I have a 95ranger with a 4.0L v6 and i would like to know how much hrsepwr i have?

 

I think that would be around 160 HP. Tq I don't remember so much I think it's around 210 FT/Lbs.

Madmike33

 

I was just wondering because i got a complete print out of my engine specs and it said that i have over 220.

 

You have 160 horsepower, 225 foot pounds of torque. The torque peak is 2750 RPM, the HP is somewhere around 4200 I think? Not too positive on that, just on the torque spec.

I think you're looking at the torque spec.

 

Thats because your out in CAlly, everything has more power out there ha ha, It was the hot rod capital of the world untill the emissions police.

 

160 HP on the 4.0L OHV and 207 on 4.0L SOHC.

 

I read where some tunners actually dynoed the newer 4.0 ohv and they were 170 hp but ford still rated them all at 160, but either way thier in that ballpark. They made good torque at a decent rpm, peak torque came on alittle sooner than does the sohc, thier a good ole power plant.

 

Here once again for your viewing pleasure is the graph of both the ohv and sohc 4.0 power and torque:

 

just what i was looking for.

 

I rather like the torque curve on the OHV...200 ft lbs or more from 1100 to 4200 RPM or so... I'm just not a fan of the SOHC's higher powerband... but it moves the Ranger quite well, no reason to complain.

rubydist thanks for that dyno graph, I had it on my computer before I lost everything when it crashed and have been looking for it ever since.

 

If you think the sohc has a high power band, just think if it had dohc's like the 3.5. The sohc isn't bad once you get use to it, in lowrange it's easy to keep on the pipe. When I first got the ranger, I was use to my jeep, where I could take off without giving it hardly any gas, I stalled it alot untill I got use to it. I will still catch myself day dreaming at a light and try to take off with just a touch of the gas pedal and stall it, "how embarassing". With the jeep, on level ground, I could take off without giving it any gas if I let the clutch out very slowly. I'm just glad I have 4:10's, I could imagine what it would be like with 3:07's and a manual tranny. Now that I;m use to the cammer, I wouldn't trade it for anything else, "well", maybe a v8 hee hee.

 

You can tune a SOHC or DOHC to produce low end torque just as you can an OHV engine, it's just more difficult, as low end torque is the nature of the OHV beast.

I've driven a F-250 with the 6.0L that is like that...slowly let the clutch out in Low and it will idle happily away.

 

In my 97 F350 7.3L PSD I could dump the clutch at idle and not kill the truck even going uphill...it was a torque monster. 4.10 gears and a 5 speed...I loved that truck and Im still sick over getting rid of it. I could take off in 2nd gear with no problem on flat ground with no throttle but you had to give it about another 300 rpm over idle if you were going uphill in 2nd. When I go wheelin in the mud with my ranger, I use 3rd gear low side and just point it where I want to go and goose it a little and thats where she goes. Doesnt seem to mud very well in 4hi but it is good for slick roads.

 

You can never get a dohc engine to have as low of a power band as an ohv engine, least wise if you can, no one has done it, cammers are made to rev, you can get the power band in a usable range, but it will never be a 300 straight 6 or jeep 4.0 straight 6, thier not designed to be lowend grunt motors. Even cams will only get you so much and thats sacrificing topend where it loves to be. I love these new cammer motors, but if I needed a stump puller grunt motor, there's nothing like a straight 6.

 

I find the actual tested torque curve on the sohc is actually stronger at the low end from what is published. Look for example at my actual tested graph: (The tested torque curve is a lot flatter than their published data.)