Quick question, I now that the new F-150s have the 3-valve, and I had heard a rumor before that the super dutys were going to get this engine as well, also that they were making a 3-valve head for the V-10? Anyone now whether or not this is true? I apoligize if this has already been discussed, as I have not read all the forums in this category. I also have heard that they have been having a lot of problems with this new engine? That would be a shame as ford is already in over there heads with the 6.0L
I have not been impressed with the 5.4 and the 6.8 since they have been out, bad fuel mileage, lack of power, and bad reliability. My boss has a '02 Chevy with a 6.0L and his wife has a '03 super duty with the 5.4L and the Chevy flat out whips it's ***. Goes thru 1\3 the gas, has a ton of more power, and works a lot better. I really like the super duty, but am having a hard time justifying the ford, not liking the 5.4-6.8-6.0? It sure does seem like a 5.4 with more usable power and fuel mileage would be the answer. Maybe there coming and the reliability is better then I have heard and all is well?!!

 

When I had heard Ford was going to make a 3V, I thought they said it would eventually make it into the other places that the 2V was being used. That includes the 4.6 and 6.8's. It would only make sense.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a Grand Marquis with a 4.6 putting out 250 HP.

 

v-10 3V......yes
4.6 3v.....yes mustang only to start

 

It's here now......the Marauder rocks!!!!
Quote from the website:
"Pumping out 302 horsepower, the Marauder throws the driver back with a head restraint-bending 318 lb.-ft. of torque"

http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/vehic..._pe_engine.asp

 

SMiller...you are correct in saying that the GM engine will be superior to the Ford engine. GM engines always HAVE been. There is no doubt there. The problem is, the rest of the truck around that GM engine is poorly engineered and very unreliable. That is why Ford is still the better option of the two. Don't be afraid to buy one. I'm on my 4th Ford truck and they all have been the most reliable vehicles I've ever owned (yes I've owned GM products as well).

 

I agree and disagree with WX. GM made the right move by updating the truck V-8's. My immediate family has always had very good luck with GM products. Ford seems to be hit and miss.

1. 71 Chevy station wagon. A whole lotta steel powered by a "junk" 400 small block. Well over 100,000.

2. 76 Econoline. Good van that liked to eat ignition modules once in a while. Well over 100,000

3. 84 Econoline with the straight six. The body rusted off. Engine is probably still going. Tranny finally went south last year. Well over 100,000 Fired right up after being parked for 10 years.

4. 84 Cavalier. I shared that car with my sister. Showed it no mercy until the day it was hit while parked well off the street in front of the house. Adios Cav. Well over 100,000

5. 86 Mustang. Ughh. What didn't go wrong with this car. Made dad's wallet a lot thinner. POS. Finally dumped after 25,000 miles.

6. 93 Aerostar. Still going. When the tranny gets rebuilt for the 2nd time. Well over 100,000.

7. 93 S-10 with the "junk" 2.8. Got the job done just fine for a 2wd compact. 30 mpg and 140,000 miles when I decided on a new vehicle.

8. 99 F-150. I like it, but it should be better. Many worries at 62,000. If the nickel and diming continue, it's outta here.

Needing little more than gas, oil, tires, and exhaust defines a good vehicle to me. I don't have the time or patience for mediocrity.

 

Keep in mind the numerous electrical problems with the lighting on all GM vehicles, and the air bag issues, and other things, as well as the piston slap and low mileage smoking. I've had my truck longer than my father has had his Chevy, and it's been to the shop at least 10 times while mine has only gone in for oil changes, when it was inconvienient for me to do it myself, and a hub conversion (something I wanted done anyway).