4.6L repair issues
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte
4.6L repair issues
Hey,
I just got a 2000 Expedition with the 4.6L. I had a 2000 Mustang for a short time with the same motor. I noticed that the HP was down by 45 ponies. Obviously some differences are there that aren't advertised. Can anyone tell me what?
Also, the Expedition has 73k on it right now. What should I be zeroing in on right now in regards to maintenance?
Thanks for the help. Kinda new on these new fangeled motors.
Got an FE that I am very familiar with but not so on the modular V8's.
I just got a 2000 Expedition with the 4.6L. I had a 2000 Mustang for a short time with the same motor. I noticed that the HP was down by 45 ponies. Obviously some differences are there that aren't advertised. Can anyone tell me what?
Also, the Expedition has 73k on it right now. What should I be zeroing in on right now in regards to maintenance?
Thanks for the help. Kinda new on these new fangeled motors.
Got an FE that I am very familiar with but not so on the modular V8's.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Not familiar with 4.6L's after '97, but true dual exhaust on the Mustang, better intake/exhaust manifolds possibly, etc. It also might be the "PI" (Performance Improved) heads vs. regular Romeo heads which would explain the difference. I think it was 225 HP for the '97 Mustang, when they went to the new heads it went up to 260 or 270 HP, which would be right on with the 45 HP decrease.
As for maintenance, read the owner's manual... some things are better off done quicker than what the manual says (oil being a big one), but it's usually about right.
As for maintenance, read the owner's manual... some things are better off done quicker than what the manual says (oil being a big one), but it's usually about right.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 22,436
Likes: 17
From: Louisville,Ky.
Any Mod motor 99up has the PI (Performance Improved) heads on them.
I believe that like said, the true duals on the Stang helps along with different PCM tuning for different powerbands. The stang is made to run at higher rpms where the heavy Exby is set up to have more low end torque. The camshafts are identical in the car and truck.
The Stang also had a different intake manifold.
Jimmy
I believe that like said, the true duals on the Stang helps along with different PCM tuning for different powerbands. The stang is made to run at higher rpms where the heavy Exby is set up to have more low end torque. The camshafts are identical in the car and truck.
The Stang also had a different intake manifold.
Jimmy
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte
Well, I drove it Virginia over the weekend. It did really good except at highway speeds and keeping 65-70 on the cruise. It had to downshift alot of some not so tall hills. I am hoping I can do some simple bolt ons to increase HP. Larger Mass Air Sensor, K&N filter, etc. Not looking for tire blistering power, just 20 or 30 more horse.
Trending Topics
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Originally posted by scamardo
Well, I drove it Virginia over the weekend. It did really good except at highway speeds and keeping 65-70 on the cruise. It had to downshift alot of some not so tall hills. I am hoping I can do some simple bolt ons to increase HP. Larger Mass Air Sensor, K&N filter, etc. Not looking for tire blistering power, just 20 or 30 more horse.
Well, I drove it Virginia over the weekend. It did really good except at highway speeds and keeping 65-70 on the cruise. It had to downshift alot of some not so tall hills. I am hoping I can do some simple bolt ons to increase HP. Larger Mass Air Sensor, K&N filter, etc. Not looking for tire blistering power, just 20 or 30 more horse.
Keep torque constant, but rev higher means higher horsepower. Doesn't do much, it's just higher horsepower.You need to increase the mid-range torque, say around 2000RPM, your Expy should be doing around 2000-2200RPM at 70MPH, right?
The other thing to think about is the computer may just be tuned to downshift a lot instead of lugging the motor. You might need a chip/tuner to change the shiftpoints. The 4.6L might have enough power to pull those hills in overdrive without slowing down, but the computer is seeing the gas pedal go down, and it downshifts too quickly.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Originally posted by krewat
The other thing to think about is the computer may just be tuned to downshift a lot instead of lugging the motor. You might need a chip/tuner to change the shiftpoints. The 4.6L might have enough power to pull those hills in overdrive without slowing down, but the computer is seeing the gas pedal go down, and it downshifts too quickly.
The other thing to think about is the computer may just be tuned to downshift a lot instead of lugging the motor. You might need a chip/tuner to change the shiftpoints. The 4.6L might have enough power to pull those hills in overdrive without slowing down, but the computer is seeing the gas pedal go down, and it downshifts too quickly.
A Superchips on my '96 4.6L t-bird got something like an extra 30 ft/lbs of torque (gross) down below 4000RPM, and certainly a good 10-15 down around 2200RPM (70MPH). A chip/tuner might do more for you with the PI heads... but you also might have to buy 93 octane gas...
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte
Thanks Krewat.
Yep, you are right. Your estimate on the rpms and speed is dead on. I don't want to tear into the motor if I don't have too, so heads were just a thought. I'll check into the Superchip.
Thanks again for the tip.
Tim
Yep, you are right. Your estimate on the rpms and speed is dead on. I don't want to tear into the motor if I don't have too, so heads were just a thought. I'll check into the Superchip.
Thanks again for the tip.
Tim
Junior User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Charleston, SC
Scamardo, keep me posted on the chip...I am thinking doing the same thing. I'd like to see how you fare after the chip mod. I may do a bigger MAFS and am thinking a possible cat-back sometime down the road, too.
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
I installed a cold air intake, flowmaster exhaust and a Superchip microtuner to my 4.6 F150. I haven't got it dyno'd but I can feel a big difference in torque and HP, especially down low in the rpm range (2000 to 3000 rpm). It can maintain highway speeds going up hills easier without downshifting as much as before.
Superchips claims 25 HP increase using the performance tune. The exhaust maybe got me 5 HP and the intake another 10 HP. So with these simple mods, 40 additional HP and 50 lb. ft. torque isn't bad.
Superchips claims 25 HP increase using the performance tune. The exhaust maybe got me 5 HP and the intake another 10 HP. So with these simple mods, 40 additional HP and 50 lb. ft. torque isn't bad.
Last edited by CPerry; Feb 22, 2004 at 11:42 PM.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Originally posted by CPerry
Superchips claims 25 HP increase using the performance tune.
Superchips claims 25 HP increase using the performance tune.
They claimed only 20ft/lbs or so more peak torque, but looking at their published curves, I got another 35 ft/lbs of torque later in the range, which was a big gain.
Sometimes their "peak" gains are not as good as you'd think, but overall, the added torque in that one area was a big bonus...