I have several discussions with Ford people when I was there. When I pressed them about horsepower I got big grins followed by remarks like "its going to be big surprise", "very improved", "folks will really like it", etc. No indication whatsoever that the amount would be minor. Additionally, and many folks on this site have a remarkable record for being right.
Considering those numbers are exactly the same as reported earlier by another source, it seems highly likely that folks are just copying one another. There's a lot of plagiarism in the publishing industry (I once had an ABC reporter take huge sections of my 2004 F150 review without permission -- I reported it to her boss and managed to get it pulled).
Ken,
if the R&D folks are the ones that told you that, most likely they hadn't run it by the bean counters. I can't even begin to count the instances when Ford's R&D pulled off some very cool stuff, and the bean counters shut it down...
the mustang mach III concept comes to mind mostly... 460hp mod motor - the 94 comes out with the same ol' 5.0 engine; then 2 years later we get the 215hp wonder that's competing for the slowest mustang made in the last 25 years... :P
I will be surprised if torque will be over 400 (or hp over 340ish).
We all know it's very doable with not much else but a tune and a few tweaks, but ford has a pretty bad track record so far...
__________________
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs
2004 mach1 mustang, every bolt on in the world...
if the R&D folks are the ones that told you that, most likely they hadn't run it by the bean counters. I can't even begin to count the instances when Ford's R&D pulled off some very cool stuff, and the bean counters shut it down...
the mustang mach III concept comes to mind mostly... 460hp mod motor - the 94 comes out with the same ol' 5.0 engine; then 2 years later we get the 215hp wonder that's competing for the slowest mustang made in the last 25 years... :P
I will be surprised if torque will be over 400 (or hp over 340ish).
We all know it's very doable with not much else but a tune and a few tweaks, but ford has a pretty bad track record so far...
Fosters, I see your a mustang guy too. Word has it the 10's will get a 5.0 mod with 400/360. Lets hope that comes true.
Do you think they can get 340/400 out of the 5.4? I have my doubts to be honest and if they could would it change the torque curve in a drastic way? Honestly, Im not expecting much out of them at this point.
Fosters, I see your a mustang guy too. Word has it the 10's will get a 5.0 mod with 400/360. Lets hope that comes true.
Do you think they can get 340/400 out of the 5.4? I have my doubts to be honest and if they could would it change the torque curve in a drastic way? Honestly, Im not expecting much out of them at this point.
the 2000 cobra R made 385/385 crank, albeit very underrated - 360-370 of each to the wheels was not uncommon. and the torque curve was very good, way better than the 4.6s in the f150; maybe not as good as the 2v/3v 5.4s, but very good nonetheless...
from what i see in stock form, the 3v heads are flowing almost as good as the 4v heads; so there's almost no reason the 3v 5.4 can't make 340/400, almost 10 years of development later...
Quote:
Originally Posted by efx4
With the 4.6 3v and the 5.4 getting the 6 speed tranny, that should improve aceleration and mpg.
knowing ford, that'll be good enough excuse to put 2.88 gears in them so they can list 1mpg more with the EPA...
__________________
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs
2004 mach1 mustang, every bolt on in the world...
the 2000 cobra R made 385/385 crank, albeit very underrated - 360-370 of each to the wheels was not uncommon. and the torque curve was very good, way better than the 4.6s in the f150; maybe not as good as the 2v/3v 5.4s, but very good nonetheless...
from what i see in stock form, the 3v heads are flowing almost as good as the 4v heads; so there's almost no reason the 3v 5.4 can't make 340/400, almost 10 years of development later...
knowing ford, that'll be good enough excuse to put 2.88 gears in them so they can list 1mpg more with the EPA...
Interesting. I never paid much attention to those cars because they were so far out of my price range. I do rmember them though. I agree with you on the 3v head flowing nearly as good as the 4. I have a mach 1 too by the way.
Why are the dyno numbers from the 5.4 in the f150 so poor? At least the ones I have seen anyway. What causes them to lose so much power by the time it reaches the rear wheels? Bigger rear ends?
LOL at your comment about the rear gears. I had an 80 oldsmobile onetime that I swear I think had 2.29 gears and a pavement stomping 105 horsepower 260 ci v8.
The Dodge Hemi 5.7 with a 5 speed auto gets mpg that is far less then most of us get w/ our 5.4's. The Chevy/GMC 5.3 is mostly a high revving motor w/ low torq, not a great towing motor, and mpg is good mainly due to the fact that their trucks are lighter than Ford trucks. The 5.4 is a modern take on the old high torq truck motor,power down low, but the long stroke of the piston keeps it from revving high. IMO, the4r75e transmission that comes w/ the 5.4 is the biggest power sucker in these trucks. A 6speed alone should make better use of stop ang go power, and overdrive should be high enough for better highway mpg's.
If any of you have ridden in a new expedition you can really feel the difference over the f150 in acceleration, because of the 6 speed. I think w/ the 6 speed a lighter truck and a little more power the 09 well move pretty good.
The Dodge Hemi 5.7 with a 5 speed auto gets mpg that is far less then most of us get w/ our 5.4's. The Chevy/GMC 5.3 is mostly a high revving motor w/ low torq, not a great towing motor, and mpg is good mainly due to the fact that their trucks are lighter than Ford trucks. The 5.4 is a modern take on the old high torq truck motor,power down low, but the long stroke of the piston keeps it from revving high. IMO, the4r75e transmission that comes w/ the 5.4 is the biggest power sucker in these trucks. A 6speed alone should make better use of stop ang go power, and overdrive should be high enough for better highway mpg's.
Very good post.
Has ford announced that they will have a more powerful 5.4 in 2009? If they did I can't imagine they would make an annoucement unless it was significant. 10 horsepower can be as much a numbers game as power increase. I expect it to be more than that.
Interesting. I never paid much attention to those cars because they were so far out of my price range. I do rmember them though. I agree with you on the 3v head flowing nearly as good as the 4. I have a mach 1 too by the way.
Why are the dyno numbers from the 5.4 in the f150 so poor? At least the ones I have seen anyway. What causes them to lose so much power by the time it reaches the rear wheels? Bigger rear ends?
LOL at your comment about the rear gears. I had an 80 oldsmobile onetime that I swear I think had 2.29 gears and a pavement stomping 105 horsepower 260 ci v8.
the f150 5.4 on the dyno has many things going against it. If a manual mustang loses 15% through drivetrain loss, and an auto loses 18-20ish, I can easily see something with a transfer case behind the tranny, heavier tranny internals/driveshaft/diff/axles and wheels especially lose somewhere around 27-30%. If Im not mistaking, our rear axle is full floating, meaning no c-clips, the axle being retained outside the axle. kinda like a mustang with c clip eliminators. I lost 12hp on the dyno putting on c clip eliminators and a spool; even though the spool is 15lbs lighter than a diff, the c clips are ridiculous for how much friction they add... i can't even push-start my car anymore.
AWD cars like subarus lose roughly 25% of their power to the wheels, and they don't even have the heavy components our trucks do. and then there's the factory tune, which has been proven to be very very conservative (dare i say retarded), which probably ends up robbing a few ponies by itself...
sadly, the tune affects the driving too, not just the dyno.
__________________
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs
2004 mach1 mustang, every bolt on in the world...
from what i see in stock form, the 3v heads are flowing almost as good as the 4v heads; so there's almost no reason the 3v 5.4 can't make 340/400, almost 10 years of development later...
The 3V heads are down by about 30 cfm on the intake and by about 50 cfm on the exhaust when compared to stock 03 Cobra heads. The 3V heads are down by about 70 cfm on the intake 100 cfm on the exhaust when compared to stock Ford GT or GT500 heads. The Australians, who get over 400 hosepower out of their hipo 5.4 4Vs, and 340 hp out of ther mild 5.4 4Vs, only get about 315 hp out of their 5.4 3Vs. The 3V head is pretty well suited to the 4.6, but the 4V head shows a sizeable advantage over the 3V when he 5.4s extra displacement is thrown into the equation.
I believe the 3V program was Ford's biggest mistake in years. That money should have been put into upgrading, expanding and improving the 4V platform, which has far more potential and no need for a deformed spark plug design. Perfect example of a bunt when they should have been swinging for the fences.
The Dodge Hemi 5.7 with a 5 speed auto gets mpg that is far less then most of us get w/ our 5.4's. The Chevy/GMC 5.3 is mostly a high revving motor w/ low torq, not a great towing motor, and mpg is good mainly due to the fact that their trucks are lighter than Ford trucks. The 5.4 is a modern take on the old high torq truck motor,power down low, but the long stroke of the piston keeps it from revving high. IMO, the4r75e transmission that comes w/ the 5.4 is the biggest power sucker in these trucks. A 6speed alone should make better use of stop ang go power, and overdrive should be high enough for better highway mpg's.
Yet in tests/reviews I've read, a 07+ 5.3L with 3.73s (never mind available 4.10s) outpulled a 5.4L w 3.73s. So do they lack tq, YES, do they still out tow us YES. Now I have friends who tow a lot with 5.3L and I know they are reving the snot outof that thing to tow at speed, but hey at least it moves when it screams... He's since gone to a new 6.0L and LOVES it. That vortec max will tow us around the block with one plug missing.
Last edited by Power Kid : 02-03-2008 at 11:49 AM.
The 3V heads are down by about 30 cfm on the intake and by about 50 cfm on the exhaust when compared to stock 03 Cobra heads. The Australians, who get over 400 hosepower out of their hipo 5.4 4Vs, and 340 hp out of ther mild 5.4 4Vs, only get about 315 hp out of their 5.4 3Vs. The 3V head is pretty well suited to the 4.6, but the 4V head shows a sizeable advantage over the 3V when he 5.4s extra displacement is thrown into the equation.
The 3V program was Ford's biggest mistake in years. That money should have been put into upgrading the 4V platform, which has far more potential and no need for a deformed spark plug design. Perfect example of a bunt when they should have been swinging for the fences. The fact that all of Ford Racing's racing endeavors use the 4V and not the 3V should be very telling.
the 3v head was never meant to compete with the 4v, but it is a huge improvement over the 2v, without the huge cost of the 4v head. the additional cams alone would be a 500 dollar increase...
I'll agree to a degree that the 3v doesn't stand up to the 4v when huge flow numbers are in play - aka a sports car application where bigger cams are gonna be used. however, this is a truck, and the need for low end torque will mean long intake runners and small cams; for that, the 3v is pretty damn good. Why didn't the 4v 5.4 in the navigator make as much hp as the cobra R then; and why is it it made the same exact numbers as the 3v heads?
also, when it comes to porting/polishing/valve jobs, i agree, the 4v heads win hands down. the 3v heads have little to no room for improvement (larger valves, etc). And as for the long intake runners used on a truck vs shorter intake runners used on a car along with cam differences, don't get me started. Ford chokes the hell out of the car motors with 13" long intake runners and puny .389 lift cams...
__________________
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs
2004 mach1 mustang, every bolt on in the world...
the 3v head was never meant to compete with the 4v, but it is a huge improvement over the 2v, without the huge cost of the 4v head. the additional cams alone would be a 500 dollar increase
I'll agree to a degree that the 3v doesn't stand up to the 4v when huge flow numbers are in play - aka a sports car application where bigger cams are gonna be used. however, this is a truck, and the need for low end torque will mean long intake runners and small cams; for that, the 3v is pretty damn good. Why didn't the 4v 5.4 in the navigator make as much hp as the cobra R then; and why is it it made the same exact numbers as the 3v heads?
also, when it comes to porting/polishing/valve jobs, i agree, the 4v heads win hands down. the 3v heads have little to no room for improvement (larger valves, etc). And as for the long intake runners used on a truck vs shorter intake runners used on a car along with cam differences, don't get me started.
Being a huge improvement over the 2V head is no great feat. The 2V has a pathetic I/E ratio, not to mention pathetic (~170 cfm) flow on the intake side.
Adding 8 valves and 2 cams costs Ford nowhere near 500 dollars, Ford doesn't even charge anywhere near that much for oem replacement parts. It's economies of scale, increase 4V production across the F-Series line and their prices will come down. DOHC 4V V8s made good business sense for Nissan and Toyota, and look at how potent both of those engines are.
The reason the Navigator didn't make as much power as the Cobra R? Heads, cams and intake. Out of all of the tumble port 4V heads the Navigators are by far the worst, they also had tiny cam duration and a pretty sad intake manifold design. If Ford would have taken the 2000 Cobra R powerplant, retained the 9.6:1 compression, fitted it with less aggressive cams more comparable to the 99 Cobras, and a intake manifold comparable to the 5.4 3Vs, not to mention twin independent VCT, which only the DOHC design allows, it would have blown 300 hp out of the water. That engine probably would have made 360+ HP and more low rpm torque than the 3V could ever dream of. We could have had that in 2004, that's precisely why I say the 3V program was a major Ford misstep.
Quote:
Ford chokes the hell out of the car motors with 13" long intake runners and puny .389 lift cams...
13" long intake runners promote excellent mid-range torque, depending on H/C they will allow a torque peak to occur at roughly 5,000 rpm and will allow peak power to occur up to 6,300 - 6,400 rpm. A horepower peak at 6300-6400 rpm is going to require nearly 7000 rpm shift points, not exactly that bad of a deal, IMO. .390" lift cams are only seen on the 4V engines because the heads have such excellent low lift flow numbers, stock 4V heads see flow begin to stall out around .450" lift, and the 4V numbers are really much stronger at and below .200" lift when compared to 2V/3V than peak numbers would indicate, the 4V average flow is AWESOME compared to the 2V and 3V. 2V PI cams have over .500" lift and stock 3V cams have nearly .500" themselves. That's a reason why the 4V valvetrains are generally more stable than the others.
I will be at the Chicago Auto show this weekend as well as the Chicago motorcycle show... its going to be amazing..
__________________
99' F-150 Super Cab Step Side
5.4l/4R70W (previously a 4.6l romeo)
Cold Air Kit
Flowmaster 50 series dual exaust
Edge w/Attitude Programmer
900LB add a leaf rear springs
Alpine cd player
Alpine 6x9 3 way speakers (all 4 doors)
10" L7 Kicker Sub
1400 watt Lanzar dual channle amp.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
