4.0L preferences

[19Walt93]

@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.

I'm basing it on 50 years of experience, admittedly mostly with Fords, but we used to trade for Saabs often. For a while they used engines from British Leyland as well as the old Ford V4. I think the original 3 cylinder 2 stroke was actually a Saab engine, I don't know how many of the later engines were Saabs. We took in one Saab that was nothing but a rebadged Subaru, I thought it was bad enough that Ford rebadged Kias and sold them as Festivas and Aspires.

 

[James Morse]

Yeah... that's right later engines Triumph based but substantially reworked/redesigned. All I'm saying is, it was decades ago they had/used (even if not specifically their design) a small 4-cyl engine that put out 250HP and was tunable to a lot more than that, so what prevented putting that engine or that type of engine into Rangers 25 years ago?

Yup the old V4 was definitely Ford, the old Cologne V4.

We actually had a 2-stroke and gas station guys would always be telling my mom 'maam, that's not where the oil goes' while she was pouring in the 2-stroke oil.
They were real simple engines.

As to the rebadged Subarus, that's new to me, are you talking about after GM took them over?

They did have the front-wheel drive thing early on, it was an oddity then but common today. Great in snow.

Of all the ones I had even counting the Aeros, if I had one back today I think it'd be the '86 Turbo that thing would go forever and you could work on it pretty good.

Saab H engine - Wikipedia
B236R was 250HP/258 lb ft. So that's roughly equivalent to the "new" Maverick engine. My original question or comment is, since this engine existed a long long time ago why is Ford now "re-inventing" it? What stopped them from using it decades ago? Cost? Saab called it "ecopower" now we have "ecoboost". It's not a new thing, only the implementation of it is new.

The early turbos, the user manual told you, when you stop, let the engine idle for one minute to let the turbo cool down. They did get hot - you could stop, get out, and light a cig off them.

They were awesome on mileage, on the freeway I'd see upwards of 32mpg. In town, bad though, like 17, especially if you were into the turbo a lot. Then it would really use gas. Those engines had the DI module. Had some other cool things like when you shut it off, it fired the plugs like 1000 times to burn off any deposits. Something like that.

Saab weight about the same as Maverick maybe 100 lbs diff. Side comment, I think it was the 2000 Aero or maybe '97, was the fastest production car made that year.

Anyway they are nothing but a memory now. It really all ended when GM parts started showing up on them.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Enough with the saab stories.

I would pick pushrod over sohc all day everyday.

 

[RobbieD]

I would.pick pushrod over sohc all day everyday.

Despite the incredible curiosity, I think it best not to ask.

 

[James Morse]

Yeah they had their chance, they sold out, and f'ed it up, end of story. "shoemaker, stick to your last" Fighter Systems | Air | Saab

 

[19Walt93]

Yeah... that's right later engines Triumph based but substantially reworked/redesigned. All I'm saying is, it was decades ago they had/used (even if not specifically their design) a small 4-cyl engine that put out 250HP and was tunable to a lot more than that, so what prevented putting that engine or that type of engine into Rangers 25 years ago?

Yup the old V4 was definitely Ford, the old Cologne V4.

We actually had a 2-stroke and gas station guys would always be telling my mom 'maam, that's not where the oil goes' while she was pouring in the 2-stroke oil.
They were real simple engines.

As to the rebadged Subarus, that's new to me, are you talking about after GM took them over?

They did have the front-wheel drive thing early on, it was an oddity then but common today. Great in snow.

Of all the ones I had even counting the Aeros, if I had one back today I think it'd be the '86 Turbo that thing would go forever and you could work on it pretty good.

Saab H engine - Wikipedia
B236R was 250HP/258 lb ft. So that's roughly equivalent to the "new" Maverick engine. My original question or comment is, since this engine existed a long long time ago why is Ford now "re-inventing" it? What stopped them from using it decades ago? Cost? Saab called it "ecopower" now we have "ecoboost". It's not a new thing, only the implementation of it is new.

The early turbos, the user manual told you, when you stop, let the engine idle for one minute to let the turbo cool down. They did get hot - you could stop, get out, and light a cig off them.

They were awesome on mileage, on the freeway I'd see upwards of 32mpg. In town, bad though, like 17, especially if you were into the turbo a lot. Then it would really use gas. Those engines had the DI module. Had some other cool things like when you shut it off, it fired the plugs like 1000 times to burn off any deposits. Something like that.

Saab weight about the same as Maverick maybe 100 lbs diff. Side comment, I think it was the 2000 Aero or maybe '97, was the fastest production car made that year.

Anyway they are nothing but a memory now. It really all ended when GM parts started showing up on them.

Had GM not bought them, the company would have folded sooner.

 

[James Morse]

Yeah maybe I dunno the specifics of it. Must have been some mismanagement somewhere because they sure charged enough for the cars. Maybe volume not high enough or something.