to. The choptop could use a tiny bit more go but I’m tired of junkyard motors in it so I want to build one and do some performance upgrades. If that’s not enough a supercharger is always an option. It really has enough power for my needs, I’d just like a little more. My 92 had an adequate amount of power, especially after doing a shift kit and valve body mods, but I was kicking around the idea of more for the fun of it.

Mom has an 02 Explorer with the SOHC and I’m really not convinced that it has a significantly higher amount of useable power. It’s adequate for what it is, but it doesn’t really seem any faster than my OHV trucks. Got a little better fuel economy than mine though.

 

[James Morse]

I feel dense, but let me get this straight: OHV are the earlier engines, so 98-00 that's OHV.
SOHC is '01 up.
OHC=SOHC.

Is that right or have I mucked it up?

 

[Roert42]

I feel dense, but let me get this straight: OHV are the earlier engines, so 98-00 that's OHV.
SOHC is '01 up.
OHC=SOHC.

Is that right or have I mucked it up?

Yup.

 

[Roert42]

Mom has an 02 Explorer with the SOHC and I’m really not convinced that it has a significantly higher amount of useable power.

I would expect the explorer to be heavier. Maybe manual vs auto plays a part.

If you go off the published specs it a difference of 40/50 hp. Not insignificant.

I went from a manual sohc 4x4 super cab to a manual ohv 4x4 super cab. Seemed quite noticeable to me.

 

[James Morse]

is this the same engine as in Ranger for that year? I'd think it would have to be: ('06) 4.0L DOHC 24V
it's about the 3rd or 4th pic down
2006 Mazda B-Series: B4000 (topspeed.com)

 

[stmitch]

is this the same engine as in Ranger for that year? I'd think it would have to be: ('06) 4.0L DOHC 24V
it's about the 3rd or 4th pic down
2006 Mazda B-Series: B4000 (topspeed.com)

The engine pictured is a transverse V6. It's not a Ranger engine or a Ranger engine bay. Somebody screwed that up.
However, a B4000 will have the same engine as a Ranger 4.0 of similar year. So older B4000 will have the OHV and 01+ will have the SOHC.
The 4.0 SOHC should look something like this (note plastic upper intake manifold with angled throttle body):

4.0 OHV for reference (notice aluminum upper intake with forward facing throttle body)

The SOHC is an evolution of the 4.0 OHV. They took an OHV block, removed the in-block camshaft and replaced it with a jackshaft. That jackshaft has a gear in the front that drives the cam on 1 cylinder head, and a gear on the rear that drives the cam on the opposite cylinder head. The design is a bit of a mess, clearly influenced by budget constraints. Nobody would ever design that system from scratch. But they do flow more air and make more power than the OHV (particularly higher in the rev range).

It's apples to oranges, but for what it's worth the 2.0L Ecoboost in the new Maverick puts either engine to shame, with 250hp @ 5500rpm and 277lb-ft @ just 3000rpm.

 

[James Morse]

That's bizarre then somebody f'ed up the pics.
Thanks this is just the info I need.
Yes the 2.0L Ecoboost sounds like what Saab was doing 25 years ago with their 2.0 turbo the specs are about the same. I don't know if that (Saab) engine was a Ford but certainly their V4's were Ford (German).

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I would expect the explorer to be heavier. Maybe manual vs auto plays a part.

If you go off the published specs it a difference of 40/50 hp. Not insignificant.

I went from a manual sohc 4x4 super cab to a manual ohv 4x4 super cab. Seemed quite noticeable to me.

That’s compared to my auto 4x4 extended cab Rangers for the most part. My choptop doesn’t really count because being as small and light as it is and some mods to the 4.0 with a manual is in a realm of it’s own.

FWIW, Rangers got the SOHC in ‘01, but the Explorer had it available from ‘98 on, which got confusing because from ‘98-01 for the Explorer it could have a 4.0 OHV, 4.0 SOHC, or the 5.0 V-8.

Oh, and OHV didn’t always have the aluminum upper intake, there was also a plastic upper intake but it was shaped similar to the aluminum one

 

[19Walt93]

That's bizarre then somebody f'ed up the pics.
Thanks this is just the info I need.
Yes the 2.0L Ecoboost sounds like what Saab was doing 25 years ago with their 2.0 turbo the specs are about the same. I don't know if that (Saab) engine was a Ford but certainly their V4's were Ford (German).

Not even close, the EcoBoost is reliable.

 

[19Walt93]

I've seen many SOHC 4.0's go well beyond 200,000 miles, I bought new Rangers in 04 and 11 with SOHC's and I still don't like them. Instead of casting 2 mirror image heads and running the timing chains in front they used the same casting and drove the right cam from the rear. Rube Goldberg's philosophy is alive and well and living in Germany. Once Ford released better quality intake and valve cover gaskets for the OHV 4.0's we had about zero trouble with them. The number of cracked heads looks tiny compared with the timing chain cassettes and tensioners we changed on SOHC engines.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I feel dense, but let me get this straight: OHV are the earlier engines, so 98-00 that's OHV.
SOHC is '01 up.
OHC=SOHC.

Is that right or have I mucked it up?

Actually 1990-00 is OHV

 

[James Morse]

@19Walt93 are you saying Saab engines weren't reliable? Because I ran at least a couple to over 220k miles with zero issues. Not sure what you are basing the statement on.
Later Saab engines weren't Ford just to clear that up. I drove Saabs for 50 years and was stuck on the road twice: once, g/f driving and ran out of fuel, once, fuel pump failure. But never had an engine fail. Oh, once had a water pump fail, but I fixed that on the road. But none of those are specifically engine problems. On the other hand if I'm proven wrong statistically it doesn't matter, because I was done with Saabs quite a few years ago and don't plan on ever getting another one, although I might have got an old Sonnet because they are cool but now they are apparently collector cars priced crazy. I think they had a few problems, like, became too expensive, and of course once GM got hold of them that was really the end. I can point to different things that seemed to plague them at various times in their run, but I don't see engines as being one of them. Kind of moot at this point, but, I was just surprised you'd say that.

Edit: OK one other time stuck, boot on cv torn and sand/salt got in cv destroyed it, limped to 1/2 mile from home, replaced it in a parking lot. Again, not engine.