4.0 OHV vs 4.0I6HO
#1
02-23-2009
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
#3
02-23-2009
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
02-23-2009
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#5
02-25-2009
#6
02-25-2009
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Centennial CO
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
They're torque monsters and practically bulletproof.
#9
02-25-2009
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#12
02-25-2009
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#13
02-25-2009
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.
#16
02-25-2009
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.
4.6L
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.
4.6L
#17
02-25-2009
#19
03-02-2009
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.
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.
#20
03-02-2009
#21
03-02-2009
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kutztown, PA
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#22
03-03-2009
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
#23
03-03-2009
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.
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 06:52 AM.
#25
03-03-2009
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
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
