Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2004 - 2008 F150
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


2004 - 2008 F150 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Ford F150's with 5.4 V8, 4.6 V8 or 4.2 V6 engine
SPONSORED BY:
Click HereAdvertisement

Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #16  
Old 01-07-2003, 04:25 PM
Lectrocuted Lectrocuted is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 662
Lectrocuted is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

I hear ya fellas. My next truck will be powered by a 351W. But ya gotta give Ford marketing a nod. All the OHC and Triton bs sold a lot of trucks.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-07-2003, 05:14 PM
optikal illushun's Avatar
optikal illushun optikal illushun is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Coal Region
Posts: 3,537
optikal illushun is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Engine changes?

i absolutly love my inline and im prayin for drops the 4.2 in favor for a re-generation of the infamous 4.9L i wonder if we petetion will we get noticed?
__________________
93 F150 XLT 4x4
Modded 300/Built E4OD/D44 SAS/35"s
2006 F150 FX4
5.4/Auto/EXSB/Silver n DSG/Stock
1988 F350 Custom 4x4
7.3 IDI NA/ZF/35"s
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-07-2003, 10:07 PM
mile64 mile64 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1
mile64 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

WX,
could you possibly explain why pushrod engines were great at producing low-end torque? i was just curious, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-08-2003, 02:42 AM
FordDude4L FordDude4L is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33
FordDude4L is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

Correct me guys if im wrong. But, Push Rod engine provide better low end torque, because the cam shaft/push rod allowed the valves to stay open for a longer amount of time equaling more gas exchange, because of the delay (Cam to rod to rocker). More gas exchange (breathing) more torque. Because the valves stay open longer at a lower RPM the engine is able to produce high levels of torque due to the mass amount of air entering while the engine is actually reving lower.

Overhead cam engines, because the cam shaft sits directly above the rocker arms, the response is quick and more efficiant. The Cams and lifters actually make direct contact with rocker arms (the devices used to trigger the opening and closing of the valves), so they open for a shorter period of time, yet are more efficiant. However to gain the same amoung of air flow as in the pushrod engine, the engine must rev to greater revolution to keep the valves opening in a quick enough fasion where the airflow is equal to that of the rod engine.

-Again im not sure if I made an error here, or if im a little off base, please correct, but I think this is the reason.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-08-2003, 09:03 AM
texan_eagle_scout's Avatar
texan_eagle_scout texan_eagle_scout is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 109
texan_eagle_scout is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

Compared to the older trucks my family has had, my 5.4L wipes the floor with them. Power output, peak rpm, torque, economy, everything...

The I6 design is inherently smoother than a v8. They are naturally balanced. Yes they are great for torque, and if sufficienty motivated a manufacturer could produce another. GM's has good HP, but lousy torque (I still haven't figured out how they screwed that up).

It sounds to me, that if many of you had your way we would eventually be back driving a horse and buggy because "that's the way it should be done". The old pushrod engines may have produced more torque, but towing ability is more a function of drivetrain efficiency and gearing. Not engine output, but it helps. Many of the heaviest pulling 18-wheelers don't have the biggest, most powerful engines, they just have what works most efficiently in the configuration they need. Torque, transmission gearing, rear alxle gearing, tire traction all play into towing ability.
__________________
Texan_Eagle_Scout

2001 XLT Screw
5.4L V8
White Ext/Grey Int
No longer in Texas, and no longer driving my truck
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-08-2003, 09:11 AM
TallPaul's Avatar
TallPaul TallPaul is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Metro Detroit (Redford)
Posts: 5,857
TallPaul is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Engine changes?

I think Ford should bring back the flathead inline six from the 1940s. Now there was a rock solid engine. That thing was so good that it actually had more horsepower than the much-raved-about-at-the-time flathead V8. He, He, but I am serious. A flathead six with a modest supercharger to overcome the inherent flow difficulties of a flathead would be much simpler than a pushrod or OHC engine. I think it would work. Just think about that with fuel injection added to it. Hey, this is for a work truck. Let the pretty boys drive their hot rod F150s; I just want a traditional, rough and tumble, bare bones work truck.

INLINE SIX POWER! '95 F150 XL
300 Cubic Inches of Low RPM Truck Torque! And twin-I-beams too!
"Drive a stick young man! There'll be time for automatics when you're old and unable."
__________________

'01 Ranger, 2.3L, 5 speed, 83,000 miles. Redline MTL, Amsoil Signature 5w20, Wix Oil Filter, Dynomax Super Turbo muffler.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-08-2003, 10:27 AM
Tex Arcana Tex Arcana is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 33
Tex Arcana is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

>Correct me guys if im wrong. But, Push Rod engine provide
>better low end torque, because the cam shaft/push rod
>allowed the valves to stay open for a longer amount of time
>equaling more gas exchange, because of the delay (Cam to rod
>to rocker). More gas exchange (breathing) more torque.
>Because the valves stay open longer at a lower RPM the
>engine is able to produce high levels of torque due to the
>mass amount of air entering while the engine is actually
>reving lower.
>
>Overhead cam engines, because the cam shaft sits directly
>above the rocker arms, the response is quick and more
>efficiant. The Cams and lifters actually make direct
>contact with rocker arms (the devices used to trigger the
>opening and closing of the valves), so they open for a
>shorter period of time, yet are more efficiant. However to
>gain the same amoung of air flow as in the pushrod engine,
>the engine must rev to greater revolution to keep the valves
>opening in a quick enough fasion where the airflow is equal
>to that of the rod engine.
>
>-Again im not sure if I made an error here, or if im a
>little off bassed, please correct, but I think this is the
>reason.

Wrong on all counts. THe only reason the pushrods seem to produce more torque is because 1) they were an undersquare design, so they had longer strokes, which equates to more torque; 2) the pushrod setup actually makes for less overall airflow, because the time it takes for the valve to actually start opening is longer, and the same for closing, therefore not allowing as much airflow through the engine; 3) given the previous two points, more torque is created because the mixture burns more slowly, creating alot of force over a longer period of time. Hence more torque. Horsepower is sustained power over time (delivered torque over time, actually), or the ability to maintain a sustained power output, which means towing a trailer at 65 mph on a grade. Torque gives you pulling power, horsepower allows you to maintain a speed.

Now, overhead valve engines are more efficient overall because as you mention they can open the valves faster and hold them open longer. All things being equal, that equates to more airflow thru the cylinder versus the pushrod setup. And, yes, more airflow affects torque because the engine can already spin up faster becasue of the lower resistance from the intake/exhaust limitations, so it seems low end torque suffers.

Seems.

Truth is, you can tune any engine to produce power at any point on a powerband, overhead cam or overhead valve or flathead. Each has limitations, but I can bet you that I can design a OHC engine to respond exactly the same way as a dinosaur flathead. It's all in the piston design (oversquare vs. undersquare), induction design, and cam profiles and timing.

As for all of you who want the return of the I6, I agree, they're great engines for smoothness and power. However, it would still benefit from modern design, and can still put out the power and torque we all expect. The best I6 I ever owned was in my '79 Toyota Supra, 2.6L, single overhead cam, fuel-injected. This thing put out 140hp and 195 ft-lbs of torque, and would pull all day long from idle in damn near any gear. Hm, gee, OVERHEAD CAM producing lots of torque?? Not bad for #1 a ricer amd #2 a '79.


For the rest of you who want the pushrods to take over the world, I think you may be suffering from "good ol' days" syndrome, and I invite y'all to join the rest of us here in the new millenium.:-X23
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-08-2003, 10:34 AM
Tex Arcana Tex Arcana is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 33
Tex Arcana is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

While we're at it why don't we go back to wooden dentures?? Never mind the splinters...

Flatheads had their own problems, and this is why you never see them anymore, not even in lawnmowers.

Progress is: you can't stop it, may as well embrace it and help it out by giving positive feedback on issues.

Hell, I can't wait 'til they start building continuously-variable transmissions and putting them in trucks--this place will have a hissy-fit over them.


>I think Ford should bring back the flathead inline six from
>the 1940s. Now there was a rock solid engine. That thing
>was so good that it actually had more horsepower than the
>much-raved-about-at-the-time flathead V8. He, He, but I am
>serious. A flathead six with a modest supercharger to
>overcome the inherent flow difficulties of a flathead would
>be much simpler than a pushrod or OHC engine. I think it
>would work. Just think about that with fuel injection added
>to it. Hey, this is for a work truck. Let the pretty boys
>drive their hot rod F150s; I just want a traditional, rough
>and tumble, bare bones work truck.
>
>INLINE SIX POWER! '95 F150 XL
>300 Cubic Inches of Low RPM Truck Torque! And
>twin-I-beams too!
>"Drive a stick young man! There'll be time for
>automatics when you're old and unable.
"


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-08-2003, 10:34 AM
texan_eagle_scout's Avatar
texan_eagle_scout texan_eagle_scout is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 109
texan_eagle_scout is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

Wasn't the 5.4L a "stroked" 4.6L in the first place? Hence the greater torque output.
__________________
Texan_Eagle_Scout

2001 XLT Screw
5.4L V8
White Ext/Grey Int
No longer in Texas, and no longer driving my truck
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-08-2003, 10:36 AM
Tex Arcana Tex Arcana is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 33
Tex Arcana is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

Bored and stroked, but still and undersquare design, if I remember correctly

>Wasn't the 5.4L a "stroked" 4.6L in the first place? Hence
>the greater torque output.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-08-2003, 10:38 AM
TallPaul's Avatar
TallPaul TallPaul is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Metro Detroit (Redford)
Posts: 5,857
TallPaul is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Engine changes?

Good response Tex Arcana. You are right any camshaft/head configuration can be designed/tuned to do the same thing. My understanding is that the main advantage of overhead cam is in greater efficiency in high rpm operation since you don't have to run pushrods and rockers at high speed. OHC is not bad and Ford did it right on the new V8s with a chain drive. Wish they would chain drive the four bangers too. The old 70s Ford Courier pickup had a chain drive 4 banger (1800 and 2000 cc, but the 2300 was rubber band). In the 20s there was an overhead cam automobile with a shaft drive, which I think would be way better than the chain. But when they put OHC in an engine, they tend to use its advantage and go to a higher rpm band as evidenced by the new Ford V8s. Thats why I like my 300 I6--it is sort of like a tractor engine.
__________________

'01 Ranger, 2.3L, 5 speed, 83,000 miles. Redline MTL, Amsoil Signature 5w20, Wix Oil Filter, Dynomax Super Turbo muffler.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-08-2003, 11:01 AM
TallPaul's Avatar
TallPaul TallPaul is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Metro Detroit (Redford)
Posts: 5,857
TallPaul is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Engine changes?

>Hell, I can't wait 'til they start building
>continuously-variable transmissions and putting them in
>trucks--this place will have a hissy-fit over them.

I am trying to figure out why they would bother with a continuously variable transmission in the first place. Why not an electric transmission? Engine powers a generator. Wheel motors power the wheels. No gears needed, just hike the voltage. I think it would be very efficient--no drive shaft, no gears. Works in locomotives.
__________________

'01 Ranger, 2.3L, 5 speed, 83,000 miles. Redline MTL, Amsoil Signature 5w20, Wix Oil Filter, Dynomax Super Turbo muffler.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-08-2003, 01:19 PM
texan_eagle_scout's Avatar
texan_eagle_scout texan_eagle_scout is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 109
texan_eagle_scout is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?


This has already been done on an electric vehicle I saw one in a mag. The writer asked said they had 4 100hp motors, one at each wheel, effectively giving the vehicle 400hp. The problem with this that they are delicate critters, and a truck is exposed to too much moisture and grit for lone term use.
__________________
Texan_Eagle_Scout

2001 XLT Screw
5.4L V8
White Ext/Grey Int
No longer in Texas, and no longer driving my truck
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-08-2003, 01:22 PM
TallPaul's Avatar
TallPaul TallPaul is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Metro Detroit (Redford)
Posts: 5,857
TallPaul is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Engine changes?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-Jan-03 AT 01:23 PM (EST)]Also, would increase unsprung weight (which likely doesn't matter in a diesel locomotive as it runs on rails). Perhaps the motor could bolt to the rear frame with a link to the differential. The motor in back would add some weight. I think it needs to be explored further.
__________________

'01 Ranger, 2.3L, 5 speed, 83,000 miles. Redline MTL, Amsoil Signature 5w20, Wix Oil Filter, Dynomax Super Turbo muffler.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-08-2003, 02:20 PM
JetBlk994x4 JetBlk994x4 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oak Harbor UNITED STATES
Posts: 3
JetBlk994x4 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Engine changes?

I had heard a romor about the 6.0 Liter Power Stroke
in the 2004 F-150 ( I HOPE IT'S TRUE )
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2003, 02:20 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jacobs Energy Pack BURNSTOUGHFORD 1997 - 2003 F150 4 08-30-2010 05:26 PM
400 .60 over bored ford4.6man 335 Series- 5.8/351M, 6.6/400, 351 Cleveland 2 03-02-2010 01:36 PM
SVT Expedition silvercv2002 Lightning, Harley-Davidson F-150, Roush F-150 & Saleen F-150 9 05-01-2003 07:28 PM
79 courier pimpcourier 1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 10 10-31-2001 10:36 AM
F150 engine replacement on 97 nixieguy 1997 - 2003 F150 2 04-16-2001 02:43 AM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2004 - 2008 F150

Tags
engine, ford, truck

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup