4.0 OHV vs 4.0I6HO - 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 02-23-2009
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
4.0 OHV vs 4.0I6HO

Ok, first off i know that the jeep 4.0I6HO is a TOTALLY different type of engine than our OHV..

but, i want to know what are the differences, other than the total obvious..

what would it take to make our OHV's like a "high output" build?

im pretty sure that the only differences between the HO and the Normal 4.0I6 are headers, but im not sure...

anyone know what the HP difference is from our 4.0ohv than the 4.0 HO..?

ive got a buddy that says that his 4.0HO jeep is way more vehicle than my 4.0 oHV, says that our OHV's are "b!tch" engines compared to his..

I can already tell that my wifes normal 4.0 in her jeep has no where near the power that my truck has..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-23-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
HO is just a name like today's hemi. It means nothing. If I remember correctly the last 4.0 "HO" engine made less TQ and HP than the SOHC 4.0. The Jeep 4.0 was a good motor but it had no *****.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-23-2009
redranger4.0's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
HO is just a name like today's hemi. It means nothing. If I remember correctly the last 4.0 "HO" engine made less TQ and HP than the SOHC 4.0. The Jeep 4.0 was a good motor but it had no *****.
The jeep 4.0L has *****. They make 190hp and 225 ft/lbs. Those motors have a lot of room for growth. alot of guys make 4.5 strokers out of them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-23-2009
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
yeah.. the HO stands for high output.,. i dont htink they would just put that on w/o changing something.. And my buddies HO has some freaking *****..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-25-2009
Roddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,332
Those are torquey engines.

Compared, its pretty close...

I would pit a 4.0 SOHC against one for a race or hooking chains... but i think it would take an OHV in both those events.....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-25-2009
thesoundmaster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Centennial CO
Posts: 5
I stoplight raced my buddy's 98 Cherokee with a 4.0L HO (blew his original motor from hydrolock) on 31's, me on my 33's and we were neck and neck till he hit his shift point and I was still pulling through 5600 RPM... at that point I jumped out in the lead

They're torque monsters and practically bulletproof.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-25-2009
Alex98's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 844
not in tug of war a jeep would win anyway lol, but the 4.0 V6 definately beats the I6 in a race. and im talking about the ohv
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-25-2009
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
technically a 4.0L OHV is a HO version of a 2.9L lol...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-25-2009
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckstone View Post
technically a 4.0L OHV is a HO version of a 2.9L lol...

eww dont say that lol...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-25-2009
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
thats the version before the 4.0L Colone motor lol... before that was the 2.8L lol...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-25-2009
Alex98's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 844
well im talking about the 4.0L Cologne not the 2.9L wow lol what a worthless engine
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-25-2009
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
hahaha
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-25-2009
pace51's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: on da puter
Posts: 711
Not sure about the whole ho deal or the newer mopar I6's. I had an '86 Jeep Comanche with the 4.0 I6 2wd 5spd. And I think it was way faster than my '04 ranger 4.0 was. Big difference here is with the jeep 45mph and 3rd gear was tops with our old 22' bayliner with the ranger I was easily able to run 65mph+ with the same boat and trailer. That jeep went thru hell and back so yhea I'd say the engine was indestructible, but I would take our 4.0's over jeeps 4.0.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-25-2009
SparkYZ's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Posts: 679
I thought the 4.0 SOHC were part of the Cologne family of motors?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-25-2009
Alex98's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 844
it is but there are two of them the ohv and the sohc
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-25-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
The 'HO' was added in '91 or '92 to the 4.0L I6 when they changed the intake manifold and the injection system along with throttle bodys, and added like 20hp or something like that. Those motors effin' PULL! Torque makin' engines they are indeed.

Here's some basics...

4.0L OHV Ranger and 4.0L I6 Jeep both use pushrods and a single camshaft to open the valves. 4.0L SOHC used a camshaft in each head to push the valves. Obviously, ones a 60* V6 and the other is an Inline6.

If i think of more i'll post.


OH...one day back in '05, i test drove 4 new trucks....all were 4.0L...all were manual transmission....all had 4.10 gearing....all had approx 31" rubber. The jeep felt the slowest because of the lower horsepower, but it had alot of grunt behind it down low in the RPM range. The torque was awesome. Nothing like the Ranger, Tacoma, Frontier that I drove that day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by redranger4.0 View Post
The jeep 4.0L has *****. They make 190hp and 225 ft/lbs. Those motors have a lot of room for growth. alot of guys make 4.5 strokers out of them.
4.6L
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-25-2009
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex98 View Post
well im talking about the 4.0L Cologne not the 2.9L wow lol what a worthless engine
so am i... a 4.0L ohv started life as a 2.8L then 2.9L then 4.0L
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-26-2009
Alex98's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 844
yes it did but luckily it turned into a decent 4.0
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-02-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
I personaly wish that "horsepower" was never conjured up. Its a term that has zero bearing on todays understanding of power. Yet we Americans hang onto it and try to justify one motor against another using a make believe and completely fictitous math equasion.

It only serves to confuse people. Santa clause is not real.. and neither is horsepower.


Take a look at torque curves between the two and you'll understand where each makes the meat of thier tq.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-02-2009
Alex98's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 844
not necessarily lol that is true for the most part but hp does have a meaning but its not just hp its the hp and torque throughtout the overall torque curve of the engine
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-02-2009
99MazdaB4000's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kutztown, PA
Posts: 1,980
Santa is effing real bro. So are the gnomes that live in your A/C vents in your dashboard.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-03-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex98 View Post
.....hp does have a meaning but its not just hp its the hp and torque throughtout the overall torque curve of the engine
Alex, that's the common mis-perception I'm talking about. HP is nothing more than a mathmatical calc to relate an engines TQ to the work a horse can do.


Engine TQ, torque convertor multiplication, tranny gear, rear end gear, tire diameter, and frictional losses are the *only* things putting power down to the ground. There is no "horsepower" involved. There is no such thing. Only engine TQ and things that multiply it.. or diminish it.


Regards,
Rich
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-03-2009
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
I personaly wish that "horsepower" was never conjured up. Its a term that has zero bearing on todays understanding of power. Yet we Americans hang onto it and try to justify one motor against another using a make believe and completely fictitous math equasion.

It only serves to confuse people. Santa clause is not real.. and neither is horsepower.


Take a look at torque curves between the two and you'll understand where each makes the meat of thier tq.

I guess Ford, and everybody else in the industry is WRONG!!!!

Rich, torque is a rotational force, power (HP) = WORK/TIME


Last edited by Takeda; 03-03-2009 at 07:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-03-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
OK bob.. what machine do you use to measure "horsepower"?

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-03-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Now for those of you without blinders on, here are some links to truth about "horsepower".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepo...2horsepower.22

"History of the term "horsepower"
The development of the steam engine provided a reason to equate the output of horses with the engines that could replace them. In 1702, Thomas Savery wrote in The Miner's Friend: "So that an engine which will raise as much water as two horses, working together at one time in such a work, can do, and for which there must be constantly kept ten or twelve horses for doing the same. Then I say, such an engine may be made large enough to do the work required in employing eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty horses to be constantly maintained and kept for doing such a work..." The term "horsepower" was coined later by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine."

Rich
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
4.3 Vortec vs 4.0 OHV vs. 4.0 SOHC TippnOver 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 71 01-18-2011 07:20 AM
4.0 OHV rocker spacers 98blownranger 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 7 04-20-2008 03:45 PM
Swapping a 4.0 OHV to a SOHC MRC 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 15 06-21-2006 12:48 PM
4.0 OHV camshaft synchronizer? MRC 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 8 01-02-2005 12:17 AM
hop ups for the ohv redranger4.0 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 23 08-03-2004 05:33 PM


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 03:21 AM.


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.