4.0 L OHV underpowered???

[DaHeinah]

Is the 4.0 L OHV underpowered? My first car was a Bronco II with the 2.9L engine. I was a little disappointed with the performance, but hey it sure was reliable . One car later, I have a '92 EB X and am very impressed with the power. I'm just curious because I see that alot of members are putting in 5.0L engines in their first gen X's- am I a granny??? Sure I never accelerate past 2200 RPMs on initial take off, but still it's pretty peppy. Basically, my question: Are people putting in 302's because of upgraded performance or because of lack of power in the 4.0L??
IS MY CAR WEAK??!??!?!?!?

 

[Alec]

The 4.0 OHV is a good motor, but any motor could always use more power

My brother and his wife had 2 early Xs with OHVs and they were always happy with the power. I however felt something was lacking with mine, and then just went nuts If you're happy with yours, more power to ya; just many of us think a 4000+ lb truck needs a little more balls.

 

[Hartman]

Power to weight ratio is too little. I feel mine is a bit sluggish.

 

[JGAMBLE]

the 4.0 ohv is a good motor, for what the X was built for factory. However most people on this board are going beyond what ford ever intended for the X to do. Like Alex says, I think anything over 4000lbs needs a V-8 personally. But if you like the 4.0, that's all that matters, it's reliable and gets decient mpg.

 

[DaHeinah]

I have to say that I am very jealous of you first gen v8'ers! I would agree that any car could use more power, I just have to ask: How is the first gen with a V8? Is it a real rocket or just rreeeeaaaaallllllyyyyy torquey? Either way, I bet it's bada$$!

 

[VairKing]

I think the OHV has enough power for what I use it for. I have towed large trailers, gotta love the low end torque. And I have beaten the ocasional Civic, so for what I use it for its great.

I wouldnt go so far as to say it gets decent mileage tho...mine doesnt anyway...14MPG...

 

[DonM]

I dont think mine has enough power! Im not sure if mine is normal, but it feels sluggish.

I drove a 88 Stock ThunderBird the other day, that think had much more pick up then my EX! WTF?

 

[Morgan97Ltd]

Originally posted by DaHeinah
I have to say that I am very jealous of you first gen v8'ers! I would agree that any car could use more power, I just have to ask: How is the first gen with a V8? Is it a real rocket or just rreeeeaaaaallllllyyyyy torquey? Either way, I bet it's bada$$!

speaking from a second gen i'd say really torquey, but i never know what i'm talking about anyway so nevermind

 

[Rhett]

DaHeinah I wonder what gears you have? If you're running 3.73 or 4.10 you'll have a peppier feeling OHV than some.

Mine has 3.27 and you can really tell it off the line. You can really tell the powerband is ideal at about 3000 rpm. After I get all my power mods worked out (TB and chip remain) then I will give serious consideration to a 4.10 re-gear.

 

[espnfreak]

Its an ok motor, the v8 and the sohc seem to have just that little edge over the motor that makes those a little more fun to drive. My next explorer will be a v8 for sure.

 

[Robert]

I didn't think that my '94 4.0L OHV in my much lighter 2WD Ranger had enough power so I modified it. As Alec said, any motor could use more balls. It all depends on whether or not you think it has enough power. You're the one that has to be happy with it.

 

[FourXFred]

I drove a 88 Stock ThunderBird the other day, that think had much more pick up then my EX! WTF?

thunderbirds are areodynamic sports cars, some of which are V-8's. explorers are as areodynamic as school buses, and only have .2 litre bigger motors that T-Birds. my 89 T-bird was a lot faster than my explorer, i think it goes with the territory.

 

[DonM]

Originally posted by FourXFred
thunderbirds are areodynamic sports cars, some of which are V-8's. explorers are as areodynamic as school buses, and only have .2 litre bigger motors that T-Birds. my 89 T-bird was a lot faster than my explorer, i think it goes with the territory.

Sports car? I dont agree with ya there.

But yes they are more areodynamic! The T-bird I drove hade a V-6. Which ran silky smooth, unlike my Explorer.

 

[Rhett]

My friend had a V6 T-bird of about that vintage. It was fast as hell and was stock. Comparing cars vs. Explorers as far as speed goes is sorta apples and oranges if you ask me. Because of the weight and aerodynamics, you have to put in major $$$ in an Explorer to make it faster than cars.

 

[JGAMBLE]

one thing I gotta say, I've never ridden in a "fast" stock V-6

 

[FourXFred]

Sports car? I dont agree with ya there.

true, true. but there way more of a sports car than an explorer is. the thunderbird was allways kind of a luxury/performance car. though in the 80's it lost most of those two design features, it still was a nice car.

 

[Robert]

Originally posted by Rhett Browning
My friend had a V6 T-bird of about that vintage. It was fast as hell and was stock. Comparing cars vs. Explorers as far as speed goes is sorta apples and oranges if you ask me. Because of the weight and aerodynamics, you have to put in major $$$ in an Explorer to make it faster than cars.

Or just get an Explorer with a SOHC or V8 My '95 4.6L V8 Thunderbird ran a best 1/4 time of 16.383 seconds at 84.93 MPH in Milan Michigan when it had about 20K miles on it. My '97 SOHC Explorer ran a best time (of two runs) of 16.374 at 83.04 MPH here in Phoenix when it had 50K miles on it.

 

[Rhett]

heh. Well what I meant was you would have to put major $$$ in an *OHV* Explorer to beat most cars.

 

[DonM]

Must be somthing wrong with my ex, cause I have the following mods... Apten Chip, Cat back, Intake kit. Soon to have a BBK TB.

Im not sure how much HorsePower an 88 V-6 T-bird has, but im sure it's less then what my Ex has!??

 

[DaHeinah]

Rhett, I'm running stock gears (is that 3.73???) I have 30 X 9.5's A/T tires, what would you guys recommend for better acceleration? Second question, how much does it cost to swap gearring?
Thanks
Greg