doubters of TRITON POWER
#46
KEL:
The problem with your 383 is that there is no 'optimal gearing' for it in truck land. Sure in a drag car it would kick my 7.3s square in the nuts, but if you want to haul a load more efficiently than a diesel that makes it's power 2000 RPM less than you, you'd need a tranny with 3 or 4 overdrives and some real low diff gears. You just can't combine low end grunt and highway speed power when you're making your power at 4k, and there's no realistic way around that. Ever notice how 'RV' cams still make their power at low RPMs? That would be the reason.
The problem with your 383 is that there is no 'optimal gearing' for it in truck land. Sure in a drag car it would kick my 7.3s square in the nuts, but if you want to haul a load more efficiently than a diesel that makes it's power 2000 RPM less than you, you'd need a tranny with 3 or 4 overdrives and some real low diff gears. You just can't combine low end grunt and highway speed power when you're making your power at 4k, and there's no realistic way around that. Ever notice how 'RV' cams still make their power at low RPMs? That would be the reason.
#47
#50
Originally Posted by i eat hybrids
. So y wouldnt u bore out a v-10 and put bigger 5.4 pistons in them?
Also, boring an engine to increase displacement is an exercise in futility.
#52
Originally Posted by ghunt
Also, boring an engine to increase displacement is an exercise in futility.
Increasing bore in an engine is a great way to increase horsepower. Hot rodders have been overboring engines for 60+ years now. Prior to the mid 60's you could easily overbore an engine .125" without going too thin on the cylinder walls.
As an added benefit, boring the block also increases your compression ratio, all else being equal.
The "Big Three" perfected thin wall block casting in the 60's, which usually limits the practical overbore to around .060. Because of this, boring the engine isn't as popular as putting in a stroker crankshaft.
But (GETTING BACK ON SUBJECT) I thought the 5.4 and the 6.8 shared pistons and rods?
5400/8 = 675 CC per piston. 675 X 10 cylinders = 6750 CC, or very close to 6.8L.
#54
Originally Posted by dkf
I thought the 6.0l Chebby has more hp than the V10, I guess thats only in newer models.
Towing on level ground doesn't mean squat, at least to me. Hills are everywhere and when pulling you need a truck to handle them hills.
Your right the Chebbys 6spd doesn't load the motor as much and provides an edge. Also Chebby usually puts smaller tires on from factory than ford does, thus changing the final drive ratio.
I still put little faith in reviews done by magazines and other outfits that do vehicle testing.
Towing on level ground doesn't mean squat, at least to me. Hills are everywhere and when pulling you need a truck to handle them hills.
Your right the Chebbys 6spd doesn't load the motor as much and provides an edge. Also Chebby usually puts smaller tires on from factory than ford does, thus changing the final drive ratio.
I still put little faith in reviews done by magazines and other outfits that do vehicle testing.
But in the end who cares which has more power - I drive the one I like to drive and gets the job done. Mine is a 96 with the 460 e4od. Didn't have as much power as the 454 or the Dodge V10 in it's day - but it gets the job done and is still out there 11 years later gettin it done. That's what counts.
#55
Originally Posted by paulm
Mine is a 96 with the 460 e4od. Didn't have as much power as the 454 or the Dodge V10 in it's day - but it gets the job done and is still out there 11 years later gettin it done. That's what counts.
#56
Originally Posted by scottie2hottie
KEL:
The problem with your 383 is that there is no 'optimal gearing' for it in truck land. Sure in a drag car it would kick my 7.3s square in the nuts, but if you want to haul a load more efficiently than a diesel that makes it's power 2000 RPM less than you, you'd need a tranny with 3 or 4 overdrives and some real low diff gears. You just can't combine low end grunt and highway speed power when you're making your power at 4k, and there's no realistic way around that. Ever notice how 'RV' cams still make their power at low RPMs? That would be the reason.
The problem with your 383 is that there is no 'optimal gearing' for it in truck land. Sure in a drag car it would kick my 7.3s square in the nuts, but if you want to haul a load more efficiently than a diesel that makes it's power 2000 RPM less than you, you'd need a tranny with 3 or 4 overdrives and some real low diff gears. You just can't combine low end grunt and highway speed power when you're making your power at 4k, and there's no realistic way around that. Ever notice how 'RV' cams still make their power at low RPMs? That would be the reason.
Drifting off-topic a little... It is a 69 GMC longbed 4x4, with an Edlebrock carb, Thorley headers, a 6" lift, 35" All terrains, a D44 in front and a Corporate 14 in the rear, with 4.10's and an NP205 "rock crusher" transfer case. I thought I would sell it when I got the Super Duty, but I can't bring myself to do that. It is quick and very fun to drive, like a sports car compared to the SD
#57
Originally Posted by redford
Getting back to the original subject, did you know the 3V 5.4L V-8 makes more horsepower than the 1996 460?
However my '86 460, with the edelbrock manifold and the 800 double pumper felt like super truck. I could tow like an animal and scoot around way faster than my 5.0 Camaro. Numerically speaking I would like to see how these two compare. I DO KNOW that this 460 was more powerful with drive train taken into consderation than the 454 in the 1980's 3/4 ton suburbans.
That short cab dually ford with the locking 4.10 drug that 4x4 suburban across the black top when I pulled chains in my school parking lot. Wasn't easy to explain to security, but I got off on a noise violation
#58
I've got a 2006 F350 CC - 5.4L, 3.73 gears - that I plow with - 8.5' Western MVP. The plow weighs about 900 lbs, and I have about the same in ballast and junk in the bed (6.5' bed with a cap).
Truck doesn't stuggle at all with the snow. I plow in high gear. I only plowed in low once, which was when we had a foot of heavy wet Nor'easter snow and I ran the plow in the V position.
So...it works perfectly fine for plowing.
I've only towed once with it - borrowed a neighbor's 12,000lb trailer (very sturdy - all the bells and whistles on it) to carry a Dodge Caliber - probably less than 3,000lbs itself. The truck struggled a bit from a dead stop, but otherwise I had no problems towing it (about 60 miles on hilly country roads).
Truck doesn't stuggle at all with the snow. I plow in high gear. I only plowed in low once, which was when we had a foot of heavy wet Nor'easter snow and I ran the plow in the V position.
So...it works perfectly fine for plowing.
I've only towed once with it - borrowed a neighbor's 12,000lb trailer (very sturdy - all the bells and whistles on it) to carry a Dodge Caliber - probably less than 3,000lbs itself. The truck struggled a bit from a dead stop, but otherwise I had no problems towing it (about 60 miles on hilly country roads).
#59
Originally Posted by 5.4L to Freedom
How about torque? I know my 5.4 makes substansially more power than my old 7.3 IDI with ATS turbo system, and can out tow it any given day of the week.
However my '86 460, with the edelbrock manifold and the 800 double pumper felt like super truck. I could tow like an animal and scoot around way faster than my 5.0 Camaro. Numerically speaking I would like to see how these two compare. I DO KNOW that this 460 was more powerful with drive train taken into consderation than the 454 in the 1980's 3/4 ton suburbans.
However my '86 460, with the edelbrock manifold and the 800 double pumper felt like super truck. I could tow like an animal and scoot around way faster than my 5.0 Camaro. Numerically speaking I would like to see how these two compare. I DO KNOW that this 460 was more powerful with drive train taken into consderation than the 454 in the 1980's 3/4 ton suburbans.
But, you bring up an important distinction, horsepower versus torque.
Picture 2 men, lifting 50 pound sacks of feed onto a shelf. The ability to lift the 50 pound load is torque. One man lifts 2 sacks a minute, the other lifts 3 sacks a minute. The second man has more horsepower.
Another example, the fist man can lift 50 pounds, and do 2 a minute. A second man can lift only 25 pounds, but can do 4 a minute. The first man has more torque, but they both have equal horsepower.
Last edited by redford; 12-06-2007 at 08:17 AM.
#60
Originally Posted by 5.4L to Freedom
How about torque? I know my 5.4 makes substansially more power than my old 7.3 IDI with ATS turbo system, and can out tow it any given day of the week.
However my '86 460, with the edelbrock manifold and the 800 double pumper felt like super truck. I could tow like an animal and scoot around way faster than my 5.0 Camaro. Numerically speaking I would like to see how these two compare. I DO KNOW that this 460 was more powerful with drive train taken into consderation than the 454 in the 1980's 3/4 ton suburbans.
That short cab dually ford with the locking 4.10 drug that 4x4 suburban across the black top when I pulled chains in my school parking lot. Wasn't easy to explain to security, but I got off on a noise violation
However my '86 460, with the edelbrock manifold and the 800 double pumper felt like super truck. I could tow like an animal and scoot around way faster than my 5.0 Camaro. Numerically speaking I would like to see how these two compare. I DO KNOW that this 460 was more powerful with drive train taken into consderation than the 454 in the 1980's 3/4 ton suburbans.
That short cab dually ford with the locking 4.10 drug that 4x4 suburban across the black top when I pulled chains in my school parking lot. Wasn't easy to explain to security, but I got off on a noise violation