4.0 SOHC vs 3.0

[8thTon]

The SOHC has always perplexed me - they went to all the trouble to switch to OHC, with all the added complexity and reliability issues of the chain drive system. And for all that they got 2 valves per cylinder, all in a line and perfectly parallel. I'm sure they got better port shapes, but in the end it makes 51.8 hp/liter.

The pushrod 3.0 has slightly angled valves, is massively simpler and makes 51.3 hp/liter. So basically the 4.0 SOHC horsepower improvement over the 3.0 is exactly in proportion to the displacement increase.

 

[Mike Tonon]

I’d rather have my 4.0 over a 3.slow.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I would rather have a 3.slow over a 4.blow.

I would rather have a pushrod 4.0 than either.

 

[cbxer55]

3.0slow ha? The other night, coming home from work, at a stop light, when it turned green I dropped the hammer. Lit up both back wheels and left a nice pair of streaks. I have Cooper Cobra GT 255/60-15's on the back. They're pretty healthy sized tires. 3.0 lit em up nice. Now of course, I have a MAC intake with a stainless steel mesh filter, no muffler on the exhaust, exhaust dumping in front of the passenger tire through two outlets, and a JET chip on the PCM. Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done. Had the truck 19 years and put 162,000+ miles on it so far. I like my 3.0 with the chain drive cam, versus the 4.0 with the belt. I get to drive 4.0's at work, and don't feel there is any real gains versus my 3.0.

Of course, it's nothing like my other truck, 2004 Lightning. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ranger V6’s all had chains aside from the 2.8 that was gear.

 

[Mike Tonon]

The 3.o is a car engine. Used in the Taurus.

 

[Mike Tonon]

I gotta admit, though, in some ways I miss my 2.9. I like the sound of those. And the thermostat was so much easier to get to!

 

[8thTon]

The 4.0 SOHC makes 4/3 the power of the 3.0, as it should. Clearly they got nothing out of adding the SOHC and the cam drive - they could have raided the corporate parts bins and made a scaled-up copy of the 3.0 valve train and it would have done as well.

The 3.0 pulls a standard cab Ranger pretty well with 4.10:1 gears.

 

[Denisefwd93]

The got lots of money for repairs LOTS of MONEY! people that don't know, know how or just are not automotive mechanically minded pay... pay dearly. imho bicycle chain lasts longer!

 

[Mike Tonon]

I’ll tell ya, someday when this Ranger is done, I’d like to find a good condition 80’s Ranger. Relatively base model with either a 2.8 or 2.9. Or a super simple base model with the 2.2 diesel. I’m tired of all this complicated crap. ?

 

[Mike Tonon]

A 2.2 diesel! Tan on top, black on the bottom. Short bed to lighten up on the weight a bit. Stick, of course. Metal mirrors, 15x6 stock silver steels, with black hub caps and stainless lug nuts and trex and stainless bed floor.

 

[adsm08]

The 4.0 SOHC makes 4/3 the power of the 3.0, as it should. Clearly they got nothing out of adding the SOHC and the cam drive - they could have raided the corporate parts bins and made a scaled-up copy of the 3.0 valve train and it would have done as well.

The 3.0 pulls a standard cab Ranger pretty well with 4.10:1 gears.

You are looking at peak number only I assume, and not where those numbers occur in the RPM range.

The 4.0 has made all it's power and is on the down side of the curve before the 3.0 even gets started. When towing there is a lot to be said for having all your torque in the lower portion of the RPM band.

 

[Uncle Gump]

Just proves the theory... no replacement for displacement.

Did they over complicate it? Probably..

Did it have flaws when released? Yeap..

Did they need an engine to compete with the competition? They did.

I said it in a thread the other day... I like the feel of the low end torque. To me it feels like a truck engine. I'm a believer... take good care of it and don't drive it like you stole it.

 

[8thTon]

You are looking at peak number only I assume, and not where those numbers occur in the RPM range.

The 4.0 has made all it's power and is on the down side of the curve before the 3.0 even gets started. When towing there is a lot to be said for having all your torque in the lower portion of the RPM band.

Only the shape of the power curve matters, not the absolute rpm. If you had the same shape at 20% higher rpm, you’d just use a 20% higher gear ratio and it would make no difference.

 

[Uncle Gump]

But you are still working the engine at a 20% higher rpm range... the gear ratio has nothing to do with where your engine makes power.