How's ford 6cylinder 4.0l engine?

[jsbush]

How were the 6cylinder 4.0L engines which were found in the Ford Explorer in 96-97? Are they reliable, and can handel a lot of mileage? How are they on gas?




Thanks

 

[CraigRT]

Isn't that a Mazda motor? Not sure on that.
my cousin had one in his Explorer.. it wasn't bad by any means..

 

[DougK62]

It is the poo.

 

[upsciLLion]

I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

..the less strain on an engine the better it is for it... huh?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

135K doesn't count as "rock solid." oh wait, we're talking about american cars. yeah, that's rock solid.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

..the less strain on an engine the better it is for it... huh?

People keep talking about how Neon SRT-4s hopped up with tons of mods are ticking time bombs because of the extra stress put on the engine. If you don't do that, then it's easier on the engine.

Does that make sense?

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

..the less strain on an engine the better it is for it... huh?

People keep talking about how Neon SRT-4s hopped up with tons of mods are ticking time bombs because of the extra stress put on the engine. If you don't do that, then it's easier on the engine.

Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying now. I agree about the less strain the better in principle, but it is possible to build powerful motors that are rock-solid. The problems usually start when you modify the engine beyond what it was built to do.

 

[jsbush]

How fuel economy in your ranger?

 

[slag]

Well, that depends.

There were 2 4.0 liter engines in that year Explorer.

There is the 205ish hp 4.0 liter SOHC which was notorious for having timing chain problems. (required pulling the engine due to 2 chains, one on the front, one on the rear of the engine. Most of these were fixed under warranty, but for those out of the warranty period, you are SOL.

Then theres the venerable 4.0 ohv engine, makes much less hp, but is very very reliable and you can easily see 200k miles on these engines and they keep running. Idle generally isn't that great, but the engines themselves run very well.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

135K doesn't count as "rock solid." oh wait, we're talking about american cars. yeah, that's rock solid.

Gasoline is a little harder on engines than rice is.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: jsbush
How fuel economy in your ranger?

I get about 18 MPG. I'm running larger than stock tires though.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

i have a '97 explorer. The mileage sucks. Power is a bit lacking.

overall, it's a great vehicle. It has about 140k miles on it, and it still runs smoothly. Well, the spark plugs, filters and such has been replaced, but overall, there's nothing wrong with the engine so far. Just make sure to do regular oil changes and stuff i guess...

I get approx 16-18 city and 19-21 highway, if lucky.
The mileage is the only complaint I have on this car. I guess that's expected from a 4L V6 SUV that outputs around 150ish hp (someone look this up for me, i donno how much hp this sucker has hehe).

 

[OrganizedChaos]

as stated the SOHC engines can be a little flakey. the OHV engines are industructable with regular maintence and if you don't abuse it ( known for cracking a head if overheated)

 

[jsbush]

Thanks.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

..the less strain on an engine the better it is for it... huh?

People keep talking about how Neon SRT-4s hopped up with tons of mods are ticking time bombs because of the extra stress put on the engine. If you don't do that, then it's easier on the engine.

Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying now. I agree about the less strain the better in principle, but it is possible to build powerful motors that are rock-solid. The problems usually start when you modify the engine beyond what it was built to do.

I was told the SRT-4's stock block was built to handle an upwards of 650horses... If that's the case, there should be no problems below that, right?

 

[edfcmc]

it appears there might be other issues one should consider in addition to the engine. According to this attorney, explorers are notorious for rollovers. (Yeah I know....this guy could be considered an ambulance chaser)

Link about rollovers

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: aRCeNiTe

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: upsciLLion
I'm not sure about the later models, but the 4.0L V6 in my '92 Ranger is rock solid. I has about 135k miles on it, and runs clean and very reliably. It's not terribly powerful, but the less strain on an engine the better it is for it (or so I've been told).

..the less strain on an engine the better it is for it... huh?

People keep talking about how Neon SRT-4s hopped up with tons of mods are ticking time bombs because of the extra stress put on the engine. If you don't do that, then it's easier on the engine.

Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying now. I agree about the less strain the better in principle, but it is possible to build powerful motors that are rock-solid. The problems usually start when you modify the engine beyond what it was built to do.

I was told the SRT-4's stock block was built to handle an upwards of 650horses... If that's the case, there should be no problems below that, right?

Handle and handle reliably are two different things. I would like to know what mean time to failure of 650hp SRT-4 engine vs the stock engine is.

 

[bernse]

It's decent enough, but it anin't any Jeep 4.0L straight 6. *THAT* was an engine.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: slag
Well, that depends.

There were 2 4.0 liter engines in that year Explorer.

There is the 205ish hp 4.0 liter SOHC which was notorious for having timing chain problems. (required pulling the engine due to 2 chains, one on the front, one on the rear of the engine. Most of these were fixed under warranty, but for those out of the warranty period, you are SOL.

Then theres the venerable 4.0 ohv engine, makes much less hp, but is very very reliable and you can easily see 200k miles on these engines and they keep running. Idle generally isn't that great, but the engines themselves run very well.

We had an Explorer with that SOHC 6. Towed boats with it, ran it around for over 150,000 miles before it died when a motorhome couldn't be bothered to stop and ran right through the back of it.

Never had a lick of trouble with it and we never got any warranty notifications on the truck.

Was a great engine for us.

ZV

 

[NetWareHead]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
as stated the SOHC engines can be a little flakey. the OHV engines are industructable with regular maintence and if you don't abuse it ( known for cracking a head if overheated)

That happened to me. 2 blown head gaskets led to a slow anti-freeze leak till one day it overheated. When I got the head gaskets fixed, the mechanic pulled the heads and found both were cracked. The bill came out to be $1700.

 

[jsbush]

Originally posted by: edfcmc
it appears there might be other issues one should consider in addition to the engine. According to this attorney, explorers are notorious for rollovers. (Yeah I know....this guy could be considered an ambulance chaser)

Link about rollovers

Hmm.. Scary stuff.

Any recomendations for an SUV in the same price range and class as the explorer?

 

[johnjbruin]

We have a 98 - it has the 4.0L V6 that produces 160 hp. Never had any problems with the engine.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: jsbush

Originally posted by: edfcmc
it appears there might be other issues one should consider in addition to the engine. According to this attorney, explorers are notorious for rollovers. (Yeah I know....this guy could be considered an ambulance chaser)

Link about rollovers

Hmm.. Scary stuff.

Any recomendations for an SUV in the same price range and class as the explorer?

its been proven many times that the drivers have to over compensate several times in quick succesion to happen. people here a blowout and jerk the wheel then go off the road, jerk the wheel again to get back on the road and end up sideways and then roll. if a tire blows on an explorer it barely changes direction. however if you slam on the brakes it will pull to one side because only 3 wheels have traction. the problem isn't a high CoG its that people can't drive.