Please tell me about OHV 4.0 engines

[Andy D]

It is fine with 128 k miles on it. Far as I can tell It isnt using oil or coolant and doesnt miss. Is this a miracle or are 4.0 decent engines? This is my first Ford in 30 yrs. TIA

 

[RangerSVT]

The 4.0 is a very reliable engine. 128k is barely half its life. My 4.0 had 226k when I swapped it for the 5.0, and it still ran great then...

SVT

 

[shane96ranger]

In my opinion, the 4.0 OHV was the best motor ever put in a Ranger (by Ford anyway). I would rather have the OHV than the SOHC.

They are very reliable. I've owned 3 of them, and they all ran perfect. They had things happen to them, but they always ran well.



BTW - My Explorer had over 230,000 miles when I sold it.

 

[Ryannn]

I love them! Mine pushed 35's with 3.73 on and off road pretty damn well, It had 160xxx miles on it.

 

[daniel3507]

They have their problems like any other motor but they are minor and for the most part they are pretty dang reliable.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[racsan]

i love mine, id rather have the ohv than the ohc. 145,000 & still runs strong!

 

[Snoranger]

I put my OHV through hell for years. I beat the piss out of it constantly, I did oil changes every 8-10K miles on it, I ran it low on oil, and it never missed a beat. Just dont let it overheat. It still ran good when the rest of the truck fell apart around it. I'd much rather have the OHV then the rattle can sounding, POS SOHC.

 

[ZMan]

128k is how much mine has on it, I let it sit for 5 years so I had to change a few sensors, but it runs great. Just watch out for the intake gaskets, you usually need to retorque the bolts, though sometimes the gaskets need replaced. But yes, they are great engines, they made millions of them seeing how they were the only engine available in explorers for a while, and were used from '90-2000.

 

[UrbanRedneckKid]

My original 4.0 had 265k on it. I hydro-locked it at a mud run, pulled the plugs and pumped the water out, switched my swamped airfilter with an old t-shirt, then preceded to drive it home 25 miles. And then drove it to work and back for 2 days, with only 12psi of oil pressure at 3000 rpm and 0psi at idle... Still running when I pulled it.

Damn good engine!

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Will]

I have to concur with all of these knowledgeable people--the pushrod 4.0 is a great engine.

The 4.0 is an old pedigree, starting out in Europe as maybe a 1.something. It evolved through the decades into its ultimate form in the pushrod 4.0. Not too many flaws left in it after that many years of refinement. I like that it is large enough to do big truck jobs with a Ranger, but is compact and easy to work on. It's definitely one of the best bits of a Ranger.

The cammer 4.0 is the final refinement of the Cologne V6, but it's not the best. 20 miles of timing chain and a history of wiping out chain guides, plus being a bastoid to work on with those massive aluminum heads and, well the list goes on. The cammer is a powerful engine, at least compared to the pushrod motor, but it's bigger than a V8 and might as well be a V8. The pushrod 4.0 is powerful, probably the most cubic inches possible in such a small lump of cast iron, and was only ever put in trucks so it is built to do truck jobs. If I wanted to go fast, I would build a cammer 4.0. If I wanted to do truck things, I'll stick to the granite pushrod motor.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The pushrod 4.0 is powerful, probably the most cubic inches possible in such a small lump of cast iron, and was only ever put in trucks so it is built to do truck jobs.

And Aerostar minivans.

A lot of people speak highly of them, the one I have been around never really impressed me that much. So-so power and so-so fuel economy... just not really a whole lot to write home about. My college roomate's '00 (this was in '04) was the same way... and is a large reason why I got a fullsize.

 

[shane96ranger]

Are you saying that in comparison to a 302 though? The 302 should have been an option at some point IMHO.

Sent while I should be doing something else

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Are you saying that in comparison to a 302 though?

No, that opinion was formed 7 years before my truck gained two cylinders (and I never drove a 302 before I put one in my truck either) I have only driven one 302 Ranger and it is so one off and totally not what Ford would do it isn't fair to compare it at all.

I do think the 3.5 and/or 3.7 should have been in the Ranger. The 3.7 would have been a barnburner replacement for the 4.0 in present day, Even in the 14 year old design I think they would have sold very well. They get better milage in a F-150 than the SOHC 4.0 got in the Ranger with a extra 100hp... what kind of milage would it get in a Ranger?

 

[Will]

And Aerostar minivans.

A lot of people speak highly of them, the one I have been around never really impressed me that much. So-so power and so-so fuel economy... just not really a whole lot to write home about. My college roomate's '00 (this was in '04) was the same way... and is a large reason why I got a fullsize.

An Aerostar van is a truck--it's covered in the same service manual as a Ranger.

I have full-size, and super-size. That's not the point. I'm talking about things you use a Ranger for.

With my B2, if you get it stuck, I get you out. That happens a lot with our 17' wide county roads without shoulders. It runs well enough that in low range, it's like an automatic trans in first gear. I'm not talking power pulling on the highway--I'm talking about let the clutch up and feel the meat--not the whimpering stall. Slap the tonges on a log and pull it out of the woods. It's an engine with a lot of buzz down at the rpms where you need it. A 302 is a stronger engine, but in a B2, there's nothing a 4.0 can't do that a 302 can.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

With my B2, if you get it stuck, I get you out. That happens a lot with our 17' wide county roads without shoulders. It runs well enough that in low range, it's like an automatic trans in first gear. I'm not talking power pulling on the highway--I'm talking about let the clutch up and feel the meat--not the whimpering stall. Slap the tonges on a log and pull it out of the woods. It's an engine with a lot of buzz down at the rpms where you need it.

They may be wonderful in a B2, but I would call it "adaquate" in an Explorer... automatic of course. It did what it had to and didn't seem capable of doing much more... 110% stock mostly pavement driven family car. The only towing it ever did was pulling dads new car trailer home 20 miles in the late 90's.