not to sound obnoxious, but when the manufacturer recommends running a certain octane rating, they don't care if you or anyone else thinks it needs it, they recommend it so that it will make it past the warranty period without them having to work on it. It may not ping, but when talking about fuel, you probably want to stick to the recommendation. I would also be willing to make a small wager that if you brought a truck in with an engine problem due to predetination and they could prove you weren't using the "recommended fuel" your warranty would be gone with the engine.

 

Hemi can run on 87 without issue, you just might not make rated power as the knock system will protect the engine. The ratings etc. are based on mid grade fuel (89 octane).

About the 440 / 440 6.1L Hemi, I highly doubt it. It would be very difficult for a two valve engine to make that even if it is a Hemi. Ford better hope the 6.1L doesn't achieve those numbers as I'm guessing Ford won't push the Hurricane that far (given past performance numbers on their mass produced engines). For comparison sakes, that would be like a 2 valve 5.4 making 390 / 390. Much more possible with multi valve but a stretch for 2V. Then again, the Hemi is showing that it can compete with 3 & 4 valve designs quite well.

 

Why would you buy a expensive new truck and then not run the recommended fuel? That just doesnt make any sense! bigdieseldav is right by telling you your warrenty would be out the door if they could prove any engine problems were related to running the wrong octane fuel in the truck. Stick with the recommended fuel, even if your past your warrenty if your hoping to get your truck to last.

As far as a 2 valve engine not being able to make that much power, you havent been around very long, have you? Those figures are very realistic for a two valve engine.

 

Straight out of the owners manual: The 5.7L engine is designed to meet all emissions regulations and provide satisfactory fuel economy and performance when using high quality unleaded gasoline having an octane range of 87 to 89. The manufacturer recommends the use of 89 octane for optimum performance. THe use of premium in not recommended.

So you can use 87. It was rated/tested with the 89.

 

Wrong & wrong. The Hemi can and most do run on 87 octane just fine. It isn't a premium fuel engine although I'll excuse you for making the mistake since the performance numbers are right there with many engines that do require premium fuel.

If you are saying 390/390 is no problem for a 5.4L two valve engine, then what does that say about Fords current line-up? The 3 valve doesn't even come close to those numbers. Remember, we are talking about a production engine.

The 6.1L Hemi and Hurricane will be very interesting power plants but not sure they will be competing against each other. The Hemi is apparently slated for the cars while the Hurricane is slated for the trucks. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hemi is a more power biased hot rod engine.

 

You know Dodge started this thing with the hemi.Now fords got have something to compete. Does dodge need a so called Hemi of course not. They need something to boost sales. Bottom line. People were m\not happy with the Dodge V-10 or 5.9. Both were gas guzzlers and were not relaible so wala we have the hemi now. So whats the point Oh we can beat everybody from the light thats great. It gives your ego a boost. Youll feel good for a little bit. Hey when that Hemi gets 200,000 miles and is holding up yet Ill believe. With the ford trucks Ive had Ive done this. Will Dodge do this. I have my doubts. Will see. Hey Im happy with the current line of ford motors they do what there intended to do. But as things go you fight fire with fire wala the hurricane. Its time to give the hemi a good spankin Oh geez Im falling in to the trap. Sorry

 

Wrong on the fuel because misinformation was posted earlier. If a mfg recommends 89 octane though (not 87 OR 89) then thats what you should run.

There have been plenty of two valve engines that have kicked out that kind of HP, unless yur just talking about the current line up today, you are off on that one.

 

Why don't we look at some cold, hard objective data on the current engines in 1/2 ton P/U's and SUV's? Here are some verifiable stats from several reputable mags:

Car and Driver, Feb. 2004:
Ford F-150 5.4 - 0-60 9.3; 1/4 mile:17.0
Chevy Silverado 5.3 - 0-60:8.8 sec; 1/4mile:16.8
Toyota Tundra 4.5 - 0-60:8.8; 1/4 mile 16.8
Dodge Ram 5.7 - 0-60 8.0; 1/4 mile 16.2
Nissan Titan 5.6 - 0-60 7.6; 1/4 mile 16.0

This testing is done by C&D staff who are automotive engineers using state of the art equipment.

C&D also tested full-size SUV's with the same engines in its April, 2004 edition. Testing was done in winter, so air was cold and dense, making more horsepower, but carrying more weight. These heavier Utes turned out this way:

Chevy Tahoe - 0-60: 8.9 sec.; 1/4 mile: 16.7
Toyota Sequoia - 0-60: 8.6 sec.; 1/4 mile 16.6
Ford Expedition - 0-60: 8.6 sec.; 1/4 mile 16.5
Nissan Armada - 0-60: 7.0 sec.; 1/4 mile 15.5
Dodge Durango - 0-60: 7.2 sec.; 1/4 mile 15.4

Note the Dodge Hemi and Nissan 5.6 are WAY stronger than the others. 1 to 1.5 seconds at these distances is close to 10 lengths. The Hemi and Nissan are so close as to be essentially identical in these tests as the small differences are within the range of driver error. By the way, the Durango weighs 300 lbs less than the Nissan, so what does that say about their real, rear wheel horsepower.

That's raw horsepower. What about torque and towing? Are those Hemi's and Nissan Endurance engines just high rpm winders at the drag strip, or can they work?

Lets look at the June, 2004 Consumer Reports(just out) and how the P/U's did pulling a 6500 lb. trailer:

These are 0-60 times, pulling 6500 lbs:

Toyota Tundra 4.7: 22.4 sec.
Chevy Silverado 5.3: 21.5 sec.
Ford F-150 5.4: 20.9
Dodge Ram 5.7: 17.4
Nissan Titan 5.6: 17.2

The Nissan is 2.7 seconds quicker than the Ford 5.4 with the heavy load, and the Hemi .2 behind.

I would humbly suggest that the Nissan Endurance and the Dodge Hemi in truck configuration are not drag racing engines, they are low end grunt engines that just happen to have a lot more horses and torque. I don't know where the published numbers come from, but this data is pretty compelling.

Just as one more validator, how about Four Wheeler, the magazine for off-roaders?

In January '04 they published a "shootout" between Ford, Nissan and Toyota. The Chevy and Dodge were not in that particular test. Testing was done at high altitude, so everyone's numbers were down due to the thin air, but relative comparisons can be made when they are all drawing the same air, same temperature, humidity, etc. Here is what they found:

Ford F-150 5.4 0-60: 11.10; 1/4 mile: 18.5
Toyota Tundra 4.7 0-60: 11.07; 1/4 mile: 18.31
Nissan Titan 5.6 0-60: 9.60; 1/4 mile: 17.36

Then they tested them with 1/2 payload on board:

Ford F-150 5.4 0-60:12.52; 1/4 mile: 19.00
Toyota Tundra 4.7 0-60:12.35; 1/4 mile: 19.00
Nissan Titan 5.6 0-60: 9.70; 1/4 mile: 17.47

Note: The Nissan was much quicker, both empty and with the load. The difference was anywhere between 1 and 1.5 seconds in the quarter. That is huge - close to 10 lengths. And the Nissan only lost about .1 second with the load while the Ford and Toyota lost much more.

In another test comparing SUV's, Four Wheeler magazine in February '04 tested several different makes. No Toyota or Chevy in this comparison, but there was a Dodge Hemi Durango and a Nissan Armada. Again, their test facilities are at high altitude so numbers are down, but comparisons can be made. Here is what they did:

Dodge Durango 5.7 0-60: 9.83; 1/4 mile 17.40
Nissan Armada 5.6 0-60: 9:22; 1/4 mile 17.16

There are also links to a number of after market suppliers or private owners who have posted dynamometer "pull" charts on these various engines which reach the same thing. Most of those are comparison tests to show whether different air filters or a change in mufflers produces more horsepower or torque. The changes can be worthwhile. Aftermarket filters like K&N produce as much as 20 extra horsepower at the rear wheels, where it really counts. If anyone wants some of those links, I'll post them.

My humble conclusion is that right now Ford, Chevy and Toyota are getting their clocks cleaned in the horsepower and torque wars involving regular gasoline 1/2 ton trucks and full sized SUV's.

I know it's not all about performance, but thought you might be interested in the data. It's more useful than "seat of the pants" comparisons.

Comments?

 

Doesn't the Nissan require premium fuel to get the advertised HP and TQ that they advertise? Also, Ford offers many, many more cobinations of packages on their trucks than Nissan, they're kind of one-dimensional in the market right now. Just my take on it, it's still a good truck, but I don't think that speed alone makes it top the Ford. No opinion on the Toyota, I still can't acknowledge it as a full size.

 

please let the nissan titan try to nustle me up and outpull, tow or haul a powerstroke....nissan is going through a phase....these engines are NEW even the crappiest cars like hyundai and daiwoo run when they are new but put a few hard miles on them and your chasing engine parts down the road....they are untested at lengths of time.....the 4.6L and 5.4L and powerstroke have several years under their belts, this new nissan contraption while runnning strong now may and more than likely will fall apart. New things allways have bugs and while i appreciate nissans attempt please stick to making your 4 cyl's and leave the big stuff to the U.S. amen, get your wafers and wine at the door

 

Well, maybe I should explain. I am at this forum because I am a Ford guy. I do have a Powerstroke dualee for heavier stuff and an even larger Ford F-750 rollback with the Cat diesel. I was replacing a SUV which would also do some occasional but serious trailer pulling. My all time favorite P/U was a 1/2 ton 4X4 with the 300-6 tied to the four speed manual with "granny" gear first. That thing, in 4WD low range, hubs locked and in first gear would out pull anything I've ever seen in a 1/2 ton truck. Wish I still had it. Really great for getting other people unstuck in the mud.

Our business is automotive, industrial and diesel engine rebuilding. We see then engines long after warranty has expired, after they have worked hard or been trashed due to neglect, overheating, not changing oil regularly, or occasionally due to design related mechanical failure. With respect, the current engines out there by all truck manufacturers are doing very well from a reliability standpoint. Most failures are due to the above service or maintanence neglect by the owners. Rarely do we see something related to design or inappropriate material.

One problem (not to pick on Ford because this is a user issue) is failure to put the right kind of oil in the Triton mod engines. Ford really means what it says on the 5W-30 recommendation. Our trade organization, the Automotive Engine Rebuilders' Association issued a very early bulletin on this. The oil drain holes from the overhead cam in each head are very small and have problems with higher viscosity oil. People (including independent quick change oil places) just instintively go to 10W30 or higher and get in trouble. The oil can't drain back fast enough and you know what happens then. That's not Ford's fault, but sure has resulted in a disproportionately high number of 4.6's and 5.4's showing up in our shop for rebuilds just about the time the warranty runs out. I have 107,000 miles on the Expedition. It gets hard use, but the right oil.

The small Nissan engines have been very reliable. They are not all 4's. They make some very reliable 6's and V-8's as well. I have no reason to suspect that will not hold true with the 5.6 Endurance. FYI, this is not a new engine! Yes, you heard me right. It is just a variation (like the new 3 valve 5.4 Ford) of an older, established, reliable design. This 4 valve per cylinder, dual overhead cam all aluminum engine has been out for quite a while as a 4.5L engine in Infinity's big Q45 passenger car. It was and is producing well over 300 hp in that configuration (I'll look it up - I think it is about 350). The damn thing has 6 bolt mains. Yea, I said 6. Very stout bottom end. You should see one of them. The truck block does have a major difference besides the larger displacement - it has greatly enlarged water jackets to provide additional cooling for truck applications.

While the passenger engine is a high rpm horsepower producer, (not unlike the passenger versions of Ford's 4.6 and 5.4) the truck variation has a long runner intake manifold and different cam profiles to produce torque down low while giving up the horsepower potential from the increase in displacement. That is what it does. They opted for giving up a potential 400 hp for gobs of low end torque. I think that is the right choice, and if those posted dyno figures are accurate, with rear wheel hp ranging from 270-290, it may be producing closer to 340-350 SAE net hp at the crank.

As far as leaving the big stuff to the US, I think that is what Nissan has done in designing and building these full-size trucks. Have you looked at the parts? The aluminum parts have ALCOA stamped all over them! The diffs, axels and u-joints and bearings are Amercan made Dana! The engines are built in Tennessee. The trucks are built at a new $1.5 billion plant in Canton, Mississippi.

By the way, I live and work in Mississippi about two hours from that plant. Mississippi rednecks know quit a bit about how to use (and abuse) real trucks. I don't mind being placed in that group. I deer hunt and fish. I use the Expedition, and now the Armada in the woods. We get serious gumbo mud here. I'm no authority, but I am not speaking from a vacuum either. I know Nissan engineers have seriously listened to real American truck users in designing and building these trucks. True, they are not as pretty. True, all vehicles may have some issues in their first year of production (none so far, fingers crossed, for the Nissan). It's not fair for me to bring this up, but I did have an electric mirror and a wiper switch failure the first 30 days in the Expedition, a glove box latch that has never worked right, a recall on the lug bolts on the 17 inch wheels, and loose fasteners on the overhead console which did and still does rattle like crazy. It came with a bad set of Goodyear tires that vibrated like crazy and kept throwing the balance weights off. Ford said it was the tires, Goodyear said it was the truck. Never got that resolved and had to replace them at my own expense with another brand. Solved the problem, so it must have been the tires. Those things can happen in all trucks, so I would not be too upset if a few problems arise in the Nissan.

The Nissan engine may turn out to be a piece of crap. I'm inclined to think otherwise. Given what I know about the bottom end of the engine, its history in the Q45 and what Nissan has done to make serious usable torque, I'm inclined to think it will be just as reliable as its 4 and 6 cyl cousins. Let's not overlook the Infinity V-8's developed for the Indy Racing League, but that's a different application entirely. But they do have more experience with v-8's than many may realize.

My real point here is not to bash anyone's product, it is to beat the drum for Ford to get moving on the Hurricane engine so it does not lose market share. Does anyone know any more about the actual design and expected output of the engine? The press releases are very vague.

 

FordLariat asked a specific question about premium fuel. The answer is no. The Nissan trucks (Titan and Armada) with this engine run regular 87 octane fuel. They say nothing about premium. I've never used it. All the tests I mentioned were with 87 octane. What may be confusing is that the new upscale and expensive ($55-60K) Infinity SUV, the Q56 does use premium fuel. The engine management computer has been reprogrammed to advance the timing a few degrees, requiring 91 octane or better. They got a whopping 10 more hp and 5 ft.lbs of torque. Seems silly to me. I guess people with that much money to burn feel compelled to use premium fuel.

You are absolutely right on the configuration and option situation. Ford is way better. I think Nissan wanted to get fully on line with volume production out of its new Canton, Mississippi plant and (hopefully) concentrate on quality control. Keeping options and model lines modest the first year or two might make sense.

I was able to get what I wanted in the SE Offroad 4X4 but that configuration may not be popular with Ford owners anyway. The closest I could find was an NBX Expedition and I couldn't find one on any dealer's lot to test drive. The 4X4 Expeditions I did test were very nice, but just did not have the hp and torque I needed.

I think most SUV users just take them to the grocery store or to take kids to soccer or Little League games, so there might not be very much demand in the SUV market for serious off-road equipment. That seems to be a nitch Nissan has targeted. That probably won't hurt Ford sales much, but I'm afraid that in the more highway oriented 4X2 crowd, more sensitive to TV commercials, horsepower may matter. Let's bring on the Hurricane.

 

Uhh, show me an f150 with a powerstroke. Nissan hasn't made any claim that they are making a 1 ton truck here, just a consumer friendly half ton, that is out-pulling, out performing, and out running any of the competition's 1/2 tons.

Funny how defensive people get when their stereotypes of "anything foreign is junk" get the door blown off them by a better product. What? They're not allowed to improve from the product they made back in the 70's, but we are? Or are we all supposed to go back to points type ignition and gas-hoggin' big-blocks just to confuse people.

I think I'll go challenge a space-ship to a truck pull with the Ranger now..

 

This is just a bit off the subject but in yestrdays state funeral for Former president Reagan the big three were represented in the funeral proscession. Didnt notice any Nissans or Toyotas there either. Off course its the good old U.S.A. I didnt think I would see any. U s americans are in love with the Big 3. I dont see any chance Nissan or Toyota will make big dents in the american market anytime soon. Especially the truck market. I could count on one hand the number of Nissana and toyota pickups combined Ive seen in the last year.

 

Armada, can you tell me what the transmission gear ratio's are?

I am willing to bet, they are lower than everyone else's. Plus they have a 5 speed transmission right?

If they are, it is not the engine that is making the difference, it is the gear ratio.