Ford Ranger 4.0 SOHC?

[spinfire]

We are considering purchasing a 2002 Ranger with the V6 4.0L SOHC, 4x4, 5-speed. Can anyone tell me about the quality and reliability of this power train? I've read a few things about timing chain rattle on the SOHC, how can I check for that? The vehicle in question was a lease vehicle according to car-fax, and has 83k miles.

 

[Jim_Beverlin]

I have a 4.0 SOHC in a 2001 Sport Trac that has 4wd and a 5 spd automatic with 154K on it. Outside of having the timing chain replaced under warranty the engine has been flawless. Not sure if 01 was the last year for the timing chain issue or not. If this is a leased vehicle you may be able to obtain the service records. I have timing chain rattle only ocassionally.........about once every 6 months. I run Amsoil SSO 0W-30 and I keep it in for 1 yr which equates to about 23K miles. I use Amsoil Ea oil filters but would recommend changing every 12K vs 1 year or 25k as recommended by Amsoil. On my last oil analysis report it was recommended that I change the filter which I did.

I would check the inside the oil filler cap to see there is any sludge build up. I had this happen on mine and it turned on the PCV valve was bad. My fault and changing the valve (not overly easy on the Spt Trac) and running a double treatment of Auto RX rectified the issue.

The 4.0 motor has been around since the 60's in various displacements and was an OHV motor until Ford chaned to SOHC design around 1997. Mine neither uses or leaks any oil or water (could not say the same about the 4.3 Vortecs in three S10 Blazers I once owned). Some people say this is a rough V6 but I disagree. Far smoother than a GM 4.3 Vortec or Chrysler's SOHC 3.7L. I know several owners who have gone over 250K with this motor.

Hope this helps.

 

[JustinH]

I have only heard about timing chain issues on older 4.0L sohc engines. My brother had a 2000 and a 2001 explorer and they both had death rattle timing chains.

Replacing the chain and tensioners involves pulling the motor, as one chain sits against the firewall, the other is in the front.

He sold the truck for cheap before the chain broke, and let someone else deal with it.

My buddy has a 2002 Ranger with the 4.0L, it is a 4x4 EDGE truck.

It is a nice truck, but it is a pig on gas. My 98 4.6L v8 f150 got VERY similar fuel mileage. I had 3.73 gears in my truck also.

I'd rather have the F150 than a ranger if the gas mileage is that close..

 

[01rangerxl]

The 4.0 is a good motor overall. In 2003 Ford came out with revised parts that were supposed to fix the rattle, but people have had mixed results.

Both the automatics and manuals were 5-speeds in 2002. I'm assuming you are talking about the manual trans. They are very reliable except for the slave cylinder, which is inside the transmission housing. If it goes, you have to drop the transmission to change out a $40 part. Many people opt to do the clutch at the same time.

The 5-speed automatics are great, but some develop a shift flare. It is caused by a leaking gasket in the valve body and isn't a huge deal to repair.

Personally, I have had three 5R44E, 4R55E, and M5OD (manual) transmission Ranger-based vehicles with a combined 349,000 miles (give or take a few hundred) and not a single transmission problem or repair ever. I have also never had any real engine problems aside from a DPFE sensor on my Explorer, though I've never owned a SOHC 4.0 (I had an OHV).

 

[Nayov]

I wouldn't get it. I had one and it was a complete disaster of a truck. The 4.0 is crude motor, sluggish, not especially smooth running (idle), had the death rattle at 7,500 miles only to come back at 11,000 miles, middling gas mileage and make sure you budget for a good supply of DPEF sensors (an EGR component).

The rest of the truck was equally bad but you just asked about the motor, so...

 

[stranger706]

Originally Posted By: spinfire
We are considering purchasing a 2002 Ranger with the V6 4.0L SOHC, 4x4, 5-speed. Can anyone tell me about the quality and reliability of this power train? I've read a few things about timing chain rattle on the SOHC, how can I check for that? The vehicle in question was a lease vehicle according to car-fax, and has 83k miles.


Overall they are great trucks. I had 2 Rangers and put 100,000 miles on each. First one was a 96 or 97 with the OHV 4.0 and the other was a 2000 4 cylinder. Both 5 speed manuals. Neither got very good gas mileage. I can't remember ever having to fix anything. Just tires and filters/fluids.

Now here is my disclaimer. Avoid the SOHC 4.0 during years 98-02. Unless you can verify the timing chain upgrade has been done, don't even bother with it. If you insist on getting a 4.0, get a 2003 or later. Those have the upgraded timing chain hardware.

 

[Nick R]

Can't say anything about the truck, but as far as the 4.0L goes, if you get one with the newer timing chain stuff, it is a good engine. Not especially super smooth, but it has decent power and torque. Good combo when connected to the 5 speed french-built auto tranny.

 

[alphasparky353]

Why is the fuel mileage so horrible in these trucks? Better mileage is to be had with most full size truck. [censored]?

 

[Nick R]

No problems with fuel economy with our 4.0L. Does 27/28mpg on the highway at 75mph, so it's not the fault of the engine.

 

[MNgopher]

What app Nick? I drove a rental Ford Mustang with this engine and got that kind of mileage. I also own a '97 Explorer that averages 17 mpg and is capable of 23 mpg on its best day on the freeway (not 75 mph though). My '03 work explorer also averages about 16 mpg, though that is mostly rural 2-lane driving.

The lousy mileage from these motors in the Ranger and explorer is well documented - it is nearly the same as the full size trucks.

That said, the Ranger is a good combo, and the 4.0 does fine in this application.

 

[JustinH]

I rented a newer ford mustang with the 4.0L and it did get close to 25-27mpg driving it up mountains from phoenix to flagstaff and everywhere in between.

The explorers were just pigs. 14mpg-19mpg at the very most.

My 4.6L F150 would get 15mpg every time..

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: alphasparky353
Why is the fuel mileage so horrible in these trucks? Better mileage is to be had with most full size truck. [censored]?


Small pickups with larger displacement V6s generally don't get good fuel economy. This is true for other smaller pickups with similarly sized engines.

The Ranger also has aerodynamics from 1993.

 

[Nick R]

Yeap that's the problem, the truck. The engine is not the problem here, so don't say that it is. The problem is the vehicle it is installed in.

 

[Trav]

I see you are right up the road from me I'm in Groton.The frames are a major issue in our neck of the woods,its not uncommon to see broken spring perches,weak rear bumpers where the frame is rotted,etc.The center portion of the frame from the rear of the cab to the rear wheel on the inside is the major rust point,its not uncommon for gas tank strap mountings on the frame to rot out.

Automatic transmission problems are also common on 4x4 models as well as drive shaft connector spline sticking.
These and the Tacoma are the worst trucks for underbody rust in our area,F150/Expeditions run a close second.GM trucks seem to have little if any issues on trucks of the same vintage.

 

[exranger06]

2002 engines were still susceptible to the timing chain issues. If it has the updated parts installed, it will be fine. I love my 4.0 SOHC. It has more power than you will ever need, and I find mine to be very smooth. They do suck down gas very quickly though. The best mileage I've ever gotten was 18 mpg, and I only managed to pull that off once. I usually get 17.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Yeap that's the problem, the truck. The engine is not the problem here, so don't say that it is. The problem is the vehicle it is installed in.


The engine is a contributing factor. 4.0 is a fairly large displacement for a V6, and the design certainly isn't new. The SOHC variant has been around since 1997, and Cologne V6s have been around since the late 1960s. There are far more efficient engines out there. Keep in mind, many Duratec Ranger owners report getting 30+ MPG on the highway, and even my all iron pushrod 3.0 gets almost the same fuel economy in city driving as a 4.0 will on the highway.

However, the Ranger's design is ancient and that does play a major role in fuel economy. It was almost certainly the most aerodynamic pickup you could get in 1993, but definitely not anymore. None of the changes Ford has made since then have improved fuel economy (larger mirrors, broader/taller grilles, larger tires), and the truck has gained weight due to safety features and other additions.

But anyone who thinks they will get awesome fuel economy with a 4.0 Frontier or 4.0 Tacoma is kidding themselves too. Big displacement engines kill the fuel economy of small trucks across the board. If fuel economy is the main concern, I4s are the way to go.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

hey spinfire my buddy has the same truck 07 year. He traded in his 94 4.0 OHV for it. A few things we both noticed is that the old 4.0 OHV had way more low end torque than the SOHC. The SOHC is a 5 speed and to get better economy he tends to lug the engine. Still complains there is no pull below 1500. I read on the net somewhere that this is due to Ford advancing (or retarding) the cam timing on the SOHC so that it would produce competitive horsepower numbers on paper, but that the rest of the engine was unsuitable for the higher RPM cam timing. A few guys supposedly use the special service tool to retime the SOHC for better torque and economy when they change the chains. Other than that, and the over extended lubrication system causing it to remain spec'ed for 5w30, it seems like a reasonable engine.