What aluminum block are you intending to use for that 5.4L? If it's the SHM thing-that block uses a queer bearing and has some other quirks that will come up in assembly-plan on double the cost of that block for fixing machining stupidity before you're done. If you're planning on using the GT block-be aware that the GT block has no provision for a RWD starter,and that it must be added via machine shop work.
I think the aluminum block is a good idea considering the weight savings-that'll help the truck with weight distribution.
As for building the engine for several setups-IMO,you should build it based on how you're gonna use it. Compression ratios, piston dish design, cylinder head combustion chamber work,etc..all need to be based on the power adder you choose,and it's intended useage. I don't buy into the "one-size-fits-all" cookie cutter buildups that I see so many shops doing. That's one of the reasons you see so many failures with "built" engines.
JL
An aluminum block is one choice I'm sizing up as is 3v or 4v heads. A cast iron block is also acceptable. Just setup the suspension to put more weight on the rear. It worked well with the V6 I had. I'll need it after taking the whole truck down a few inches.
If Ford will warranty a Roush S/C kit then the stock compression ratio must be ok at recommended boost. If I decide to lower the c/r for added boost I can put it on the bottle till I do. It sounds cookie cutter but the tuning program will allow custom tailoring for the useage.
We need to start a new thread on this if it needs to be further discussed.
Last edited by kaboom10 : 02-18-2008 at 11:27 AM.
Reason: Forgot data
Of course they will...9.5-10.0:1 air/fuel and seriously retarded timing-I'll even waranty one like that.
If you start a new thread-we'll get more into detail.
JL
Of course they will...9.5-10.0:1 air/fuel and seriously retarded timing-I'll even waranty one like that.
If you start a new thread-we'll get more into detail.
JL
I was thinking we could improve the performance of my brothers truck it sounds like he has the same truck as yours there. It's a 2002 F-150 extended cab with a 5.4 trition. We loaded it up this past hunting season with our gear and trailer but oh boy it didn't like the passes not one bit, we are in Colorado and have to go over a 10,500 ft. pass and an 11,300 ft. pass then climb to 10,600 ft. to our camp, we crossed the passes at about 35mph. My 86 150 5.0L does the same trip at 45mph over the passes, my 91 250 5.8L does it at 60mph with plenty of pedal left. I just feel like that that 5.4L should have more guts that it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaboom10
They respond well to removing the inlet/exhaust restrictions and tuning. I'm not going to name specific brands but they all seem to work according to a mod book I have.
I was thinking we could improve the performance of my brothers truck it sounds like he has the same truck as yours there. It's a 2002 F-150 extended cab with a 5.4 trition. We loaded it up this past hunting season with our gear and trailer but oh boy it didn't like the passes not one bit, we are in Colorado and have to go over a 10,500 ft. pass and an 11,300 ft. pass then climb to 10,600 ft. to our camp, we crossed the passes at about 35mph. My 86 150 5.0L does the same trip at 45mph over the passes, my 91 250 5.8L does it at 60mph with plenty of pedal left. I just feel like that that 5.4L should have more guts that it does.
I had a muscle car I drove back to Calif thru Denver and it would go 143 out of the factory but felt like it was a 6 cylinder there. When you set the fuel curve for a production vehicle the amount that are sold to high altitude driving is pretty well nonexistint. Carbs had altitude compensation circuitry built in to limit fuel with the thinner limited air to meet emmisions levels. Appparently FI setups are complient in high altitudes by altering probably spark tables and/or fuel tables. Damn the resultant power. You need a custom tune you can stick in the ECU on a stop just before you head up hill. I change my octane rating tune as I can afford the gas and additive. Can't complain since the difference isn't a lot. Since you load up to go hunting this also makes it worse. If you choose to get a custom tune make sure the tuner knows the total vehicle weight and altitude it will be operating at. This gives you one custom tune for towing and 3 tunes that you get with the tuner for different octane fuels. Call Mike at www.5startuning.com and tell him you're a member of FTE or shoot him an email at: mike@5startuning.com .
__________________
2002 F-150 5.4L 4wd
Amsoil filter element w/ mod air box
Baer rotors EGR Carbon Kevlar pads
Flowmaster
Kenwood
Optima battery
Livewire PRP tuned w/wideband O2
Modified 4R70 Trans(shift kit)
4.88 gears and Trutrac carrier
B.F.Goodrich Rugged Trail
Stab the throttle ain't got no bottle
Appparently FI setups are complient in high altitudes by altering probably spark tables and/or fuel tables. Damn the resultant power. You need a custom tune you can stick in the ECU on a stop just before you head up hill. If you choose to get a custom tune make sure the tuner knows the total vehicle weight and altitude it will be operating at.
This is all wrong. there is no need for an alternate program for different altitudes-the MAF sees airflow(whether you're at -2000 feet or at 25000 feet) and the PCM takes this MAF input and calculates the correct amount of fuel to maintain the programmed air/fuel ratio. You clearly do not understand how the control system works-so please don't attemp to explain how you think it works to others-all that does is lead to confusion and internet myths that spread like the flu in wintertime.
JL
This is all wrong. there is no need for an alternate program for different altitudes-the MAF sees airflow(whether you're at -2000 feet or at 25000 feet) and the PCM takes this MAF input and calculates the correct amount of fuel to maintain the programmed air/fuel ratio. You clearly do not understand how the control system works-so please don't attemp to explain how you think it works to others-all that does is lead to confusion and internet myths that spread like the flu in wintertime.
JL
So this is the altitude compensation? The mapping tables are made at around 500 feet above sea level where Ford is located. If you change the atmospheric pressure to below one is the sensor going to work? If you add a S/C where a 2 or a 3 bar sensor is needed will it compensate for less atmospheric pressure? Does the spark change accordingly to compensate?
If you change the atmospheric pressure to below one is the sensor going to work? If you add a S/C where a 2 or a 3 bar sensor is needed will it compensate for less atmospheric pressure?
What?
You're totally losing me here-what are you asking?
JL
What?
You're totally losing me here-what are you asking?
JL
Sorry JL.
Let me rephrase that.
A map sensor is made for one bar or sea level air pressure. It is for a N/A engine. If you change the atmospheric pressure to below one is the sensor going to compensate? It's calibrated for high vacuum airflow to lower vacuum airflow all at sea level atmospheric pressure. Now my question is it run in an altitude compensation chamber? We ran carbs like that and to see how the compensation circuit worked under those conditions. The vacuum at idle was set at 19.0 "of mercury and w.o.t. was set at 1.5"of mercury. As the compensation got to a mile high the fuel curve was run. The idle vacuum was no longer at 19.0 but less like 17.0. Air was bled into the fuel delivery circuit in effect leaning it out to maintain the proper A/F. FI has to maintain a leaner fuel delivery curve at altitude that follows the fuel curve seen at sea level. Now both the CFM delivery to the engine due to reduced atmospheric pressure and the fuel delivered by the pulse width of the injector should result in emmision acceptable standards. Why not pump some spark in to help with the loss of power from all the reduction? Another thing is why don't they put a atmospheric sensing unit on the MAF to give it a reference?
I was thinking we could improve the performance of my brothers truck it sounds like he has the same truck as yours there. It's a 2002 F-150 extended cab with a 5.4 trition. We loaded it up this past hunting season with our gear and trailer but oh boy it didn't like the passes not one bit, we are in Colorado and have to go over a 10,500 ft. pass and an 11,300 ft. pass then climb to 10,600 ft. to our camp, we crossed the passes at about 35mph. My 86 150 5.0L does the same trip at 45mph over the passes, my 91 250 5.8L does it at 60mph with plenty of pedal left. I just feel like that that 5.4L should have more guts that it does.
Why your 5.0 does better over them passes is beyond me... I have had the same experiences and found that the 4.6 did better than 5.0, 5.4 did better than 5.8. My first question would be what kind of gears are in these trucks? If that 5.0 is lower geared than the 5.4 then that would probably explain it.
All of my previous trucks were geared in the 3.50-3.73 range. My father-in-law has a 5.0 in a '96 F-150, he traded in a '97 4.6 for it... he wishes he'd kept the '97, cuz the 5.0 is an absolute dog in the mountain passes, especially when towing.
For the record, the 3v 5.4 I had in my '04 crew even outpulled my old 390 in the mountain passes.
A map sensor is made for one bar or sea level air pressure. It is for a N/A engine. If you change the atmospheric pressure to below one is the sensor going to compensate? It's calibrated for high vacuum airflow to lower vacuum airflow all at sea level atmospheric pressure. Now my question is it run in an altitude compensation chamber? We ran carbs like that and to see how the compensation circuit worked under those conditions. The vacuum at idle was set at 19.0 "of mercury and w.o.t. was set at 1.5"of mercury. As the compensation got to a mile high the fuel curve was run. The idle vacuum was no longer at 19.0 but less like 17.0. Air was bled into the fuel delivery circuit in effect leaning it out to maintain the proper A/F. FI has to maintain a leaner fuel delivery curve at altitude that follows the fuel curve seen at sea level. Now both the CFM delivery to the engine due to reduced atmospheric pressure and the fuel delivered by the pulse width of the injector should result in emmision acceptable standards. Why not pump some spark in to help with the loss of power from all the reduction? Another thing is why don't they put a atmospheric sensing unit on the MAF to give it a reference?
Modulars do not use a MAP sensor-there's no need for it.(there are a few oddball configurations that do use one,but it's not used like one normally would be)
The PCM has the ability to infer a MAP value based on the input from the MAF,the amount or airflow and the RPM.It's pretty accurate,and since it's a calculated value,there's no need for any "compensation". These engine do not use a simplified spark curve anyway-it's a process that takes into account ACT, ECT, Load, RPM, knock sensor input, percent of lambda of commanded fuel, etc, etc, etc...Some of these items add, and some subtract from the final actual ignition spark value.
JL
Modulars do not use a MAP sensor-there's no need for it.(there are a few oddball configurations that do use one,but it's not used like one normally would be)
The PCM has the ability to infer a MAP value based on the input from the MAF,the amount or airflow and the RPM.It's pretty accurate,and since it's a calculated value,there's no need for any "compensation". These engine do not use a simplified spark curve anyway-it's a process that takes into account ACT, ECT, Load, RPM, knock sensor input, percent of lambda of commanded fuel, etc, etc, etc...Some of these items add, and some subtract from the final actual ignition spark value.
JL
Oops I meant MAF. I was watching my XFI video earlier and that got stuck in my head. It's setup more for pure performance than daily driver. Oh I over looked load-a measurement of engine vacuum. So then the tables must have been tested at high altitude? Percent of lambda of commanded fuel is a some what new term that I haven't run into doing steady state dyno runs. Thanx. Now a lot more things fall into place.
Oops I meant MAF. I was watching my XFI video earlier and that got stuck in my head. It's setup more for pure performance than daily driver. Oh I over looked load-a measurement of engine vacuum. So then the tables must have been tested at high altitude? Percent of lambda of commanded fuel is a some what new term that I haven't run into doing steady state dyno runs. Thanx. Now a lot more things fall into place.
I don't know where you're getting your info,but the MAF isn't setup for pure performance-it's setup to measure airflow-plain and simple. It does nothing else.The PCM knows the transfer function of air mass through the MAF in relation to the output to the PCM from the MAF.It also knows the injector's fuel flow rate,and fuel pressure across the injector. The PCM then calculates the mass of air(whether it's at -5000 or +20000 feet and calculates the amount of fuel to inject based on this data). There is a spark table in the PCM called the MBT table(max brake torque table),and it's setup on the engine dyno. These are the spark values that makes the most torque at a given RPM and load. Beyond that value there is no gain,or a loss of power due to too much spark advance. The PCM will command MBT or close to it unless the Max Allowed Spark table or the Borderline Knock table are less than the MBT table for a given vehicle and fuel configuration. Then you have all of the inputs that add or take away spark(the spark modifiers),and the PCM uses all of this data to calculate the final spark value.
Basically..it's gonna give the engine the optimal spark advance value for the given conditions and airflow rate,so ther's no need for special "high altitude" calibration to make more power when in high altitudes.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
