Ford engine developements. Ford guys get in here.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Actually, your '91 Explorer had the old Cologne 4.0 OHV V6. It was rated at 160hp, and 220lb ft of torque. They made very good torque.
The 4.0 OHC did not come into being until 1996, in the Explorer. I believe it was 1997 or 8 in the Ranger. Early OHC 4.0's were known to have cam gear and follower problems (mainly noisy........... but occasional failure).
The old OHV 4.0 was a VERY tough engine, and would run forever.............. as long as you didn't overheat it (and warp the heads). I have heard of VERY, very few problems with them............ and have known alot of them that have well over 2-300K miles.
The 4.0 OHC did not come into being until 1996, in the Explorer. I believe it was 1997 or 8 in the Ranger. Early OHC 4.0's were known to have cam gear and follower problems (mainly noisy........... but occasional failure).
The old OHV 4.0 was a VERY tough engine, and would run forever.............. as long as you didn't overheat it (and warp the heads). I have heard of VERY, very few problems with them............ and have known alot of them that have well over 2-300K miles.
My 1995 Eddie Bauer has the SOHC 4.0 in it. Late '95 build date.
245k miles on iut as of last night when we went to dinner.
You know your chit!
Wanna go back to the German 2.8L that started it all? Debuted in the Ranger in 1983, Bronco IIs after that. It turned into a 2.9L in 1986 when they went to sequential port EFI (skipped the whole TBI-thing unlike they did with the 5.0 family). In 1991 they took the 2.9 block and did a bore/stroker job on it to deliver 4.0L in the "new" Explorer (that replaced the Bronco II) and in the Ranger. The stroker crank is why this thing makes gobs of Tq, but redlines so low. First good service found a 160* thermostat in all of mine - I recommend it on most truck/SUV applications actually, but that's just me.
OK - BACK TO THE THREAD TOPIC...
Hey Z284ever, if you go back a few months, you will find a thread that I started about new engines and weight programs for the upcoming Bullitt.
For the most part, i'm sticking with what was in that thread... save 1 or 2 details.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Also, do you see the 4.6 Mod, staying in the Mustang even after the Boss V8 comes online?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
)
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
I too have driven Mustang's 4.0 V6, & I have to disagree with a good part of your post.
First, as far as spinning the tires, we're talking about a base model with the standard V6 and an automatic. Expecting any base rental with an automatic to spin tire is like buying a bull and expecting it to give milk.
[
First, as far as spinning the tires, we're talking about a base model with the standard V6 and an automatic. Expecting any base rental with an automatic to spin tire is like buying a bull and expecting it to give milk.
[
Rental convertible or not---it should still spin the tires! Yes the t/c was off.
I have driven 4 cly autmatics that can lay a patch WITHOUT any brake torquing.
All I can say that Gm better have a better V6 Camaro--not that I'd buy one but still.....
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
I won't contest your experience - but I will say you had a dud.
Was it a rental by chance? Were there any miles on it? How did the tires look?
You were given a dud by someone.
All I can say is they really are not all like the one you had.
They are actually pretty good engines IMO.
Was it a rental by chance? Were there any miles on it? How did the tires look?
You were given a dud by someone.
All I can say is they really are not all like the one you had.
They are actually pretty good engines IMO.
But I really don't like self torture.
This speaks to the issue of how rental cars are treated.
And I beleive--that with few excpetions rental cars do not get driven that hard by most people. Sure there are some of us on here that bag 'em pretty good--but look at how the public in general drives. Like wimmps---I almost alwasy beat everyone else at a light---and I am not even trying to.
Add the fact that most tourists in rental cars--in a strage city do not race around too much. SO I really can't beleive that 10K miles made this engoine run totally contrary to what I am hearing about sounding good and being smooth.
Just for reference I rented a 2001 Z28 vert once---it ran smooth and sounded great.
On the trip we also rented a Magnum 3.5L--which we liked far better then the Mustang---it had a nice engnie too!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Remember, we have Shelby GT-H cars with 320 and Shelby GTs with 325 already. Ford has shown many times over that they are not going to make huge leaps in power arbitrarily. They'd rather creep up a little ata time. Another 30 over the current Shelby GT is "fitting", don't you think?
4.6 Will slowly phase out as the new series is phased in.
Yes, I see the 4.6 staying inMustang into the next sheetmetal package.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
SURE WE DO!!! Are we going to talk about the ones that are mounted sideways, or the ones that are mounted with the belts close to the grill?
And we need to discuss the oil-filler tubes too... which one makes it easiest to pour the oil in without a funnel?
You do recognize humor when you see it!
They were BOTH pretty d@mn good and they both had very long lifcycles across broad products. Is there REALLY a day/night difference?
Wouldn't you rather bash a ricer?
And we need to discuss the oil-filler tubes too... which one makes it easiest to pour the oil in without a funnel?
You do recognize humor when you see it!
They were BOTH pretty d@mn good and they both had very long lifcycles across broad products. Is there REALLY a day/night difference?
Wouldn't you rather bash a ricer?
Last edited by ProudPony; Feb 2, 2007 at 08:14 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,817
From: O-Town
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
OK, I'll bite. 
Ford's 3.8 Supercharged V6 came with an air to air intercooler, forged internals, and was capable of handling over 15... yes, I said 15... pounds of boost. Not bad for a engine with aluminum heads (in stock form the blower gave up to 12 pounds of boost.... far more than even the Lightning, the Cobra, or even the new GT500!.... oh.... and the 3800 supercharged engine.).
In 1989, the SC was rated at 210 horsepower, and 315 ft/lbs of torque. In 1994, there was a number of changes in the engine, which included a higher capacity blower. Because Ford wanted Mustangs to be quicker, this revised 3.8 supercharged engine had a larger diameter pulley to cut back on power, but the engine still made 230 horses and 330 ft/lbs of torque. Using the earlier pulley sends horsepower to 245 and torque to 345.
Buick's supercharged 3.8 V8 came in at 205 horsepower in '92-93, and went to 225 horses in '94. Supercharged 3.8 Buicks never matched the torque of Supercharged 3.8 Fords. Even years later, after development went on with the 3800SC, it still never outpowered the lighter Ford's 3.8.
280 ft/lbs of torque vs 330? What contest? If Ford hadn't been neglecting Mustang's performance in the 90s, the SC would have had 345.
Ford, hands down had the better 3.8 supercharged engine.
Now........
If you want to talk about that 3.8 turbocharged V6, then that's a different story. It was a pretty badass engine. But we wouldn't be comparing apples to apples, would we?
BTW: For the record, the superchargers used on both GM & Ford's 3.8 V8s were virturally identical units from the same company (Eaton) powering the same number of cylinders and identical engine displacement. If there was ever a perfect matchup of what both Ford and GM could come up with using the same ingredients, these 2 engines are it.
Ford's 3.8 Supercharged V6 came with an air to air intercooler, forged internals, and was capable of handling over 15... yes, I said 15... pounds of boost. Not bad for a engine with aluminum heads (in stock form the blower gave up to 12 pounds of boost.... far more than even the Lightning, the Cobra, or even the new GT500!.... oh.... and the 3800 supercharged engine.
).In 1989, the SC was rated at 210 horsepower, and 315 ft/lbs of torque. In 1994, there was a number of changes in the engine, which included a higher capacity blower. Because Ford wanted Mustangs to be quicker, this revised 3.8 supercharged engine had a larger diameter pulley to cut back on power, but the engine still made 230 horses and 330 ft/lbs of torque. Using the earlier pulley sends horsepower to 245 and torque to 345.
Buick's supercharged 3.8 V8 came in at 205 horsepower in '92-93, and went to 225 horses in '94. Supercharged 3.8 Buicks never matched the torque of Supercharged 3.8 Fords. Even years later, after development went on with the 3800SC, it still never outpowered the lighter Ford's 3.8.
280 ft/lbs of torque vs 330? What contest? If Ford hadn't been neglecting Mustang's performance in the 90s, the SC would have had 345.
Ford, hands down had the better 3.8 supercharged engine.
Now........
If you want to talk about that 3.8 turbocharged V6, then that's a different story. It was a pretty badass engine. But we wouldn't be comparing apples to apples, would we?
BTW: For the record, the superchargers used on both GM & Ford's 3.8 V8s were virturally identical units from the same company (Eaton) powering the same number of cylinders and identical engine displacement. If there was ever a perfect matchup of what both Ford and GM could come up with using the same ingredients, these 2 engines are it.
Last edited by guionM; Feb 3, 2007 at 06:08 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
OK, I'll bite.
Ford's 3.8 Supercharged V6 came with an air to air intercooler, forged internals, and was capable of handling over 15... yes, I said 15... pounds of boost. Not bad for a engine with aluminum heads (in stock form the blower gave up to 12 pounds of boost.... far more than even the Lightning, the Cobra, or even the new GT500!.... oh.... and the 3800 supercharged engine.).
In 1989, the SC was rated at 210 horsepower, and 315 ft/lbs of torque. In 1994, there was a number of changes in the engine, which included a higher capacity blower. Because Ford wanted Mustangs to be quicker, this revised 3.8 supercharged engine had a larger diameter pulley to cut back on power, but the engine still made 230 horses and 330 ft/lbs of torque. Using the earlier pulley sends horsepower to 245 and torque to 345.
Buick's supercharged 3.8 V8 came in at 205 horsepower in '92-93, and went to 225 horses in '94. Supercharged 3.8 Buicks never matched the torque of Supercharged 3.8 Fords. Even years later, after development went on with the 3800SC, it still never outpowered the lighter Ford's 3.8.
280 ft/lbs of torque vs 330? What contest? If Ford hadn't been neglecting Mustang's performance in the 90s, the SC would have had 345.
Ford, hands down had the better 3.8 supercharged engine.
Now........
If you want to talk about that 3.8 turbocharged V6, then that's a different story. It was a pretty badass engine. But we wouldn't be comparing apples to apples, would we?
BTW: For the record, the superchargers used on both GM & Ford's 3.8 V8s were virturally identical units from the same company (Eaton) powering the same number of cylinders and identical engine displacement. If there was ever a perfect matchup of what both Ford and GM could come up with using the same ingredients, these 2 engines are it.
Ford's 3.8 Supercharged V6 came with an air to air intercooler, forged internals, and was capable of handling over 15... yes, I said 15... pounds of boost. Not bad for a engine with aluminum heads (in stock form the blower gave up to 12 pounds of boost.... far more than even the Lightning, the Cobra, or even the new GT500!.... oh.... and the 3800 supercharged engine.
).In 1989, the SC was rated at 210 horsepower, and 315 ft/lbs of torque. In 1994, there was a number of changes in the engine, which included a higher capacity blower. Because Ford wanted Mustangs to be quicker, this revised 3.8 supercharged engine had a larger diameter pulley to cut back on power, but the engine still made 230 horses and 330 ft/lbs of torque. Using the earlier pulley sends horsepower to 245 and torque to 345.
Buick's supercharged 3.8 V8 came in at 205 horsepower in '92-93, and went to 225 horses in '94. Supercharged 3.8 Buicks never matched the torque of Supercharged 3.8 Fords. Even years later, after development went on with the 3800SC, it still never outpowered the lighter Ford's 3.8.
280 ft/lbs of torque vs 330? What contest? If Ford hadn't been neglecting Mustang's performance in the 90s, the SC would have had 345.
Ford, hands down had the better 3.8 supercharged engine.
Now........
If you want to talk about that 3.8 turbocharged V6, then that's a different story. It was a pretty badass engine. But we wouldn't be comparing apples to apples, would we?
BTW: For the record, the superchargers used on both GM & Ford's 3.8 V8s were virturally identical units from the same company (Eaton) powering the same number of cylinders and identical engine displacement. If there was ever a perfect matchup of what both Ford and GM could come up with using the same ingredients, these 2 engines are it.
your comparing apples to oranges aren't you?
FWD S/C 3.8 to RWD S/C 3.8. GM had to hold back on the FWD engine due to torque steer but mostly transmisson strength.
Nice write uip on the Ford 3.8 S/C though
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia