4.3 Vortec vs 4.0 OHV vs. 4.0 SOHC - 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 12-20-2004
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
4.3 Vortec vs 4.0 OHV vs. 4.0 SOHC

which engine is the all around best? im talkin stock, which one would win say in a drag race with no mods. i've heard that the 4.3's rev slow, but i know a guy with a blazer with the 4.3 that's awfully close to pickin up with me on RPM's and mine rev's fast....

so which the the best?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-20-2004
gatorblue92's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Delaware
Posts: 8,238
well i have the 4.3 vortec in my blazer and if i was to race that and my 3.0 then i think the ranger would win... but the blazer does have 90,000 miles on it and its 10 years old so...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-20-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 3,115
I only have experiance with 4.0 OHV and 4.0 SOHC. Out of the 2 the 4.0L SOHC is the best IMO, because it has more power and revs better.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-20-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
I've always prefered the OHV 4.0L, I don't think the OHC 4.0L belongs in a truck.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-20-2004
WholesaleMN.com's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Blaine, Minnesota
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave and Julie
I've always prefered the OHV 4.0L, I don't think the OHC 4.0L belongs in a truck.

Very interesting quote... Why do you say that?

I personaly like the 4.0 SOHC motor. I drove the 4.3 when I bought my truck and I have a buddy with the 4.3. I would beleave that the 4.0 is the better of the 2 motors. The ranger has a better towing ability and it is a FORD :D I have to say I wasn't to happy with the 4.3 in the S-10. It wasn't are responsive as the 4.0 was. That lag time really bothered me. As at somepoint I may need the instant power that the 4.0 was able to put out, while the 4.3 was still wondering why I was asking for more power.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-20-2004
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
yeah, for a while now i've become a ford man....formally from bow-tie country
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-20-2004
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
I think Dave will argue that the SOHC design is not optimized for torque in the lower RPM range. The torque curve in the SOHC motor is more like that of a car designed to make it's torque at high RPM to get high HP and best race times.

Traditionally, a truck engines cam, valving, etc. were all set up for grunt low down, but the torque curve tended to get wimpy at higher RPM. That design is more suitable for trucks which do any pulling/hauling -- something I dare say most of us on here don't do with our trucks (though many do I know).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-20-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
My truck can't bust out of a soggy paper bag below 3000 rpm. It's almost comical how the torque curve just appears at 3000rpm. It just wakes up and goes. Below that it's dead and lifeless. It also has insufficient flywheel mass, it's stalls at the drop of a hat in tight situations off road with just the slightest mistake in your clutch work. The old OHV motor peaked at 2400rpm and pulled just fine below that. Of course on the highway it would wheeze above 4500rpm but I didn't buy my Ranger for highway cruising.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-20-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Huh.

I never drove the old 4.0, so it is impossible for me to compare and contrast. But I was moderately impressed at how much 'grunt' it has at lower RPM. The test for me is how easy it is to get going on level ground w/o touching the throtle. It's cake in my new truck. About as easy as the old truck was ('99 2.5L I4), but it's a 4x4 supercab and prolly weighs twice as much. Towing is cake too. More than enough for the light utility trailers and boats (<20') I've tried to yank around. I often find I have too MUCH power at my hands early in a gear. I drive most of my vehicles (even the bike) low in higher gears. W/ the truck I just can't keep the tires planted in anything except dry pavement. We just got a dusting - 2" of white stuff this morning and I had to use 4x to get up some of the side streets to work. Why? I couldn't keep the rear-end planted!

Where the truck seems to fall apart on me is racing up the highway on-ramp or out of the gate at the toll both. I would agree w/ the expression 'gutless' except for those few times when I do really wind it out. But then I didn't buy my truck to win such races..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-20-2004
ToughFord's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 254
well 2 years ago I bet a guy that my truck would do better on the dyno then an 2002 S10 with the 4.3L vortec he had 4x4 and a 3:73 gear to the best of my memory he dynoed at 151 HP and 173 TQ. Of course I beat him but not by a lot 165 HP and 211 TQ in my 02 4.0L SOHC 4x4 4:10 gear.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-21-2004
Level 2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Higginsville, MO
Posts: 51
I work at a car dealer and we had a traded in 2003 or 2004 S-10 supercab 4x2 with the 4.3 and an auto tranny. It had been wrecked and rebuilt and it only had about 6,000 miles on the clock. I drove it a couple times around town and once on a 40-50 mile trip and was fairly impressed with the power it had. I know that it had skinny 15" street tires on it but man that thing would squal the tires. I had it break loose on me many times at 20-25 mph if I stomped on it. I think it would probably outrun my 4x4 4.0 manual but I think it was mostly because of weight not power.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-21-2004
Swoop1156's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hanover, Maryland
Posts: 1,965
I honestly prefer my OHV 4.0 that I had in my Splash vs the SOHC in the Level II.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Big Bend, WI
Posts: 190
Well i have had 2 trucks with the 4.3 and one with a sohc 4.0. The 4.3 sucks. Well it is worse in my 4100 lb hog of a blazer. In my old Zr2 it is alright, but the sohc is by far the best. I have raced several 2wd ext cab s-10s with my old 4x4 ranger and never lost. That is why they got rid of the 4.3 they were not getting the power they wanted out of it. But i can't complane, Give it a year and i am trading it in on a avalanche.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-21-2004
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
i drove a 4.3 s10 with 4x2, shortbed, reg cab, auto, 26,000 miles and that was a dog compared to my 4.0, but i have never been impressed with any chevy ever. im kinda one sided tho.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 2,123
Actually I was disappointed with the 4.0 the first time I test drove one. I went from a Regular cab, manual/4.10's 3.0l to a supercab, auto/3.55's 4.0l. The low end "punch" just wasn't there. But true to what others have said above, after 3,000 RPM it's a whole new ballgame.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
I too was disapointed. But not due to poor performance, just due to not spectacular performance. I've driven predominantly I4's since I've learned to drive, this was my first real V6, and the first over 2.5L. So I expected to have problems keeping the wheels planted. I expected to zip up highway ramps and blow the doors of everyone at the toll both. None of that happened. In fact if you keep the revs down, it behaves a lot like my old '99 XL w/ the 2.5L I4. That shocked me! But then you also have to realize the new truck is a loaded super-cab 4x4 and the '99 was a stripped reg-cab 4x2. I suppose that explains some of it.

..And to be honest, I test drove FX4s in addition to the LII as I wasn't even interested in the LII at first. I'm sure it's pshycological, but the LII felt MUCH quicker and more responsive.. Tires? Nah, can't be. Suspension? Maybe. That big-*** chrome shifter and silver backed tach muttering 'lets see if this thing has a rev limiter' at me? Probably!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 3,115
When I first saw that the SOHC torque peaked at 3,000 RPM I thought that was alittle high. I don't know maybe its just me but I feel like it picks right up from a stop, I guess I need to see what it is like with a load.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
It's even worse with 33"s.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 2,664
i feel like somtimes my truck can hook up and haul ***.....then other times i'm having to pray that it'll get up and go....maybe it just has bad engine days...who knows...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave and Julie
It's even worse with 33"s.
Maybe that's a big part of why they only sell trucks w/ up to 31" tires..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
THey could put the SA Ranger's 4.56 gears in there and that would more than make up for 33"s. Of course the diesel would help too.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-21-2004
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
i am to gunn agree with dave&julie, the torque curve in the OHC is terrible. my moms 03 exploder sport has 3:73s and an auto and its a friggen turd until it sees 3-3500 then its a dam rocket. sarah (my gf) her ranger with 4:10s and an auto makes up for the lack of low en grunt mainly because hers is lighter and she has higher gears but its still a slouch on the low end. they OHC do like to rev and once u get them above 3K its easy going. i noticed pulling most hills her ranger would cruise at 2400 n change but only do 60 at best w/o whomping it. and my moms X, forgetaboutit, u gotta let it down shift to get any kind of speed going up decent grades.

my cuz has a early 90s X, 4 door auto unknown gear, and with the high milage its still peppy off the line but wheezes out after 4500 or so it seems.

my aunt has a 4.3 whoretech in her 99 blazer and its not to bad but its like to OHV, signs off well before 5K. also my bud had a 96 blazer with a 4.3V with 31s and it did pretty well but it struggled on the hills but it was beat to death.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-21-2004
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: outside Detroit, where it's safer
Posts: 874
I couldn't use 5th gear towing my XJ on flat land in Ohio. At 70mph I am turning about 2600rpm and there isn't enough torque there to do the job.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-22-2004
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
ya it is pretty shitty, im so used to my f-150 with a 300 that has insane torque off the line the ranger feels like a slug. plus wheelin im at a higher RPM then id like to be in hers...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-25-2004
Rangerboy03lvl2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Colorado, Lone Tree
Posts: 891
I think that the 4.0 SOHC stock to stock is better, the 4.3 sucks, it lags way to much, and the 4.0 ohv is just gutless...I have drivin all 3 and say that the 4.0 sohc is the best, i have even raced my friends, my friend with a 4.0 ohv, kicked his butt... stock to stock, and my ex gf had a blazer with a 4.3 in it, raced her, kicked her but too lol stock to stock.... go 4.0 sohc, and yes the sohc is kinda qutless with the torgue, but thats why u get a chip haha does wonders for it
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference between OHV and SOHC 4.0 BigRed911 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 12 03-11-2007 03:52 PM
SOHC heads on a OHV..... lifted97ranger 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 23 02-15-2007 09:58 PM
SOHC or OHV? bbwaverider 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 9 01-27-2007 10:34 PM
Swapping a 4.0 OHV to a SOHC MRC 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 15 06-21-2006 12:48 PM
200 4.0 is it a sohc or ohv Jacob_00 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 5 03-17-2006 09:43 AM


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 01:21 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.