4.0 OHV Don't bash this engine!!
jguenther1973
base 4.0 OHV has had nothing good to say about the engine!!! I love my 4x4
XLS with this engine, it's a tough proven design. Thanks for letting me
vent!
John.
jguenther1973
Dean A. Irwin
newspapers, is to write about power or the lack thereof. None of them drives
a vehicle for an extended period of time (long-term tests don't count,
'cause they can't do that for every vehicle) so they can't write about
reliability. I used to have a '93 and it had more than enough power for what
I needed. If you want more power, there are many hi-po parts available.
Dean
Cloud Nine <gri...@perigee.net> wrote in message
news:8d6ul...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I have the 4.0 OHV in my 92 and it hasn't missed even one beat in it's
> 294,000 miles!
> Todd
>
>
> jguenther1973 wrote in message <#bIGZ8Vp$GA.198@cpmsnbbsa04>...
Cloud Nine
Jacob Suter
I test drove an '00 with the 4.0 OHV, and compared to my '92 it SUCKED. The
new 5 speed computer controlled transmission likes to upshift before you
even get near the peak power output. It also shifted a lot harder than my
A4LD ever did.
Needless to say, I still have my '92, and ford didn't get the $26k sticker
price on that '00. People say the SOHC is better, but after talking to guys
at the local ford dealer's service department, it'll either be 4.0 OHV, 5.0
OHV, or (maybe in '01) 4.6 SOHC for me.
Too many people have gotten milage out of the 4.0 OHV. If you want to find
something to complain about, discuss the transmissions and whoever came up
with that lame shifting instruction.
JS
"jguenther1973" <jguent...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:exluh6Vp$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa04...
Jason LaMar
If you want to buy a new Explorer now get the 5.0 not the 4.6 even by then
it might have slightly more power. In my opinion those new family of triton
engines are not as good as the old 351,302,etc in terms of durability, ease
of working on. I have heard complaints of high oil consumption with these
engines as well. For example when Car and Driver tested an Expedition with
the 5.4 for 40,000 miles, they had to add 6 quarts total between oil
changes. Just my humble opinion.
jason
Jacob Suter <jsu...@intrastar.net> wrote in message
news:2yJJ4.3361$eu.57939@insync...
Charlie Brown
<jasl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>If you want to buy a new Explorer now get the 5.0 not the 4.6 even by then
>it might have slightly more power. In my opinion those new family of triton
>engines are not as good as the old 351,302,etc in terms of durability, ease
>of working on. I have heard complaints of high oil consumption with these
>engines as well. For example when Car and Driver tested an Expedition with
>the 5.4 for 40,000 miles, they had to add 6 quarts total between oil
>changes. Just my humble opinion.
>jason
6 qts in 3000 miles?
That about twice the allowable oil useage; if they'd taken the Expy
back to the dealer, they'd have gotten a new engine.
BTW, I've heard reports of high oil use with just about *ALL* engines,
not just tritons, or even just Fords. We live in an imperfect world.
That's why there are warranties.
Charlie Brown
total between oil changes."
I guess that could be read as between *all* of the changes.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:08:10 -0700, Mr. Fun <gri...@primenet.com>
wrote:
>I suspect it was 6 quarts over the whole 40,000 miles. Sounds like
>quite acceptable oil consumption to me.
>
>
>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:24:58 GMT, cha...@juno.com (Charlie Brown)
>wrote:
mb...@swbell.net
Very good engine if you take care of it.
Ron
jguenther1973 wrote:
> Just about every editorial I have read on the 2000 Explorer XLS with the
> base 4.0 OHV has had nothing good to say about the engine!!! I love my 4x4
> XLS with this engine, it's a tough proven design. Thanks for letting me
> vent!
> John.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
C. E. White
>
> You are right as it started life in the 70"s as a 2.8, than 2.9 and now the 4.0.
> Very good engine if you take care of it.
>
Actually it started life in the 60's as a V-4 (1600cc), then a 2400cc
V-6, then a 2600cc V-6, 2800cc V-6, 2.8L V-6 (same thing of course),
2.9L V-6, 4.0L V-6, 4.0L SOHC V-6. The V-4's were only seen in this
country in a couple of applications, Saab's and industrial engines. The
engine was originally designed for use in a front wheel drive car to be
built in the US in the early 60's. Lee Iaccoa killed this project (the
Cardinal Program) and the design was transferred to Ford of Germany
(gave birth to the German Tanus (sp?)). I think the 4.0L is about as far
this design can go.
Regards,
Ed White
JPM
<cewh...@interpath.com> wrote:
>mb...@swbell.net wrote:
>>
>> You are right as it started life in the 70"s as a 2.8, than 2.9 and now the 4.0.
>> Very good engine if you take care of it.
>>
>
>Actually it started life in the 60's as a V-4 (1600cc), then a 2400cc
>V-6, then a 2600cc V-6, 2800cc V-6, 2.8L V-6 (same thing of course),
>2.9L V-6, 4.0L V-6, 4.0L SOHC V-6. The V-4's were only seen in this
>country in a couple of applications, Saab's and industrial engines. The
>engine was originally designed for use in a front wheel drive car to be
>built in the US in the early 60's. Lee Iaccoa killed this project (the
>Cardinal Program) and the design was transferred to Ford of Germany
>(gave birth to the German Tanus
Wow! Someone else out there has heard of the Taunus. I drove a '70
17M for three years when I was stationed in germany about 20 years
ago. Realy solid V-4. Car had about 90K (km) when I bought it. I
put another 80K km driving all over germany. 4-speed stick on the
column. Paid 400 bucks for it when I got there and got 300 for it 3
years later. Some memories.
Steve
Daniel Driscoll
from Coleman Barracks (Gelnhausen, FRG)! Four of us gave this older
german gentleman 16 cartoons of cigarettes for a red Tanus in '81. I
think it was a '70 or '71, I don't remember off-hand. But it had an
automatic tranny, not a manual, and none of us were named Steve. :-) It
did have the V-4 though, it was the first one I had ever seen. It ran
pretty well and we didn't do much to it except change the oil, tranny
fluid and filters. I think we tuned it up in the rec garage once. We
sold it to another GI in '83 for $500.
Dan Driscoll
1992 Sport
4.0L 4x4
David Cooley
mb...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> You are right as it started life in the 70"s as a 2.8, than 2.9 and now the 4.0.
> Very good engine if you take care of it.
>
It started life originally as a 2.6 before the 2.8 came to be.
it showed in the US as the 2.6 in the Capri, then the Mustang II came
along and it was used in there at 2.8L
I think the original 2.6 was based upon a V4
Jason LaMar
Actually the editors said that 6 qts "strikes us as it bit excessive." They
did use it to tow a 6000 pound load a couple times and might have driven it
hard over that course of time. But other trucks they test for these "long
term tests" don't use but half that amount at most under similar conditions.
They also tested a 97 Ford F150 4x4 with a 4.6 that used only 1 qt and a
Dodge Ram V10 that used 3qts. I have a 97 Mountaineer V8 that sees some
occasional hard driving and never uses a drop. But as Charlie Brown said we
live in an imperfect world that benefits from waranties.
jason
Mr. Fun <gri...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:rr3kfsshgc6htg0sn...@4ax.com...