• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

New to 4.0

James Morse

1997 XLT 4.0L 4x4 1999 Mazda B3000 2wd
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
449
Points
83
Location
Roanoke VA
Vehicle Year
1997 and 1999
Make / Model
XLT 4x4 & B3000
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0L in XLT, 3.0L in B3000
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
235/75R15 but changing to oem 265/75R15 or more likely 31x10.5
My credo
There are two trucks. Both are sorted. Probably selling the '99.
I just got the 97 XLT and I was wondering do I have to check timing guides or something like that? I know there was a lot of talk about these failing and being the first thing you should do but I'm not sure if that applies to my 4.0
 


rusty ol ranger

Im a Jeep guy now.
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,871
Reaction score
4,836
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
I just got the 97 XLT and I was wondering do I have to check timing guides or something like that? I know there was a lot of talk about these failing and being the first thing you should do but I'm not sure if that applies to my 4.0
You mean the chain tensioners? Thats only on the SOHC 4.0 (2000+). You have the OHV 4.0 which is a pretty solid motor
 

Dantheman1540

Active Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2022
Messages
132
Reaction score
82
Points
28
Location
Florida
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ranger
Transmission
Manual
The 4.0 OHV is tough! Enjoy the extra torque is has compared to the smaller motors.
 

James Morse

1997 XLT 4.0L 4x4 1999 Mazda B3000 2wd
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
449
Points
83
Location
Roanoke VA
Vehicle Year
1997 and 1999
Make / Model
XLT 4x4 & B3000
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0L in XLT, 3.0L in B3000
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
235/75R15 but changing to oem 265/75R15 or more likely 31x10.5
My credo
There are two trucks. Both are sorted. Probably selling the '99.
Yes the tensioners, I heard so much talk about it. Well that's a plus for the 97 then to not worry about that.
3.0L is fine, truck ('99) goes, but the hp/torque in the 4.0L even though the numbers aren't all that different, I think, you really notice it. At low rpm a little throttle brings on the power no problem, it almost seems to growl, and I'm maybe not describing that right, but the point is you feel it's got guts.
I usually drive pretty easy on it, no reason not to and logic says if you are easy on things they last longer. Correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm pretty sure it'll be in 3rd before 30mph in a gentle acceleration.
Diff question Is my tranny different than my '99 3.0L? I understand about the splitting of first gear to 2 vs actually another gear, not sure if mine is like that. Just curious.
So far anything different I see on the 97 is better or ruggeder compared to the 99. For example the 99 has a steering knuckle boot that's rubber, the 97 has more of a solid shield looks like it would not be so prone to tearing. Just stuff like that. I guess what I'm saying is I don't see where the newer ones were really improved, seems the opposite. I'm sure I'll get push back about that. True the newer engines are yet more powerful but the 97's 4.0L is a beast compared to the 3.0L. I haven't compared torque old 4.0L to new 4.0L, but I'd rather have something more reliable and a bit less powerful than the opposite.
 

rusty ol ranger

Im a Jeep guy now.
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,871
Reaction score
4,836
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
Yes the tensioners, I heard so much talk about it. Well that's a plus for the 97 then to not worry about that.
3.0L is fine, truck ('99) goes, but the hp/torque in the 4.0L even though the numbers aren't all that different, I think, you really notice it. At low rpm a little throttle brings on the power no problem, it almost seems to growl, and I'm maybe not describing that right, but the point is you feel it's got guts.
I usually drive pretty easy on it, no reason not to and logic says if you are easy on things they last longer. Correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm pretty sure it'll be in 3rd before 30mph in a gentle acceleration.
Diff question Is my tranny different than my '99 3.0L? I understand about the splitting of first gear to 2 vs actually another gear, not sure if mine is like that. Just curious.
So far anything different I see on the 97 is better or ruggeder compared to the 99. For example the 99 has a steering knuckle boot that's rubber, the 97 has more of a solid shield looks like it would not be so prone to tearing. Just stuff like that. I guess what I'm saying is I don't see where the newer ones were really improved, seems the opposite. I'm sure I'll get push back about that. True the newer engines are yet more powerful but the 97's 4.0L is a beast compared to the 3.0L. I haven't compared torque old 4.0L to new 4.0L, but I'd rather have something more reliable and a bit less powerful than the opposite.
The 3.0 is the weakest feeling of all the 6's
 

Dantheman1540

Active Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2022
Messages
132
Reaction score
82
Points
28
Location
Florida
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ranger
Transmission
Manual
The 3.0 feels like a 4cylinder to me, it’s pretty pathetic compared to a 4.0 OHV IMO.

I totally get what you mean when you say the 4.0 has a low growl to it, even tho mine has 3.27 gears and 32”MTs it feels peppy.
 

superj

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2021
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
1,578
Points
113
Location
corpus christi, texas
Vehicle Year
2004
Make / Model
ranger edge
Engine Type
3.0 V6
Engine Size
3 liters of tire smoking power
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
none
Total Drop
none
Tire Size
235s
My credo
Grew up in the 70s, 80s, and 90s
having driven many many four cylinder rangers, the 3.0 does not feel like a four cylinder.

and all were standard transmissions too. i have never driven a ranger with an automatic in it so i cannot comment on that but the 3.0 with a five speed is fun to drive. no hotrod but not terrible.


i always wonder how a 4.0 and a five speed would be. i bet that would be a blast.
 

rusty ol ranger

Im a Jeep guy now.
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,871
Reaction score
4,836
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
having driven many many four cylinder rangers, the 3.0 does not feel like a four cylinder.

and all were standard transmissions too. i have never driven a ranger with an automatic in it so i cannot comment on that but the 3.0 with a five speed is fun to drive. no hotrod but not terrible.


i always wonder how a 4.0 and a five speed would be. i bet that would be a blast.
Im biased but IMO the 2.9 with a 5sp is the most fun. They pull hard down low but you can still rap them out into the revs and it doesnt really fall on its face.

The 3.0 just really, really lacks low end torque.
 

superj

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2021
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
1,578
Points
113
Location
corpus christi, texas
Vehicle Year
2004
Make / Model
ranger edge
Engine Type
3.0 V6
Engine Size
3 liters of tire smoking power
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
none
Total Drop
none
Tire Size
235s
My credo
Grew up in the 70s, 80s, and 90s
i think the first ranger i ever drove, my dad's first company ranger, had that engine in it. it was an 80s ranger, the old body style and a five speed. it was a fun little truck. it never had any problems going anywhere and it would spin the tires for a decent bit when you dropped the clutch.

that is the 3.0s only issue and i bet with an automatic transmission, the truck does feel really crappy. i keep thinking how much of a dog it would be if it was an auto. probably feel exactly like a 4 banger with an auto which is exactly why i don't even go look at four cylinder autos or 3.0 autos
 

rusty ol ranger

Im a Jeep guy now.
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,871
Reaction score
4,836
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
i think the first ranger i ever drove, my dad's first company ranger, had that engine in it. it was an 80s ranger, the old body style and a five speed. it was a fun little truck. it never had any problems going anywhere and it would spin the tires for a decent bit when you dropped the clutch.

that is the 3.0s only issue and i bet with an automatic transmission, the truck does feel really crappy. i keep thinking how much of a dog it would be if it was an auto. probably feel exactly like a 4 banger with an auto which is exactly why i don't even go look at four cylinder autos or 3.0 autos
If it spun the tires chances are its a 2.9. Ive driven 2.0's and 2.3's in the older ones and they are unbearably slow.

The 3.0s ive driven actually seem quicker then the 2.9's on a 55-80 run. But in streetlight to streetlight gears a 2.9 will rip one to pieces.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Top