Need help choosing a Ranger

[Wes]

Hello, I'm looking to buy another Ranger (Used to have 98' Std. Cab 4x4 with 4.0 and manual, it was a good truck!).

This next Ranger is going to be used for local towing of small trailer w/ building materials as I gut and remodel my house as well as taking the dog to the park/river, shouldn't see too much long distance driving. I started with the following criteria and have found two options which almost meet all my criteria, looking for advice...

CRITERIA: Ext. Cab, 4.0, automatic, 2x4, <= 100K miles and 2001+ (SOHC)

The two Rangers I've found locally are:

Ranger 1: Ext. Cab, 4.0, automatic, 2x4, 81K miles and 1999 (OHV)

Ranger 2: Ext. Cab, 4.0, automatic, 2x4, 137K miles and 2003

Both trucks appear to be in great shape, I have yet to inspect or test drive either (would like to figure this out first as I tend to buy the first thing I look at if in great shape). The 03 is listed at $6K and the 99 at $5.5K, I'd probably offer $5K for either.

Question is: Would you take the higher mileage SOHC or the lower mileage OHV?

I know either will serve my purposes but I can't help but think the SOHC might be just a little more enjoyable to drive around (power wise). FYI, I'm planning on lowering it as well, either 2/3 or 4/5 (I want my dog to look cool when we arrive at the park).

 

[RonD]

If the 4.0l SOHC has paper work that the timing chains have been updated then its a safe bet.
The 2001-2003/4 Ranger 4.0l SOHC had the older design installed at the factory so you will most likely need to pull the engine to change it to newer designed parts, not a 100% for sure failure, just a likely failure.

4.0l OHV didn't have that issue, but they did have weak spots in head castings, so if overheated, even one time, you will crack a head, not a "maybe", its a WILL
So pulling a trailer you need to watch temp gauge and keep cooling system in good working order.

Automatic trans is stronger than manual transmissions, so better for pulling loads
But you MUST install 2nd trans cooler on any automatic, not an option, whether you pull a trailer or not, 2nd trans cooler always, best $70 you will ever spend

 

[Wes]

Thank you RonD. Considering the issues with both models, if paperwork exists verifying timing chain and related component replacement on the SOHC, which would you consider the better way to go? More power and higher miles (SOHC) OR less power and lower miles (OHV)?

Just trying to decide where I should yield on the criteria I've set for myself if I decide to pull the trigger on one of these... Could be that I keep waiting for something to come up which meets them all but not too hopeful.

 

[bobbywalter]

i agree with ron.


i would have to pull a valve cover to decide.

but the newer truck with higher miles if it looked good under the valve cover would be the choice.

 

[RonD]

Miles at the extreme ends are all that would concern me, too high or too low miles are problems

2003 with 137k = 9,100 miles per year, so fairly average, it was most likely started up and driven for over 20min. a few times a week

1999 with 81k = 4,200 miles per year, so it sat alot, or was in the shop alot, lol, or was just used mostly on short trips

I would tend towards the 2003 with average use miles
Low milers tend to have more issues when turned into daily drivers, dried out seals and gaskets start to leak

With Collectors cars you want the low miles because you will not drive them much.
Rangers are not collector cars, lol, although they SHOULD BE

 

[Wes]

Thanks guys. Even if I could talk the sellers into letting me pull the covers off I wouldn't know what I was looking for (I did adjust the valves on my 98' 4.0 when I had it).

The thing is, the last year I had my 98' I only put 500 miles on it, knocked $400 off the price for buyer so his mechanic could replace leaking main seals from sitting. That's the reason I sold it, had 4 different vehicles at the time and I only average about 3500 miles a year! Sold everything and went down to one vehicle I thought I'd be happy with but five years later and the 08' Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon doesn't feel like the smartest choice. Looking to replace that with one of these and possibly a Subaru Forester. So back to multiple vehicles sharing a measly 3500 miles...

 

[Wes]

So I talked with the owner of the 03' about the timing chain and he is the second owner. He purchased it at about 60K miles and did not receive any service records with it. He has all the service records since though but did not do anything with the timing chains/tensioners. So either the original owner did or it wasn't done... I thought I had read somewhere that Ford did a recall on the guides and tensioners of the affected engines? For some reason I also thought this only affected models through 2002? Actually I read that here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine

Any advise is appreciated.

 

[Wes]

Here's one more article indicating it's an 2001-2002 issue:

http://www.underhoodservice.com/exploring-service-needs-on-the-ford-4-0l-v6-engine/

I think I might be in the clear?

 

[RonD]

The 4.0l SOHC was first used in 1997 Explorers as an optional upgrade from the 4.0l OHV

From what I understand the problem was the tensioners on the two long timing chains.
The springs inside these tensioners are used to hold the timing chains tight during start up, then oil pressure takes over to hold them tight while engine is running.

The initial problem was the spring getting weak or failing, so on start up the chain wasn't tight and it would beat on the guides until one broke away from its holder.
And this would cause the "rattle" heard on startup.
Damage is done at that point.

When Explorer owners started having this problem Ford initially chalked it up to the owners lack of servicing, oil changes
That lasted a few years
But as it became more common and was happening to owners that were having Ford doing all the servicing, oil changes and other service, it became clear it was a design issue.
Another few years to discover what the problem was, the tensioners where redesigned and I believe the guide attachment points were re-enforced .
Another few years to get the new tensioners into the supply chain.
They continued to use the older tensioners because it was not a 100% failure, not even 50%, just a common failure, and often happened after warranty period so no reason to throw out old tensioners and guides.

You can HOPE the 2003 engine has the new tensioners, and it may have, but it really depends on WHEN the engine was built at the engine assembly plant, not the year of the Ranger, and how it was warehoused at the vehicle assembly plant, and if they followed "first in, first out" protocol to the letter, lol, i.e. engine in this Ranger wasn't sitting in a corner since 2001/2


Now, if there are no rattles, you can change the two long chain tensioners, not much disassembly is required to install new ones, and that should provide some peace of mind.

In my opinion 2005 would be the first "for sure" year with new tensioners and guides.

And ANY engine with TWO Long Timing chains will have TWICE the problems with timing chains than engines with one long timing chain.
But the 2005 and up 4.0l SOHC seem to last pretty well, other than the original timing chain issues the 4.0l SOHC was a good running reliable engine