The Truth about the 4.0

[atlgadawg]

I've owned a couple of Rangers. First a 87 2.9 that did well. Just sold my 2000 with the 3.0 which was a great motor. Now I am looking at a newer truck with a 4.0. I have heard several people talking about problems with the 4.0. Bad heads, gaskets go and heads crack. Lifter problems etc...
So is any of this true? Are there certain years to avoid? I loved the 3.0 but want the towing power of a 4.0.

Thanks...

 

[MAKG]

4.0Ls are strictly better than 2.9Ls in every respect except fuel mileage (which isn't THAT bad).

Yes, they have their problems, but 2.9Ls are worse.

 

[AllanD]

Honestly? if you avoid the really early 4.0's (which were prone to cracking)
And avoid those that were run for LONG periods of time without oil changes
(that chew up the push rod tips and rocker sockets) the 4.0OHV is a better
engine than even the newer SOHC engine.

as for mileage?

MY peak mileage currently stands at 22.4mpg, that is the single BEST
I've ever done and I managed that over an entire tank of fuel
(I have TWO tanks so I can run one DRY)

That's with 4.10 gears in a 4x4 5sp supercab,

My WORST mileage stands at 17.6mpg driving it like a complete
maniac WHILE towing a 2000# trailer at ~75mph

All things considered my average mileage wiht the 4.0 is actually
a bit better than the average I got with a 2.9 in exactly the same truck.

No my best mileage isn't as high but my worse isn't nearly as low and
beating the 2.9 up and down the hills around here it was pretty easy
to knock it down into the 17-18mpg range and was pretty hard to do
as well as 21mpg in local driving.

the 4.0 just never has to work very hard to do what the 2.9 could
do only if you whipped the snot out of it.

I'd say that my average weekly driving gets 1-1.5mpg better
than the same driving got with my 2.9.

Basically going over the local hills at 2600-2700rpm in 4th with
a 4.0 burns a lot less gas than going over the same hill with a
2.9 engine howling at 4000-4100rpm in 3rd (Do the math my
3rd gear is 1.5:1. yes, I'm running a "wide ratio" trans)



AD

 

[Ranger44]

I'd agree on this one. The 4.0 is a pretty solid engine if properly maintained.

 

[AgPete139]

When you say "newer," are you suggesting the post 2000 4.0 SOHC or the older OHV. I've driven both, and I just frankly like the OHV better...

My '97 isn't bad at all. She pulls and accelerates decently, and can pull when I have heavy loads in the back. Ive pulled people out of holes, bed of cinder blocks and concrete bags & home improvement supplies, towed cars, auto parts, and moved between housings several times during college. She's good and hardly notice a lag. I get from about 18 mpg city (when I get on it) to 22 mpg cruising on the highway.

However, I have acquired a vacuum leak around my upper intake manifold (gasket), but then again, i have about 185,xxx miles. It doesn't really slow me down or effect economy, but I notice it when I rev high to over 4,300 or reverse/back up a hills to a site/job.

I would suggest the '96-2000 blocks...

 

[wahlstrom1]

I love my 4.0L OHV, it makes power down low where even my buddies smallblocks are stumbling while mine still pulls. And the intake gasket leak has a TSB on it, and an upgraded gasket has been supplied for the repair. The early OHC 4.0Ls in rangers had some timing chain issues but that's been resolved as well, and they are good engines.

-andrew

 

[AllanD]

I like the 4.0OHV.

the 4.0SOHC is fine.... In a Mustang, but it ain't a truck motor.

It doesn't do SHIT unless you get it spinning and then it's just
a godawful P I G on gas.

I'm not a fan of the 5.0 but I believe that the 5.0 is capable of
getting better mileage when driven responsibly than the 4.0SOHC is.

I know atleast two guys who claim better highway mileage than I've gotten with 5.0 explorers (auto trans and 3.73 gears)

Before I built a 5.0 Ranger however I'd put a Roller cam 5.8 into a ranger
and gear it tall (3.55's or even 3.27s) and try to keep that puppy below 2grand at highway speeds.

AD

 

[AgPete139]

Low shift points. Mine are anywhere from 1300 to 2400 depending on starts and loading. But yea, the SOHC get mid teens. Why would you want a mid teener when you could get a fullsize for better mileage, towing, and comfort? Small is nice, but not when you are suffering with 14-17 average economy...Allan, I agree with your sentiments on the SOHC. And if you're towing, you want a decent torque curve and low rev grunt...

Disclaimer: It's not a beast either. Far from it, actually. But it will get your jobs done adequately.

Allan, who said anything about 5.0's? My father's '92 5.0 GT stang has 300 tq @ 3K & 225 hp @ 4K. Good, strong motor and could get 20's in a ranger when driven conservatively, but I think the OP is just sticking to the 4.0.




Pete

 

[AllanD]

I mentioned the 5.0 by way of comparison, and it should be noted
that I have been a critic of the 5.0 in the past.

Many Enthusiasts here have looked at the numbers, by that meaning HP & Torque
and thought "I want more than the 2.9 but the 5.0 looks better than the 4.0 by the numbers", but the numbers they miss are the rpm numbers and even those don't reveal how much torque the 4.0OHV produces "below the peak"

something that the 5.0HO doesn't do real well.
The Non-HO is actually a better engine for use in a 4wd truck, but still less than ideal.

Granted a 5.0 is a better engine for a ranger than it is for an F-150/250
where almost anyone will tell you the 4.9 is a better engine.

Mid teens is reality for a 4.0SOHC, but what's amusing is that most people
with a 5.0 Explorer will report 19 or better (I've heard credible reports of
22-23mpg on long highway runs), not bad for a FULL TIME 4wd vehicle...

So my thought was put a '94-96 5.8 roller cam engine onto a '98 supercab
frame and top it with a '93-94 body (and title), back the engine up with
a manual trans and tall gears and see what it'll do grinding across Nebraska
at 2100rpm and 20% throttle

My brother actually managed 19mpg average with a non-roller 5.8 in
an F250 4x4 w/4.10s and actually got 21mpg a couple of times
I'm thinking a ranger with 3/4 the frontal area and weighing
a TON less should do better.

AD

 

[Bent Bolt]

Something else to compare. I haven't driven a 4.0L OHV off road yet but I can compare the SOHC to a 2.9L . Quite honestly, I prefer my 2.9 offroad to my SOHC. The one time I took my 08 down a old forestry road, a steep one, it was in 4LO. The SOHC didn't feel like it could hold the truck back, as in it felt like it had almost nothing for compression braking.

Now my wore out 2.9 is a different beast in 4LO. I can take it down a steep grade and just tap the brakes to keep the speed under control.

Both trucks have same gearing and similar sized tires.

The SOHC kills the 2.9 on the road, of course.

Just food for thought.

 

[mlunsford]

99 ohv

My thermostat stuck at around 100K and both of my heads are cracked. Change the themostat early and keep the engine cool, you may avoid this issue. In general, the 4.0L has lots of low end torque.

 

[exbass94]

OK, looks like its time for me to stick up for the SOHC. My truck gets around 18-19 mpg, has TONS of power to haul over 1300 lbs in the bed, is really fast for a truck and I'm confident that it will give me 200k+ miles of trouble-free service.

The 4.0 OHV in my Explorer, while very reliable, is a gutless turd that can't get out of it's own way even when it's totally empty, let alone hauling people/other crap in it. It also gets way worse gas mileage and makes a noisy racket on acceleration.

4.0 SOHC FTW.

 

[Evan]

The 4.0 OHV in my Explorer, while very reliable, is a gutless turd that can't get out of it's own way even when it's totally empty, let alone hauling people/other crap in it.

You have a problem with your OHV. Maybe a bad O2 sensor, fouled MAF, bad plugs, etc.

Fix the engine and then come back and give us an update. You should be getting great low-end torque out of the engine and good HP.

 

[Ranger44]

or it's geared horrible. Many exploders come with 3.27's....

 

[exbass94]

Nope, it been a gutless turd ever since we first bought it back in 1996 with only 20k miles on it. And yes, it has 3.27 gears, but it's still not fast even if I let it rev up by shifting manually. And we all know that it doesn't matter if the gearing is in the axle or the transmission, thanks to MAKG. Regardless whether the OHV sucks or not, the SOHC is still a great engine like I said before and IMO is way better than the OHV. I stand by my statement.