Is there a current vehicle that uses the '05 V-6 4.0?

HISS GT · Feb 14, 2004

I asked something like this a while ago, but will the new mustang use the same engine as the Explorer or any other current production vehicle or is the engine brand new?

Islander03GT · Feb 14, 2004

Its the engine thats in the Ranger right now

HISS GT · Feb 14, 2004

Thanks

351CJ · Feb 14, 2004

What about the Explorer?

(&) · Feb 14, 2004

Do they still make the Explorer Sport?? It would be in there.
And the Sport Trac I think.

HISS GT · Feb 14, 2004

I have an '04 Explorer XLT 4X2 and it has the 4.0 in it and the 5-speed auto ( which I hate, it seems to shift to much on the highway and the shifting to OD is soft) but it has 3.73's which offset the softness a little. It's rated at 210hp which goes to show how technology has come along since my '86 GT is rated at 200hp with two more cylinders. And it's knocking on the the door (stock hp rated) with the rest of the stock fox bodies and SN-95's up to '99. I know it not a contest due to power to weight and I not trying to start anything. I was wondering if there is a aftermarket for the 4.0 cause it looks like it might be in the '05 that can afford. And I could perhaps get mods before the car. Thanks for listening.

tjredgt2000 · Feb 15, 2004

HISS GT said:
I have an '04 Explorer XLT 4X2 and it has the 4.0 in it and the 5-speed auto ( which I hate, it seems to shift to much on the highway and the shifting to OD is soft) but it has 3.73's which offset the softness a little. It's rated at 210hp which goes to show how technology has come along since my '86 GT is rated at 200hp with two more cylinders. And it's knocking on the the door (stock hp rated) with the rest of the stock fox bodies and SN-95's up to '99. I know it not a contest due to power to weight and I not trying to start anything. I was wondering if there is a aftermarket for the 4.0 cause it looks like it might be in the '05 that can afford. And I could perhaps get mods before the car. Thanks for listening.

I have seen headers for the 4.0 in an Explorer.

Shpanker · Feb 17, 2004

JBA makes headers for the 4.0 SOHC, K&N is in on the FIPK (Ranger spec), quite a few aftermarket exhaust kits (again, Ranger spec), two companies are prepping supercharger kits for the 4.0 too.

You can get a feel for the 4.0 for the Ranger here - http://www.generation-edge.com/forums/index.asp

TR03Mach1 · Feb 17, 2004

Yup, it's the same engine that's in my 2002 Explorer Sport Trac. What I don't understand is how come it's rated at 210hp in the Explorer and only 202hp in the Mustang?

oogtdude · Feb 17, 2004

my buddy has a 04 ranger..its a dawg..has a lil pep but simular to my girls moms 03 escape

whtpny · Feb 17, 2004

My 03 ranger has the 4.0 and the 4.10 gear option. It also has the 5 speed auto and it really is not all that bad. Good torque from the bottom end but when you spank it it will move pretty good.

awalbert88 · Feb 18, 2004

It seems slow in the 4200lb Explorer and 4000lb Ranger because it has an extra 800+ to lug around compared with the V6 Mustang!

Stangin · Feb 20, 2004

Isn't the '05 four liter an overhead cam design with a 60 degree angle instead of a 90 degree? I think it would be more suited to the higher revving nature of a sports car than a Ranger.

Shpanker · Feb 20, 2004

Nope. It's the same engine that is in the Ranger/Explorer/Explorer Sport Trac. Only difference is the intake design. That's why there's an HP difference.

PlatinumDevil · Feb 20, 2004

My 91 3.4 V6 is putting out 210hp and originally put out 280hp before being downtuned, so no i dont think technology has improved. In fact i dont think technology has made any jumps since the invention of fuel injection.

Example? Ok, how about the current CTS Cadillac uses the same transmission as my 91 Z34 and the engine is based on mine.
not enough? Ok, how about cars are still using disk/drum brakes, haven't those been around since the 50's? (sure they're better.. not much)
not convinced? Ok, what do they use in NASCARs? Carbureators
in drag cars? simple supercharger/carbureator set ups
Reliability? Has my 300,000km 91 car seen the shop? no. has the 2001 Expedition seen the shop? this year, o at least 5 times.
Pushrods, cams, Lifters, valves, have those changed since the 50s? nope
If you want more proof, just compare some old cars to new ones.
im too tired/lazy to continue.

everythings gone towards emissions and fuel economy, which im sorry to say wasn't the hardest thing ever achieved by man kind.

The 1948 Jeep engine im rebuilding has 88hp@3200rpm(think 79-93 mustang) and 155ft/lbs@2000rpm. this is a 4 cylinder engine, made what, 60 years ago? its got well over 200,000 miles and its being rebuilt now, in 2004.

Since most/hopefully all of you are mustang owners im sure you think that V8's are the most powerful things on the planet. (dont get me wrong, there is nothing better in the world then the sound of a V8). But a V6 and even the evil 4 cylinder engine can easily put out just as much horsepower and nearly the same torque as a V8. Now of course a V8 is CAPABLE of more power for less money, but practicallity wise its much smarter to make a 240hp V6/4 cylinder, it would be most likely cheaper and lighter, not to mention the relief on insurance costs. Of course hardcore racers aren't going to want these engines for REAL racing, unless their favorite food is rice, and thats where the big simple V8's come in, lots of power for cheap.

My point?

The BRAND NEW mustang platform isn't new, its old crap in a new combo. Once again everyone on the planet is sucked into mass media bull'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me'.
I can't stand all the magazines/public talking about how advanced cars are, and how far they've come. First of all, all the car companies need to stop being chicken 'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me's and try to invent a new type of engine, that runs on something other then gas, its possible we just have to discover it. A small block ford engine is nearly identical to a small block chevy/dodge/american small block. Walking through the motormech shop of ~20 engines the only two engines that can be recognized after quick glance? 1948 jeep, and a 3 cylinder Suzuki.
Sure car companies are making money and it is a risk, but its a risk worth taking. First of all, if your company invents an engine that runs on air, the only people dumb enough not to buy it dont deserve it anyways and are probably brushing their teeth with sugar. the other companies would be forced to come out with air powered engines if they wanted to stay in business. All of society benefits, and that is the first REAL technological jump since the invention of the car.

Route666 · Feb 20, 2004

Since the invention of fuel injection, computers have become hundreds (almost thousands) of times faster, and smaller. Air-bags came into use in vehicles, machining tolerances, and build qualities have increased remarkably. Heck, a hydrogen fuel cell has been invented.

They seem like some pretty big leaps to me.

Halawa · Feb 20, 2004

Advancements

I agree, I think cars have made alot of progress through the years, even in the 90's alone. I think alof of progress was made in imports too, with technology like Vtech and VVTi. Also, look at cars like corvette with its magnetic suspension... and the 333hp non aspirated I6 in the bmw, if you ask me thats pretty sick

351CJ · Feb 21, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
. First of all, if your company invents an engine that runs on air, the only people dumb enough not to buy it dont deserve it anyways and are probably brushing their teeth with sugar. the other companies would be forced to come out with air powered engines if they wanted to stay in business. All of society benefits, and that is the first REAL technological jump since the invention of the car.

Why is such a smart guy like you sitting around on your a$$ ragging on the car companies?

How come you haven't invented and engine that runs on only air and put them all to shame?

shatner saves · Feb 21, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
My 91 3.4 V6 is putting out 210hp and originally put out 280hp before being downtuned, so no i dont think technology has improved. In fact i dont think technology has made any jumps since the invention of fuel injection.

Example? Ok, how about the current CTS Cadillac uses the same transmission as my 91 Z34 and the engine is based on mine.
not enough? Ok, how about cars are still using disk/drum brakes, haven't those been around since the 50's? (sure they're better.. not much)
not convinced? Ok, what do they use in NASCARs? Carbureators
in drag cars? simple supercharger/carbureator set ups
Reliability? Has my 300,000km 91 car seen the shop? no. has the 2001 Expedition seen the shop? this year, o at least 5 times.
Pushrods, cams, Lifters, valves, have those changed since the 50s? nope
If you want more proof, just compare some old cars to new ones.
im too tired/lazy to continue.

everythings gone towards emissions and fuel economy, which im sorry to say wasn't the hardest thing ever achieved by man kind.

The 1948 Jeep engine im rebuilding has 88hp@3200rpm(think 79-93 mustang) and 155ft/lbs@2000rpm. this is a 4 cylinder engine, made what, 60 years ago? its got well over 200,000 miles and its being rebuilt now, in 2004.

Since most/hopefully all of you are mustang owners im sure you think that V8's are the most powerful things on the planet. (dont get me wrong, there is nothing better in the world then the sound of a V8). But a V6 and even the evil 4 cylinder engine can easily put out just as much horsepower and nearly the same torque as a V8. Now of course a V8 is CAPABLE of more power for less money, but practicallity wise its much smarter to make a 240hp V6/4 cylinder, it would be most likely cheaper and lighter, not to mention the relief on insurance costs. Of course hardcore racers aren't going to want these engines for REAL racing, unless their favorite food is rice, and thats where the big simple V8's come in, lots of power for cheap.

My point?

The BRAND NEW mustang platform isn't new, its old crap in a new combo. Once again everyone on the planet is sucked into mass media bull'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me'.
I can't stand all the magazines/public talking about how advanced cars are, and how far they've come. First of all, all the car companies need to stop being chicken 'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me's and try to invent a new type of engine, that runs on something other then gas, its possible we just have to discover it. A small block ford engine is nearly identical to a small block chevy/dodge/american small block. Walking through the motormech shop of ~20 engines the only two engines that can be recognized after quick glance? 1948 jeep, and a 3 cylinder Suzuki.
Sure car companies are making money and it is a risk, but its a risk worth taking. First of all, if your company invents an engine that runs on air, the only people dumb enough not to buy it dont deserve it anyways and are probably brushing their teeth with sugar. the other companies would be forced to come out with air powered engines if they wanted to stay in business. All of society benefits, and that is the first REAL technological jump since the invention of the car.

NASCAR does not use carbs because they are better, they use them because fuel injection is illegal and rednecks like carbs. Carbs are still cheap and, more importantly, easier to regulate by the sanctioning body. The only way you'll ever see EFI in a cup car is if NASCAR comes up with a sealed, spec unit that the teams couldn't mess with, ala CART's pop-off valves. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Top fuel dragsters and Funny cars use fuel injection and have for decades. It might be mechanical, I don't know.

As for "Pushrods, cams, Lifters, valves, have those changed since the 50s" the answer is a resounding yes, they have gotten better and the exotic technology has gotten more common. Also, the 3 valve, narrow angle cylinder head is a fairly recent innovation.

It is very easy to get hung up on peak HP numbers. In the case of the type of driving most of us see, these numbers are quite meaningless. The V6 might not have the peak specific output of some smaller engines, but chances are it makes a lot more in the low end and midrange, where these engines are 99% of the time.

I have had the chance to drive a honda S2000 a few times. Great little car, over 100hp/litre. But the thing doesn't make enough torque below 6k RPM to pull the skin off a grape.

shatner saves · Feb 21, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
The 1948 Jeep engine im rebuilding has 88hp@3200rpm(think 79-93 mustang) and 155ft/lbs@2000rpm. this is a 4 cylinder engine, made what, 60 years ago? its got well over 200,000 miles and its being rebuilt now, in 2004.

... 200,000 miles? Big deal. You don't get much wear in an engine that has 7:1 compression and a redline of 4000 rpm.

and as for "79-93 mustangs", the '93 4 cyl made 105 hp (net), was rated at 30 mpg (hwy) and probably generated 1/10000th the airborne pollutants your 88 hp (gross) jeep does.

Is there a current vehicle that uses the '05 V-6 4.0?

HISS GT

Islander03GT

New Member

HISS GT

351CJ

New Member

(&)

HISS GT

tjredgt2000

Shpanker

New Member

TR03Mach1

Member

oogtdude

Banned

whtpny

New Member

awalbert88

Stangin

Shpanker

New Member

PlatinumDevil

Member

Route666

Active Member

Halawa

New Member

351CJ

New Member

shatner saves

New Member

shatner saves

New Member

Similar threads

Is there a current vehicle that uses the '05 V-6 4.0?

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Banned

New Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency