Sorry to ask a question that's probably been answered a number of time, but the forum search feature here has been temporarily turned off.

My son is looking to buy a used 2WD Ranger to get him back and fourth to college, and to do some light towing, and to haul his dirt bike, his girl friend, etc. He'd like to get a Ranger with the 4.0 engine. From some quick checking, I've noticed the 4.0 in the Ranger changed in 2001 to a single overhead cam engine where as the Y2K and earlier 4.0's are listed as a over head valve engine. I know the 4.0 SOHC was used in other Ford vehicles before 2001, but were most of the kinks (if any) finally worked out once this engine went into the Ranger?

Is the real world fuel economy better with the newer SOHC engine? Is performance noticibly better?

More importantly, is reliability any better with the 2001+ SOHC engines?

We've got a chance to get a fair deal on a nice Y2K 4 door 2WD supercab with the 4.0 / 5spd automatic that has 68K miles on it, but if the newer SOHC engine is worth waiting for, then I'm sure he'd rather wait until the right deal comes along. Thanks for any insight.

edit: The truck will be used in the lower elevations of SoCal where there's no snow, etc.

 

There is a very significant performance improvement in the SOHC as opposed to the OHV. The timing chain issue seems to have gone away around 03 so if its a prior to 03 SOHC 4.0 I'd make sure the upgrade has been performed. You could also look up the TSB on the subject and look at which vehicles it applies to. Both engines are very reliable. Some of the early 5R55E trannies (late 90's) suffered from failure of the gasket between the valve body and the tranny case; I think that was worked out around 01. You might look to see if there is a TSB on that subject as well as take the VIN to a Ford service department to see what warranty work was done to it (ie, run the vin through OASIS). The timing chain issue ain't a cheap fix. The gasket is maybe $350 or so installed at a shop. Remember, not every vehicle suffered from these issues. Mileage is a relative thing; driver habits and rear end gearing will have a big influence on that one. Also, I don't know where you live but I'm in the NW part of the US and 2WD pickups/SUV's are not desireable vehicles here as are standard cabs. We get snow and winter weather to deal with as well as plentiful outdoor recreation where 4X is of great benefit; resale value on 2WD sinks about this time of the year and especially when the snow hits.

 

Thank you for the insight on the timing chain issue! Google has brought up all kinds of things for me to read about in regards to this topic, now that I know a bit more on what to search for and I've already found some TSB's on this topic...thank you!

The 4.0 SOHC looks great performance wise, but with a bit more added complexity engine (multiple chains >>> OHC's driven by timing chain cassettes (one in front and one in rear) which are driven by a jackshaft, which in turn is driven by a chain off of the crankshaft). And then I'm reading where you need special service tools for timing alignments because there are no timing marks on the cam pulley or cam...ugh. I also found this article about the older OHC 4.0 that was really interesting, but is has me a little concerned about oiling issues (pushrod wear, etc), especially since my son's current budget is only finding Rangers with ~100K miles on them.

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar40123.htm


Is the 3.0 subject to these same oiling issues?

I know the 3.0 is down on power, but is the 3.0 considered a more reliable engine than the 4.0? At this point, reliability is his main concern.

 

Before I got the 03 FX4, I had a 00 4x4 OffRoad, both manual trans, both equipped similarly. The 00 got about 1/2 mpg better in the driving I do, 20 v. 19.5 mixed country/city. This was due to the fact that the 00 improved by approx 1 mpg with a tonneau cover, while the 03 didn't improve at all with the tonneau cover. Go figure... Anyway, with the Bama Xcal2, I have improved the 03 to nearly 21 mpg w/ mid grade fuel.

The sohc has noticably more torque from about 2200 rpm up, from 3500 its really noticable. This link is a comparison graph:
http://rubydist.com/images/Ford4.0ohv_sohc.jpg

The sohc was introduced in Explorers in 97 or 98 (I think 98), so there are a lot of them out there running along. Both are good engines, there are guys who have supercharged both the ohv and sohc to around 300 rwhp, so they are both pretty stout. Keep in mind that they are in the same family - they both are the Cologne V6; conceptually its just the heads that were changed.

The timing chain rattle on early sohc's was really just an annoyance from all I've read, so I wouldn't worry about it.

The 3.0 is a completely different engine and is much less powerful, so that would be a huge negative to me.

I'd find the truck and the deal that you want, and not worry that much about if its ohv or sohc.

 

Thanks for the dyno comparison!
...and for mentioning the Bama Xcal2 so I can read more about it


Point taken It's way to easy to get caught up in things and over analyze specifics or get too focused without truly having the big picture.

Used car shopping is tough for me, especially when trying to find the best value for my son where many of the vehicles we've looked at have an unknown maintenance history . The owners always think I'm being too picky when I jack up their vehicle and start torquing the wheels to check for obvious worn parts or when I plug in my PC based OBDII scanner to check things out, or when I want to see the results from the smog tests or watch the vehicle from behind to see if it tracks straight down the road, etc. This will be my son's first street legal vehicle and the money he's earned over the years is burning a hole in his pocket.

The most shocking thing so far has been insurance costs...yikes! The quotes we've been getting so far have his insurance being $900+ per year cheaper to drive our 97 F250 4X4 than a 97 F150 2WD or a Y2K Ranger 2WD 4.0. It just makes no sense to me, but neither does paying $3K+ per year for his insurance. Maybe it's our demographics + his age, but I feel like I'm being robbed, especially when the same insurance company charges us less to insure 3 vehicles and 2 trailers for both my wife & I. I've got a lot of insurance shopping to do before I can swallow this as being the norm.

 

Well, hate to say it, but my wife is a savage bargin shopper. and the best she could do was 6,250/yr for us both on 2 trucks, an acura integera, and a chevelle. the prices are crazy. the best for us was erie insurance co. but i dont know if they deal outta state like that. good luck.

Note: From what i hear it stinks being old, but nowadays, it's just as bad for us young people.

 

I think you mean HP, to the tune of 47 more on the SOHC. Torque is 238 ft-lb vs 225. What I would do if I were you is go test drive both and see what you think. On the 3.0, most people report only about 1 mpg better than a 4.0 but a very noticeable performance hit. Qad, being picky is ok but if you want to put a nervous seller at ease take it to a shop and have them perform a detailed inspection at your expense. Myself, I'd go along with everything you noted except tapping into my electronic engine management system. I'd only trust myself or a reputable shop to do that. As far as past maintenance, that's sort of a crap shoot. Used car lots can mask lots of damage with their fancy renos and they do a great job at fooling the untrained eyes of unsuspecting buyers; on that note I'd be leaning towards a private party.

 

No, I definitely mean torque. Torque is what I care about, because torque is what makes the vehicle go. (Remember F=M*A, from basic physics class?) Horsepower is just a calculated value of work done per time. As I said, you can feel the increased torque from 2200 rpm up, and by 3500 there is a big difference. Above 3500, the ohv torque falls like a rock (which means acceleration falls sharply, even though horsepower keeps climbing) while the sohc torque stays relatively flat. That is a significant difference in performance.

 

The early SOHC's did have a chain problem that was fixed in 1999 and by 2000 the fix was in all the SOHC's being produced. The SOHC did not show up in the ranger until 2002(maybe a few late build 2001's). So it is not a problem in any year ranger. But If you want to test for the problem run it at 2000-2500 rpm in second gear and you will hear it rattle, any other rpm and it is a different problem.
Dave

 

Torque is of greatest benefit up to around 35mph; after that it's HP baby . And yes, I do remember and know my physics. With two college level degrees in Mechanical Engineering it's burned into my mind .

 

Actually, the 01 Ranger has the sohc, no ohv in 01; and the 01 sohc has the timing chain rattle in some vehicles. However, its really just an annoyance, not a real durability issue.

 

Your are correct on the years and the 2001 chain problem. I learned something, sorry for the bad info.
Dave

 

I've had both 4.0 engines, the sohc is by far the better of the 2 in performance and mpg. The ohv is a good dependable motor with good lowend torque, but the cammer will run all over it. The cammer has hp and torque numbers simular to the stock 5.0 mustangs. The best mpg that I had gotten with the ohv 4x4 was 18 city, with the sohc 4x4, I get 22, 24 highway. I liked my old 4.0, but the 4.0 cammer just keeps on impressing me, I love it. I haven't had any, or heard of any dependability issues with the cammer. Thier both good engines, I wouldn't hesitate to buy either.

 

If it makes you feel better, I have a 97 OHC 4.0 5 speed 2WD with 105K miles that runs great and burns NO oil.

The low end torque (especially just off idle) is GREAT.

With the 4.56 gears installed, it will spin the 32" BFG's easily just stabbing the throttle in first gear on pavement... nevermind the use of the clutch.
Matter of fact, it will chirp the rear tires in SECOND gear just stabbing the gas at about 2500 RPM WITHOUT using the clutch if the pavement is cold.

Very torquey motor indeed.
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8806/img2950rb1.jpg

 

Thanks for all the opinions and getting me started to finding more info on the 4.0's, related TSB's, etc. All your opions were very helpful

I finally drove a used 4.0 SOHC today (4x4 Ranger) back to back with a 4.0 OHV 4x2 Ranger. Wow! The SOHC engine continues to pull hard all the way up the scale just as expected from seeing the dyno sheet. Both were a blast to drive, both were nice and torquey, etc. The 2001 4.0 SOHC 4x4 that we drove today definitely exhibited classic timing chain rattle described in the TSB. We stopped at 3 different Ford dealers to get their opinions on this and they all told me they like working on the OHV engines much better and they’re way less expensive to work on than the SOHC engines. They quoted me anywhere from $800 to $1400 to take care of the rattle, depending on whether they had to replace the tensioners or cassette hubs, etc.

We’ve looked at dozens of Rangers over the last several months and finally narrowed our choices to three, but two of those sold last week and the last one we made an offer on sold yesterday. I also had an offer in on a nice looking 2001 Tacoma Prerunner extra cab, but my offer wasn't accepted and the seller sold it for just $50 more than I offered. It had 130K miles on it, but the engine & trans were in excellent shape. The owner even let me bring my test equipment and I ran leakdown tests, scanned & monitored the ECM and datalogged some info from the tailpipe while testing out his truck on the freeway, local roads, etc. I also brought my paint thickness gauge and found that the car was repainted with the factory color and I also found where some minor body work done, but it was done exceptionally well and I never would have known about this without the use of my coating thickness gauge. Still, the paint was too thick for my comfort and that was a concern in the back of my mind in addition to the boots on the rack being torn and possibly a bad ball joint on the drivers side. The owner was a super nice guy and I definitely would have countered the other persons offer, but it just wasn’t meant to be.

My son was bummed about our targeted trucks selling, but it wasn’t too big of deal for me because there are oodles of trucks for sale around here and when the right deal comes along then everything will fit into place. The independent dealer we were at this morning where I test drove the 4.0’s already had more than a dozen Rangers on his lot, but none of them were close enough to what we hoped for. They said they were getting more Rangers later today, so we stopped by again in the afternoon since they were nice guys to deal with. As we pulled up, 4 more Rangers were being unloaded from the hauler and one of them ended up coming home with us….whoohoo! The dealer was completely kool to deal with and he had no problem with me checking out the truck or taking it to any dealer for further inspection, etc. I only did some brief checks on this truck and it ran absolutely perfect during our 20 mile test. The truck was obviously well cared for, obviously garaged, not a single leak or drip, ran just perfect, no rattles, etc. Turns out the owner of this dealership needed his motorcycle’s engine rebuilt, so I’m going to be building the engine for his bike, revalving his suspension, building a custom light rack for him, etc, and we worked this into the price of the truck.

The only thing I hate is the color, which is black. My sons and I also do professional show car detailing and paint work in the summer when our off road racing business is slow, but he swears he’ll keep up on the finish…hehe! And he’s going to love it in the summer time when it’s 105F outside…hehe! Oh yeah, we got a 2002 Ranger 4x2, 4 doors, power windows + door locks + mirrors, receiver, bed liner, aftermarket driving lights, factory alarm with keyless entry (2 key fobs), a very nice aftermarket Clarion stereo with an amp, almost new tires, etc, and the truck only has 62K miles on it. In the back seat there was a bag that had a spare oil filter, a spare serpentine belt, spare wiper blades, spare tire valve stem caps, etc. I was pretty firm on my son not getting a black truck throughout all our shopping, but there was just too much going for this truck to let the color stand in the way. I’m still amazed at the performance, but I guess the 2008 Rangers will have a 3.5 Duratec engine with even more performance.

Thanks again for all your opinions and help