222 hp 4.0? - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 03-20-2009
Stryker's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 412
222 hp 4.0?

i was "researching" on cars.com and it says that in 2002, Ford made a 4.0L V6 with 222 hp from the factory... is this legit? if so where the heck can i get this engine???
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-20-2009
Danny818's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Santa Maria, CA
Posts: 288
My guess is no. I think they're rated at 207 hp.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-20-2009
Stryker's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 412
yea it said there was 2 4.0's one with 222 and one with 207.
but it was only in 2002
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-20-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
There was a SOHC 640 engine in Australian and Canadian LR3 and it made 216 hp and 269 ftlbs of torque but I don't know if it was similar to the SOHC 4.0 in Rangers.

I'm Rangers the 4.0 was always only rated at 207hp.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-20-2009
Stryker's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
There was a SOHC 640 engine in Australian and Canadian LR3 and it made 216 hp and 269 ftlbs of torque but I don't know if it was similar to the SOHC 4.0 in Rangers.

I'm Rangers the 4.0 was always only rated at 207hp.
oh. well heres the link if anyone wants to look:
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research....=183&year=2002
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-20-2009
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,831
The 4.0L in the 2002/2003 Ranger Thunderbolt, post-production modified by SLP, was advertised at 222HP. The only changes from the regular 207HP version were a dual outlet catback exhaust and a cone paper air filter in a fibreglass cold air box. The Thunderbolt was a Ford sanctioned conversion and could be bought new through Ford dealers with a factory warranty.

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/sto...underbolt.html

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/sto...rbolt2003.html
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-20-2009
dave11o11's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NE, OH
Posts: 109
ha interesting...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-21-2009
Stryker's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 412
[QUOTE=rwenzing;1258276]The 4.0L in the 2002/2003 Ranger Thunderbolt, post-production modified by SLP, was advertised at 222HP. The only changes from the regular 207HP version were a dual outlet catback exhaust and a cone paper air filter in a fibreglass cold air box. The Thunderbolt was a Ford sanctioned conversion and could be bought new through Ford dealers with a factory warranty.[QUOTE]

u the man.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-21-2009
Alon's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,555
I also believe the sohc in the explorer had different power ratings at some point
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-21-2009
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
The 4.0L in the 2002/2003 Ranger Thunderbolt, post-production modified by SLP, was advertised at 222HP. The only changes from the regular 207HP version were a dual outlet catback exhaust and a cone paper air filter in a fibreglass cold air box. The Thunderbolt was a Ford sanctioned conversion and could be bought new through Ford dealers with a factory warranty.

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/sto...underbolt.html

http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/sto...rbolt2003.html
you could easily get that power or more with a tune and similar mods. Probably more power no problem with no knock.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-21-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
you could easily get that power or more with a tune and similar mods. Probably more power no problem with no knock.
Yep. Between my tuning, K&N FIPK, and dual outlet magnaflow I'm making quite a bit more power.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-21-2009
Lord Of War's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Thornton, Colorado
Posts: 4,599
Great read.

This article proves to me that an exhaust and intake do make more power. All the people out there that state that the FIPK's and similar intakes along with exhaust dont help are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-21-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Of War View Post
Great read.

This article proves to me that an exhaust and intake do make more power. All the people out there that state that the FIPK's and similar intakes along with exhaust dont help are wrong.
IN the case of a 4.0L ranger this is true. But many people *assume* this to be true on all cars. In truth it just depends on how good the OEM intake and ehausts really are.

Yesterday I was seeing "248hp" on my scanguage. I didn't have it back when I was stock so I can't give a true apples to apples comparison.

My power improving mods as of yesterday were: 27deg timing vs 15 stock, 94 octane fuel, ASP underdrive pulley, e-fan, K&N fipk, after cat exhaust, and denso IT20 spark plugs. So..248hp - 207hp = 41hp improvement.
IMO that's not a deadly accurate comparison.. but I do think it's in the neighborhood of what I've actually gained from the mods.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-21-2009
Lord Of War's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Thornton, Colorado
Posts: 4,599
41hp is a pretty good gain. Like you said it might not be 100% accurate but it gives you a good guess on what you are dealing with.

Those numbers prove to me that the mods that we do to our trucks is worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-21-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
I agree. Anyone whos seen how small the stock exhaust piping is compaired to a nice 2.5" aftermarket one can make the same conclusion.

btw, a stock fx4 runs 16.4-16.5 in the 1/4. My best ever with the current mods has been a [email protected] I usually run 15.7s though.
Add 60hp worth of nitrous and I've gone [email protected]

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-21-2009
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
I've seen 265 HP on my scangauge so I don't really trust the HP gauge anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-21-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04blackedge View Post
I've seen 265 HP on my scangauge so I don't really trust the HP gauge anymore.
It got a bit heated in the other thread. But "horsepower" is only a math calc.
Personally I don't like to use the term. I prefer timeslips.

Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 03-22-2009 at 06:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-21-2009
mj550's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 601
I have always thought they were like 205, the sohc that is.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-21-2009
MemphisSenior's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Spring City, TN
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
I agree. Anyone whos seen how small the stock exhaust piping is compaired to a nice 2.5" aftermarket one can make the same conclusion.

Rich
I agree with everything you've said Rich. Just one thing. Let's not just leave it at "bigger is better."
We'll have guys running out and trying to fit 5" exhaust pipes on their Rangers. LOL

Here's an excellent site on exhaust "theory."

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Miscella...austtheory.htm
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-22-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemphisSenior View Post
I agree with everything you've said Rich. Just one thing. Let's not just leave it at "bigger is better."
We'll have guys running out and trying to fit 5" exhaust pipes on their Rangers.
**If** they keep the stock cats.. no worries on piping size down stream.

Now if a guy removed the cats.. then yes back pressure can become a factor. And it would be even more noticeable on a short stroke engine like these 4.0Ls. But.. in my *first hand experience* the loss is usually only seen below 1800rpms or so. Just depends on the stroke of the engine.

In a prefect world we have exhaust piping that grew in crossectional diameter by about 2% every 5" or so.

Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 03-22-2009 at 07:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-22-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Nick, from your link:

"An engine needs some backpressure to run properly!" Nonsense. A muffler can no more "make" horsepower than Wile E. Coyote can catch roadrunners. Any technician with any dyno experience will tell you that the best mufflers are no mufflers at all!"



This is not completely true. Now I'll give them this.. its a very subtle thing to address. And w/o knowing the science behind it.. as well as the wide range of power a engine needs to make.. people tend to swing to one side or the other. Just like the 5" exhaust example you kid about. Or *others* would think that OEM is the best. Well.. it really depends on what your goal is. Is your goal to add as much top end power as is possible? Is it mpg? Or is it what most of us want.. a nice grumble, some power increase, and keeping it legal?

Stock exhaust manifolds are perfect.. ***for the flow rates deemed as needed by the OEM*** They perfectly match the exhaust port. They grow in crossectional area. And they stand up to the heat better than anything else possibly could. (cast iron)

Now consider what I said. flow rates deemed as needed by the OEM They don't have the exact same goal as do most guys wanting to increase top end power. Thier goal is to make the engine last 150k miles, be as quiet as is possible, have good mpg, and make the best power where most people use it. (1300-2500rpms)

OK.. so people "know" that headers make more power. Well.. with any hi-po mod there are always trade offs as well as other things in the exhaust system that have to be accounted for. You gotta remember it's a *system*. If you change just one part.. it effects the rest. Maybe for good.. maybe not.
It all depends on what your trying to do.

For us lowly ranger guys.. an aftercat thats piping size is the same as the last cats pipe size.. is as good as it'll get for a simple "bolt on" solution.

Headers, high flow cats, no cats, materials, and pipe diameter really need to be tailored for the intended use.

My 4.0L ranger has a magnaflow after cat w/a single 2.5" mid pipe. IMO this is perfect for a daily driver and the 1/4 mile dragracing I do a couple times a year.

My lightning.. has 1.75" primaries, 3" collectors, no cats, an X-pipe to balance pressures, and dual 3" pipes to the tips. All to support the air flow from 800hp while dragracing. If this were intended to be a strictly street vehicle.. I'd have done 1.625 primaries, 2.5" collectors, high flow cats, X-pipe, and 2.5" pipes out.

Setting exhaust up for top end power.. and for daily street use are two different goals.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-22-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
It got a bit heated in the other thread. But "horsepower" is only a math calc.
Personally I don't like to use the term. I prefer timeslips.

Rich

Both torque and horsepower ARE BOTH calculations, and not accurate at all!!

Timeslips aren't accurate either due to the traction variable, the dyno (engine or chassis) would be the best.

Last edited by Takeda; 03-22-2009 at 07:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-22-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
In absolute facts.. that's true. You can't measure twist w/o a known length of lever. And a know gravatational pull at that distance away from the center of rotation.

However.. it's commonly accepted math that is tangible. I have a TQ wrench and use it often.



Horsepower however is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than say.. mule power. Or.. dog power... or maybe mouse power. It means nothing of substance to us here and now in 2009.
It simply is a math calc to make uneducated people understand the power an engine can provide vs something they could grasp. Like horses for the uneducated people people several hundred years ago.



Peace.. and let it go mr stalker.

Rich

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 03-22-2009 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-22-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
In absolute facts.. that's true. You can't measure twist w/o a known length of lever. And a know gravatational pull at that distance away from the center of rotation.

However.. it's a commonly accepted math. I have a TQ wrench and use it often.



Horsepower however is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than say.. mule power. Or.. dog power... or maybe mouse power. It means nothing of substance.
It simply is a math calc to make uneducated people understand the power an engine can provide vs something they could grasp. Like horses for the uneducated people people several hundred years ago.

Keep walking that mental cow path and you'll only wind up confusing yourself along with the mind numb one who might listen to you.

Peace.. and let it go mr stalker.

Rich

I was talking about the scangauge measurements...totally useless!!!

Did you blow the engine up in your Lightning? where did you come up with the 800HP (horsepower?) number? How about some photos!!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-22-2009
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Rich: I had an interesting experience I thought you would like to hear.

My best friends son is my age, and has a stock 3.0 escape with 90,000 miles. It died on him one day and they had it towed to my house. I scanned the computer and it said it had "5 bad coils" and I was like "no way, how can 5 coils go bad at once". Anyways I took the intake apart and placed checked the coils by hooking them all in the one known good spot, and they all fired just fine. (so I knew it must not be the coils, and something was wrong with the computer) - It turns out the computer did go bad, so we got a new computer, and had to let the dealer initialize and marry it to the gem module and cluster (since the dealer basically only has that software).

Turns out after this things ran fine. But in 2 days he came by saying it fell flat on its face again, and wouldn't go past 25 miles per hour. He drove it back to the dealer (I wasn't around) and it coded a 420 and 430 for bad cats. When I got the phone call that something went wrong again and heard it was a 420 and 430 I immediately thought that the cats were shot because it wasn't firing correctly since the computer had been fried. Turns out I was right, and the cats were completely collapsed inside causing it to have so much backpressure it wouldn't go past 25mph.

Now to the good part:
Dealer said "1800$ for new cats". I said "I'll try something different".
I took the y-pipe off of the front 2 cats, and let it swivel down. I used my cutting wheel to cut the cats open, and a screwdriver to knock the platinum brick out. I took off the rear cat and ran a 3 foot long screwdriver through, and blew it out with my air compressor. I made sure there were no loose pieces of brick inside, and that all of the brick had been removed before putting things back together and re-welding those front converters back up. Everything being reinstalled, I put 2 spark plug defoulers on each o2 bung, to fool the computer into thinking the converters were there, so it wouldn't throw any codes. (So he could pass emissions, it is an old Evo/STi trick)

I expected the thing to run funny, so we started her up and it sounded pretty much like stock would sound. No loud rumble, no loud rev noise. We went for a ride around the neighborhood and it drove fantastic. He told me "it never has ever run this good". This was really surprising to me as people around here say how Ford's with a stock tune and no converters don't run right. Granted I didn't measure anything on a dyno, but based off of the smiles on his face he really liked the way it ran. And when I drove it it seemed really happy having no converters, and I would never guess based on the performance that anything at all was wrong.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:47 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.