Does anyone think the 4.2 will have the lifespan the 300 had (and still has)? I think people love this motor (myself included) because of its rock solid durability (thanks to "dinosaur'' cast iron head/ block) and simple enough for the average guy to do normal maintenance (compare changing plugs in a 300 with the 5.4 fiasco) and enough room in the engine compartment to get in and do some repairs when needed without having to dig for the motor through the plumbing and endless electronics and sensors. Many owners like the feeling they can maintain their own vehicle when needed,and enjoy a bulletproof motor that will deliver years of service with just regular oil changes, filters, and an occasional 15 MINUTE (!) plug change. Just my opinion.
I have never argued the "peak" horse pwoer of the new engines What i have questioned is where it achieves 'peak' I don't have the specs off hand on the Fords, But I have seen some of the new truck engines that scream pretty dang high. I can''t help but wonder how long they'd last at "peak". The old 300-6 acheived peak power at around 2K I think the 350 (GM) where some where around 2.5K-3K If some one has the specs for Ford please post them.
Last edited by Old Rust Bucket : 01-03-2008 at 12:48 AM.
Does anyone think the 4.2 will have the lifespan the 300 had (and still has)?
The 300 was a very good engine, but it was also prone to head gasket leaks and to thrown rods if over-revved. It lasted forever if you took care of them and drove within their limitations --- most engines will.
Granted the 5.4 does have the plug problem... but the 300 required more frequent plug changes, was prone to vacuum leaks on carb'd models, had head gasket issues, etc. In other words, like all engines it had its weak points.
Does ease of spark plugs changes make an engine better? The majority of older engines from all companies had easy to change spark plugs and there were some real lemons in the bunch.
__________________
Ken Payne
Gone Fishing...
LACK OF PLANNING ON YOUR PART DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON MY PART.
2006 Roush F150 Project: Roush Supercharger, Troyer & My Tuning, 9lb pulley, Level 10 Trans, E-Fans, Oil Separator, Brandmotion GPS, BlueConnect Hands-Free Phone & iPod Direct Connect, Black Headlights & Taillights, Retrax Retractable Tonneau & more.
2004 F250 King Ranch Crewcab 4x4 6.0L PSD project: DP-Tuner Tuning and MBRP Stainless Dual Exhaust.
2000 Ranger Supercab XLT 3.0 V6 project: Bright Box, Mac Intake, Tonneau, my tuning.
RIP: 1967 & 1975 F100, looking for a 66 F100
I have never argued the "peak" horse pwoer of the new engines What i have questioned is where it achieves 'peak' I don't have the specs off hand on the Fords, But I have seen some of the new truck engines that scream pretty dang high. I can''t help but wonder how long they'd last at "peak". The old 300-6 acheived peak power at around 2K I think the 350 (GM) where some where around 2.5K-3K If some one has the specs for Ford please post them.
The 5.4 achieves 80% of its peak horsepower at 1000 RPM and then has a very wide and flat torque curve. I'm not sure where the V10 develops its torque by RPM, but it starts very low, especially compared to the older engines. It uses variable intake runners to achieve low end torque and then hold it for a very long time. You've heard them scream pretty high because they can... the older push rod engines couldn't scream reliably for long in stock form.
I believe you're fighting a losing battle if you're going to bring torque curves into this. One of Ford's bragging rights with these engines over the competition is they develop torque lower and hold it longer. I'll dig up dyno curves if need be.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
__________________
Ken Payne
Gone Fishing...
LACK OF PLANNING ON YOUR PART DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON MY PART.
2006 Roush F150 Project: Roush Supercharger, Troyer & My Tuning, 9lb pulley, Level 10 Trans, E-Fans, Oil Separator, Brandmotion GPS, BlueConnect Hands-Free Phone & iPod Direct Connect, Black Headlights & Taillights, Retrax Retractable Tonneau & more.
2004 F250 King Ranch Crewcab 4x4 6.0L PSD project: DP-Tuner Tuning and MBRP Stainless Dual Exhaust.
2000 Ranger Supercab XLT 3.0 V6 project: Bright Box, Mac Intake, Tonneau, my tuning.
RIP: 1967 & 1975 F100, looking for a 66 F100
The 300 was a very good engine, but it was also prone to head gasket leaks and to thrown rods if over-revved. It lasted forever if you took care of them and drove within their limitations --- most engines will.
Granted the 5.4 does have the plug problem... but the 300 required more frequent plug changes, was prone to vacuum leaks on carb'd models, had head gasket issues, etc. In other words, like all engines it had its weak points.
Does ease of spark plugs changes make an engine better? The majority of older engines from all companies had easy to change spark plugs and there were some real lemons in the bunch.
True, a 300 could throw a rod if overrevved, but only a fool would tach a 6 that high, and those that do deserve the consequences. You know what you have, and drive accordingly, knowing your engine's limitations. However, the 300 was stout enough to be worked sensibly, and never needed to be babied. True also, it lacked all the latest whiz bang technology, and if talking torque and hp numbers, on paper it indeed lags. But in real world application, it served its owners well, proven by the many who defend it. As for more frequent plug changes....how many could you do at $20 a set for the 300 versus the $700+ Ford dealers are getting for just ONE change of plugs in the 5.4? And the average guy had no qualms about getting his hands on the 300 and performing maintenance and minor repairs. The same can't be said of the new motors, as owners must clutch their wallets as they take it to a dealer, for they are far more complicated for Joe 6 pack's abilities.
Do you think the 300 would be any less complicated if it were in a modern Ford truck? No. It would have all the same electronics, so that point is moot.
__________________
Ken Payne
Gone Fishing...
LACK OF PLANNING ON YOUR PART DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON MY PART.
2006 Roush F150 Project: Roush Supercharger, Troyer & My Tuning, 9lb pulley, Level 10 Trans, E-Fans, Oil Separator, Brandmotion GPS, BlueConnect Hands-Free Phone & iPod Direct Connect, Black Headlights & Taillights, Retrax Retractable Tonneau & more.
2004 F250 King Ranch Crewcab 4x4 6.0L PSD project: DP-Tuner Tuning and MBRP Stainless Dual Exhaust.
2000 Ranger Supercab XLT 3.0 V6 project: Bright Box, Mac Intake, Tonneau, my tuning.
RIP: 1967 & 1975 F100, looking for a 66 F100
Do you think the 300 would be any less complicated if it were in a modern Ford truck? No. It would have all the same electronics, so that point is moot.
They have all went down hill. As much as I like the 300-6 and will forever speak the values of it. I think it is best that the 300-6 be dead and remembered for what it was rather then be kept alive with computer BS and be an alien in it's own castings.
Do you think the 300 would be any less complicated if it were in a modern Ford truck? No. It would have all the same electronics, so that point is moot.
You're probably right there, thanks to the EPA and the manufacturers' penchant for computerization and throttle by wire technology, effectively leaving maintenance in the hands of those skilled in such, and leaving the owner to stare at the technology and then close the hood and take it to a dealer. Just kills us old timers who for years maintained our trucks and enjoyed the satisfaction gleaned by doing repairs on a simple, not too complicated engine. But such is the price of progress, I guess.
From what I've seen and my personal experiences with trucks I've owned and the crown vics we use at work, the modular series engines are as reliable or more reliable than the 300 L6.
The 300 was/is a great motor, but could no longer be modified to be EPA compliant or powerful enough to compete.
Sadly, I believe that the modular motors face the same future, just because of the HP wars going on right now. Even though many of these motors, when used as designed and not abused, are into the 300k mile territory without a rebuild.
An all new motor from Ford had better be well thought out, over engineered (like the modulars) and very well tested. There is no room for error right now. Using existing modular design to build a block with wider bore spacing would probably be the best way to go.
Too bad the public is afraid of V10s. Mine is almost as economical as my 5.4 was in my 06 F150. I would dare say more efficient when you factor in power to weight.
A V10 of 5.8 liters, based of of a 4.6 would be an ideal, reliable F150 motor, but the public would not go for it. Ford wouldn't know how to market it properly, just look at how they handle the current V10.
An inline slant 5 of 3.4 liters, based of off the 6.8 V10, would also be an ideal base motor for the regular cab F150 or a Ranger.
Finally Ford, If any of the brass there watch these posts, offer the Torqshift in the F150, if only as an option. It is truely an outstanding piece, especially behind the gas mototrs in the Super Duty trucks.
There used to be a time when you could option a 1/2 ton truck with a large motor and stout C6 for pulling. I didn't need the payload capability as much as I needed pulling power and heavy duty reliability. The 4R75W is ok, but why not offer a better trans?
From what I've seen and my personal experiences with trucks I've owned and the crown vics we use at work, the modular series engines are as reliable or more reliable than the 300 L6.
The 300 was/is a great motor, but could no longer be modified to be EPA compliant or powerful enough to compete.
Sadly, I believe that the modular motors face the same future, just because of the HP wars going on right now. Even though many of these motors, when used as designed and not abused, are into the 300k mile territory without a rebuild.
An all new motor from Ford had better be well thought out, over engineered (like the modulars) and very well tested. There is no room for error right now. Using existing modular design to build a block with wider bore spacing would probably be the best way to go.
Too bad the public is afraid of V10s. Mine is almost as economical as my 5.4 was in my 06 F150. I would dare say more efficient when you factor in power to weight.
A V10 of 5.8 liters, based of of a 4.6 would be an ideal, reliable F150 motor, but the public would not go for it. Ford wouldn't know how to market it properly, just look at how they handle the current V10.
An inline slant 5 of 3.4 liters, based of off the 6.8 V10, would also be an ideal base motor for the regular cab F150 or a Ranger.
Finally Ford, If any of the brass there watch these posts, offer the Torqshift in the F150, if only as an option. It is truely an outstanding piece, especially behind the gas mototrs in the Super Duty trucks.
There used to be a time when you could option a 1/2 ton truck with a large motor and stout C6 for pulling. I didn't need the payload capability as much as I needed pulling power and heavy duty reliability. The 4R75W is ok, but why not offer a better trans?
Look,This is all pointless. Ken,Hug and love your V8's. You like them,thats great. Let us love our 300's and hope a new truck comes with them.You cant please everyone. Its that kind of thinking that got it killed. Who knows what a 300 is capabile of with technology and engineering. Would it have computers and electric crap on it? Probably. Hell my '89 does. So what? Everything is going to computers regardless of what it is. V8's arent everything there is.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
