SOHC or Push Rod

[juswalkin]

I'm getting ready to buy a 96 or 97 Explorer Sport and want to know if the SOHC 4.0 is the moter of choice or not

 

[03ExplorerSPT]

The SOHC has about 50 more HP and about 10 more lb.ft. torque. The OHV model is definitely a strong, although underpowered engine. The SOHC is strong also but make sure that the recall for the timing chain has been completed if you get one. I've had both engines and definitely prefer the power of the SOHC over the OHV but the OHV seems a little more solid than my SOHC I have now.

 

[BeauJ]

The SOHC is a lot quicker than the OHV. More HP too.

 

[aldive]

O would go with the SOHC.

 

[Brian_B]

I like the Power of the SOHC in mine. I am leery of all the chains in it though. My old 2.9 (similar to the 4.0 OHV) is still going strong after 183,000 miles of harsh treatment.

 

[jimbo74]

the sohc has more power, but also has more problems, i guess im just partial to the ohv, my explorer had it and my moms 96 has it also..... dads ranger has a 3.0l

 

[metstalker]

ohv all the way i have 230000 reasons why also plus the hp is not a problem if you do a couple minor things to the engine well about 600 dollars minor

 

[aldive]

Gas mileage is gar superior in the SOHC as well as more power too.

 

[CodePoet]

OHV...no doubt! Less hp but screw...the ohv is just such a solid engine

 

[Creager]

Gas mileage is gar superior in the SOHC as well as more power too.

hah id say they are pretty close...

im getting 23 mpg city and im dogging the hell out of my OHV; its got 200k on the clock with light performace mods. i could probably get 30 if i drove it right

the SOHC definatly has more power... shoot its got pretty much the same amount of power as the 5.0

 

[aldive]

im getting 23 mpg city and im dogging the hell out of my OHV; its got 200k on the clock with light performace mods. i could probably get 30 if i drove it right 0

Wow, thats impressive. I have never heard of an OHV getting that kub=nd of mileage in the city with aggressive driving. What do you get on the highwat?

 

[r37ribution]

If the motor has over 80K on it and is greater than 6 years old NEVER buy a SOHC 4.0L v6 unless your ready to put at least a grand into making the motor more reliable. There is a thread which discusses this issue in extreme depth and some even commented in the thread that they have never read one with as much insight into the the plastic timing parts in the SOHC motor.

The SOHC plastic timing parts will start to deteriorate around 80k-110k and if left unrepaired you would be better off dropping a newer version 2002+ (I believe) of the motor/ECU into it.

For information on whats involved in correcting Ford's monster mistake please read the following thread: http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129058&page=1&pp=20

As said earlier you can get decent performance out of the OHV motor and it is a tried and tested motor. I have 194K on mine and the only major engine work done was replacing the rods from some f***er ragging on the motor before me. I have had the 4R55E tranny rebuilt around 178k

Whichever one you pick the trannies still suck in both of them. So heres a scanario:
Sucky motor AND sucky trans OR
Reliable motor AND sucky trans

Your best bet would be to buy the 5.0L OHV with the 4R70W trans...GREAT combo ~ great motor AND great trans!

 

[juswalkin]

Thanks for all the input, sounds like I still have to make up my mind on the two. I now have a 84 B2 that just turned over 200,000 so the reliability of the push rod motor is understood, but the underpowered 2.8 is why I want to upgrade to the 4.0

 

[r37ribution]

I noticed u posted at like the exact same time as I did...so you might not have read my post.

I seriously think you should reconsider the OHV as oppsed to the SOHC unless you get a 2002+ motor for it (don't quote me on that year I'm not sure exactly when they made them reliable)

:edit: I wouldn't even sell the 4.0L SOHC to anyone I know since it has 105k on it the motor is going to die soon most likely

It seems the issues with the Ford recall only resolved HALF of the timing issues with the SOHC motor, Ford doesn't even offer a repair kit for the other problems. They only way to resolve the other issues with the motor is to pull the parts off a newer SOHC motor and replace your plastic pieces of the SOHC.

 

[Rhett]

I now have a 84 B2 that just turned over 200,000 so the reliability of the push rod motor is understood, but the underpowered 2.8 is why I want to upgrade to the 4.0

...if you're used to driving the 2.8L Bronco II, then you'll be fine with the power of an OHV 4.0. Put a few bolt on mods and a chip, and you'll turn 180-190 hp at the crank, which isn't too bad.

SOHC is a good engine, too. But if I was looking at a SOHC truck, I would make darn sure that they have had the timing chain tensioner recall done on them. Whereas with OHV 4.0's, if decently cared for, you generally don't have to worry about them until 200,000+ miles and then sometimes, but not always, the pushrods show wear on the tips.

 

[r37ribution]

...SOHC is a good engine, too. But if I was looking at a SOHC truck, I would make darn sure that they have had the timing chain tensioner recall done on them. Whereas with OHV 4.0's, if decently cared for, you generally don't have to worry about them until 200,000+ miles and then sometimes, but not always, the pushrods show wear on the tips.

not until later my friend...

...It seems the issues with the Ford recall only resolved HALF of the timing issues with the SOHC motor, Ford doesn't even offer a repair kit for the other problems. They only way to resolve the other issues with the motor is to pull the parts off a newer SOHC motor and replace your plastic pieces of the SOHC.

unless our findings were wrong in that thread...there are other parts affected by the poor engineering of the SOHC that aren't covered under the recall, they just take a little longer to break.

 

[monkeydude3]

I've got a 1994 with the 4.0L OHV and my dad has an aerostar with the same engine. I know the OHC has more horsepower and economy, but it does have it's share of problems. I've heard the timing chain issue, the intake issues, and they have been known in some cases to blow the connecting rods through the oil pan for no reason. I love the OHV, they use a lil more gas and have less horsepower, but they are more workhorses. They get beat on and come back for more. I haven't driven the OHC though, I'd like to just to know how it feels. take care all!

George

 

[Creager]

Wow, thats impressive. I have never heard of an OHV getting that kub=nd of mileage in the city with aggressive driving. What do you get on the highwat?

Honestly , probably a lot worse. with the 4.56 gears im at like 3100 rpm at 75mph

I havent tested it on the highway really good yet, but i imagin that its lower then my city. The only reason im getting good milage with stop and go traffic and surface road driving is because i dont have to go over 65 hahah. I guess the engine doesnt have to work as hard to get up to speed.

i went 230 miles before filling up. Filled up/topped off with 10.3 gallons.

 

[monkeydude3]

schmo! I have a super stock 1994 XL 4X2 with 5 speed manual and I get 13 mpg city, sometimes like 18/20 on the highway. Sucks but it runs like a champ.

George

 

[old mechanic]

Honestly , probably a lot worse. with the 4.56 gears im at like 3100 rpm at 75mph

I havent tested it on the highway really good yet, but i imagin that its lower then my city. The only reason im getting good milage with stop and go traffic and surface road driving is because i dont have to go over 65 hahah. I guess the engine doesnt have to work as hard to get up to speed.

i went 230 miles before filling up. Filled up/topped off with 10.3 gallons.

WOW! 22.33 MPGs with a 92 EX with no highway driving? Thats probably a record. Great mileage.