4.0L SOHC VS. 5.0L V8

[expo5.0]

also, the number quoted there was torque not hp

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by 98GT-40P
I tried so hard not to respond to this post, but I can't resist. The '98+ 5.0 is the epitome of Ford's small block refinement evolution -- 35+ years in the making.

My bone stock 5.0 puts down 270 ft-lb at the wheels, gets 22-23 mpg on the highway (avg 70-75mph), 19mph combined city/hwy -- AWD even, came with a

Actually you should be happier b/c your 5.0 puts out 288lb-ft. torque instead of 270

Morisey - our 2wd 5.0 Mounty gets 21-22mpg at 80-85mph and I've seen 23mpg before, don't know why the hell Ford rated it at 19 on the highway. In the city I get 15-16 and I drive it hard every day, just filled up and the trip computer said 15.9mpg and the receipts came out to like 15.6***. That includes a race with an Eclipse the other day and taking off from lights around 3000rpm or more.

 

[elemenopee]

Originally posted by Jason_25
The 4.0L OHV is not a piece of crap. It's a tried and true torque machine that is good for many many, miles of hard use. It's just that it's a dated design.

If you seriously want to do an engine swap, the 5.0 is the only way to go. Do not even consider the SOHC.

my 4.0 doesnt go higher than 80 without a HUGE strain on the truck.. it BARELY gets there and when it's there it wants to quit bad... i dont know whats wrong as this is a new engine, i think im going to have the o2 sensors replaced, hte spark plugs checked, cuz i just re did them but maybe something's wrong, and the M.A.S. replaced.. anything else i should look into?

 

[Jason_25]

Originally posted by elemenopee
my 4.0 doesnt go higher than 80 without a HUGE strain on the truck.. it BARELY gets there and when it's there it wants to quit bad... i dont know whats wrong as this is a new engine, i think im going to have the o2 sensors replaced, hte spark plugs checked, cuz i just re did them but maybe something's wrong, and the M.A.S. replaced.. anything else i should look into?

Well I made a tune-up list for the OHV a few months ago. Let me search for it and then I will PM it to you.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by elemenopee
my 4.0 doesnt go higher than 80 without a HUGE strain on the truck.. it BARELY gets there and when it's there it wants to quit bad... i dont know whats wrong as this is a new engine, i think im going to have the o2 sensors replaced, hte spark plugs checked, cuz i just re did them but maybe something's wrong, and the M.A.S. replaced.. anything else i should look into?

you definitley need something, my 94 will go 105-110 no prob, it no sports car, but it doesn't strain to get there.

 

[asp84]

On another Hand...... The 5.0 comes with a 4R70W. (wide ratio transmission) The 4R70W is used behind Ford's GT-40 concept cars, Mustangs, Expeditions, F-150's, etc, etc.

Ford made a lot of changes to the 4R70W in 1998 that improved the weakpoints too.

It's a lot better than the Ford pinto based transmission you find on SOHC/OHV V-6's.

I have owned both!!! My 5.0L V got better gas mileage too!!!! My 5.0 is DIE HARD. I have put that engine in a lot of tough situations.

Good Luck,
Al

 

[98GT-40P]

Originally posted by SaleenEXP
Actually you should be happier b/c your 5.0 puts out 288lb-ft. torque instead of 270

Actually, I'm happier than that! That was 270 to the wheels. Even a very conservative 10% drivetrain loss puts it at 300ft-lb to the flywheel. A more realistic 12-15% puts it at 307-318 ft/lb base.

By the way, my bone stock '90 GT 5.0 put down 272 ft-lb at the wheels and my bone stock '94 Cobra put down 269 ft-lb. All very close, as I had expected. Hp, was quite different of course (Cobra 221hp, GT 197hp, Mounty 188hp -- all at the wheels, SAE corrected).

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by 98GT-40P
Actually, I'm happier than that! That was 270 to the wheels. Even a very conservative 10% drivetrain loss puts it at 300ft-lb to the flywheel. A more realistic 12-15% puts it at 307-318 ft/lb base.

By the way, my bone stock '90 GT 5.0 put down 272 ft-lb at the wheels and my bone stock '94 Cobra put down 269 ft-lb. All very close, as I had expected. Hp, was quite different of course (Cobra 221hp, GT 197hp, Mounty 188hp -- all at the wheels, SAE corrected).

ahhhh,

I wonder why Ford didn't just go ahead and stick the Mustangs 5.0 in it scince trucks need torque and the Mustangs 5.0 has more hp and tq then Ex/Mounty 5.0's Ford should just have put the Cobra 5.0 in the Ex/Mounty considering it made even more hp and tq and our 5.0's use Cobra parts anyway.

 

[Black Magic]

I have had both the 5.0 in my F-150, 4.0 ohv in older Explorers, and the 4.0 SOHC in Black Magic. The 5.0 was a very good motor, strong and I worked the heack out of it! Beleve me, a 16 yr old that likes to fourwheel in a F-150 Flair side 4x4, 4 inch lift and 34" mud tires. That truck went through Hell! I have some great picutres somewere of some of the $hit I drove through. I will have to find them and post. Anyway, I say for me I am not into heavy Engine mods and the power is close enough from the SOHC to the 5.0. I could flip a coin.

 

[asp84]

In 1996 Ford used the same cyclinder head and lower and upperintake design as the the 93-95 CObra 5.0. In 1997 Ford Changed over to Gt-40P. The point is, the stock Ford Explorer engines have better parts than a stock 89-93 GT mustang 5.0

Al

 

[98GT-40P]

Originally posted by morrisey0
Mistake Post

And 23 MPG on the highway is a bit high for a stock 5.0 also.

Robb

I used to get 21mpg highway when running 10W-30 and had the old (recall) Firestones at 32psi. Two weeks ago, I drove from Phoenix to Puerto Penasco Mexico (beach!) with five passengers and a rear full of suitcases/food/20gallons of drinking water. Averaged 22mpg for the entire trip, doing mainly 75mph on flat land, a/c on (along with a little gas-wasting sand play down there and a few 90mph semi passes). It is running 5W-30 oil and the LT235/75/15 Michelins are at 48psi. yes, 48psi -- rolls very easy. I run them at the max 50psi when pulling the travel trailer and have had no problems.

Then there's the E load 10-ply tires we had on our old '85 Sububurban which I ran at 78psi (80psi max) when towing! It would coast forever. I went down to a D load 8-ply tire with a max of 60psi and fuel economy went from 15mph hwy to 13mpg. Then we went to a 8-ply 33" tire (no lift kit -- it fit) with a 50psi max and we averaged 11mpg.

 

[expo5.0]

first of all- the explorer 5.0s are the best 5.0s ford has ever made (unless you count the upcoming stroked 4.6 dohc motors)

second- Puerto Penasco is the ghettoist place on earth. congratulations for having the guts to drive your truck there! i know i never did/would

 

[Robert]

Originally posted by 98GT-40P
Actually, I'm happier than that! That was 270 to the wheels. Even a very conservative 10% drivetrain loss puts it at 300ft-lb to the flywheel. A more realistic 12-15% puts it at 307-318 ft/lb base.

Did you have it dynoed? I'm curious how your stock 5.0L Explorer puts out 270 ft/lbs to the rear wheels when the engine is only rated at 274-288 at the flywheel depending on year. If you got it dynoed, what is the name of the place and how much? I am looking to get mine dynoed. I know of a place in Mesa that my company used for some testing on some equipment we manufacture but their price was pretty high. At the time I was there, I wasn't interested in getting mine dynoed so I never discussed it with them.

 

[98GT-40P]

Originally posted by SaleenEXP
ahhhh,

I wonder why Ford didn't just go ahead and stick the Mustangs 5.0 in it scince trucks need torque and the Mustangs 5.0 has more hp and tq then Ex/Mounty 5.0's Ford should just have put the Cobra 5.0 in the Ex/Mounty considering it made even more hp and tq and our 5.0's use Cobra parts anyway.

I wouldn't trade out the GT-40P for the Mustang 5.0 or Cobra motor in this application. The torque in the explorer motor comes out at much lower rpms. Although the Cobra makes more hp, that won't be much help when you're pulling. On the other hand, if you're going for 1/4 mi times, it probably would help a couple tenths.

For a wild example, my '85 3/4T 4x4 medium-duty TH400 350ci Suburban was only rated at 165hp (but 395ft-lb of tq at 2300rpm). It had a 9600lb base tow rating with 12,000lb rating with the tow package upgrade (1ton rear, class V hitch, etc). A new maxima or honda s2000 hp rating is way beyond 165, but it will never ever ever achieve a 12,000lb tow. Even those 600hp-700hp aftermarket turbo'd Supras will not have the low tq needed to pull 12K. We pulled a 11,300lb 38' aft cabin cruiser up a sandy ramp once with it with all 4 wheels locked (locking Warns came factory up front) and spinning. Won't try that with the Mounty though Either 5.0 or 4.0 OHV or 4.0 OHC. OK, somebody with a F550 and powerstroke diesel can chime in now.

 

[Majisto]

Gosh where is the SOHC support... Seriously guys, the SOHC is NOT unreliable. I absolute love my SOHC. And I do NOT have the POS pinto based transmission. I have a 5R55E. I have one more gear than you 5.0 people

Besides, the SOHC makes about as much horsepower out of a much smaller design. Can't wait for the SOHC to really take off and be used in more cars. Then we'll see its full potential. Trust me when that sucker revs up, there's no mistake of that SOHC roar at 6K.

 

[Jason_25]

Majisto you don't have enough miles yet for it to break, just wait. Also, the 5R55E is still a derivative of the A4LD. And I don't think you'll ever see the SOHC used in other vehicles.

 

[Robert]

Jason, how many miles before it should break? I'm at 97,500 now and so far mine hasn't broke. I have had my tensioners replaced and my lower intake manifold o-rings replaced but I never considered my engine broken. I've seen V8s with ehaust manifold leaks but never considered the engine to be broken either. Maybe I just got lucky (real lucky considering how hard I drive it).

Yes, the 5R55E is a derivative of the A4LD however it has had many updates made since the A4LD was used. It has proven to be much more reliable. Maybe not as reliable as the 4R70W but I can only think of two 5R55E failures I have seen here in the last three years.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by Majisto
Gosh where is the SOHC support... Seriously guys, the SOHC is NOT unreliable. I absolute love my SOHC. And I do NOT have the POS pinto based transmission. I have a 5R55E. I have one more gear than you 5.0 people

Besides, the SOHC makes about as much horsepower out of a much smaller design. Can't wait for the SOHC to really take off and be used in more cars. Then we'll see its full potential. Trust me when that sucker revs up, there's no mistake of that SOHC roar at 6K.

The 4.0 sohc is only going to be staying with the Explorers. Ford was going to place a version of it in the Taurus and that large sedan they have comming out soon, but they decided to enlarge the 3.0 Duratec engine to 3.5 with more hp and tq.

They should place the 4.0 in the Escape/Tribute which are actually a little slower than an Exploer 5.0, that would give them some serious spunk. Hell, drop a 5.0 in the Escape, now that would be sweet.

sohc may sound good for a V6, but theres no mistaking a 5.0 or 4.6 Explorers roar

 

[expo5.0]

the 3.0 liter dohc engine in my brothers escape is great! it really pulls hard once you get up in the revs (at least as much as a sohc v6 from an explorer would in the lighter escape body) and it has enough grunt down low to tow the kinds of things people want to tow with a mini-ute. As someone who has some wheel time with that 3.0 and the sohc 4.0 my preference is pretty clearly the escape motor.

and as an aside, there is no way a stock explorer 5.0 can beat a stock 3.0 escape. its sad, but true! unless the race ended at 15 or 20 mph.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by expo5.0
the 3.0 liter dohc engine in my brothers escape is great! it really pulls hard once you get up in the revs (at least as much as a sohc v6 from an explorer would in the lighter escape body) and it has enough grunt down low to tow the kinds of things people want to tow with a mini-ute. As someone who has some wheel time with that 3.0 and the sohc 4.0 my preference is pretty clearly the escape motor.

and as an aside, there is no way a stock explorer 5.0 can beat a stock 3.0 escape. its sad, but true! unless the race ended at 15 or 20 mph.

I ran against my cousins awd Escape and take him every time, actually what I can't figure out is although it's the same engine in the Taurus, the Taurus is slooow, while the Escape is damn quick and a little heavier. They do pull hard but not like the 5.0, against a sohc 4.0 the escape would definitley win and on the highway it pulls better than my 5.0, I think I made it sound like they were slow, my bad cause their not. And they handle awsome - that thing is fun as hell to throw around - especially for an suv, I think the X5 is the only suv (sav?) thats a little more nimbler.

What gears do the Escapes have? Cause everytime I've driven a Taurus with the 3.0 engine its a dog compared to the Escape/Tribut.