When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
502ci VS 415ci and Fords got them beat not only HP and TRQ but in fuel efficiency and longevity HANDS DOWN!!
First of all the 6.8 v10 2v is rated at the same fuel economy as the 8.1 which as I mentioned untill this year had a higher rated hp. It is true that perdispacement the ford makes more power however in the real world there is no advantage here. If we all prescibed to the theory that most power per displacement is king we all would be driving around in s2000's. As for the longevity remark, well both engines have been very reliable. Fords modular v8's and v10 have been decent engines but haven't excelled in any area, not nearly the way that ford's hype during their release suggested. If ford increases their displacement to keep up with the hp war I fear how bad their fuel economy could become. I find some of the arguements against pushrods here to be humourous as if pushrods are as bad as some have suggested then fords modular v8's must be pretty poor ohc engines if they are only managing to compete("while using these vastly superior ohc design"). Of course I guess the other way you could look at it is that pushrod is still competitive today and that it is a viable alternative. It does posess some advantages such as having a lower center of gravity (less tall), far less physical size(enabling more leaway with vehical shape ect...), cheaper to manufacture.
Last edited by connecting_rodd; Nov 21, 2004 at 08:05 PM.
First of all the 6.8 v10 2v is rated at the same fuel economy as the 8.1 which as I mentioned untill this year had a higher rated hp. It is true that perdispacement the ford makes more power however in the real world there is no advantage here. If we all prescibed to the theory that most power per displacement is king we all would be driving around in s2000's. As for the longevity remark, well both engines have been very reliable. Fords modular v8's and v10 have been decent engines but haven't excelled in any area, not nearly the way that ford's hype during their release suggested. If ford increases their displacement to keep up with the hp war I fear how bad their fuel economy could become. I find some of the arguements against pushrods here to be humourous as if pushrods are as bad as some have suggested then fords modular v8's must be pretty poor ohc engines if they are only managing to compete("while using these vastly superior ohc design"). Of course I guess the other way you could look at it is that pushrod is still competitive today and that it is a viable alternative. It does posess some advantages such as having a lower center of gravity (less tall), far less physical size(enabling more leaway with vehical shape ect...), cheaper to manufacture.
The 4.2 is a modified 3.8 Essex motor - the aftermath of the Supercoupe's block. After the Thunderbird Supercoupe was retired, its strengthened block (and some other things) carried on to replace the "old" 3.8. Then in 97 they decided to tip it up to a 4.2.
Great thing is...the 3.8 block series (and hence the 4.2) is for the better part a 302 that seems to have misplaced two of its cylinders. So the F150's since they actually dropped the Windsor family (302/351 after '97) from their lines...still have a baby Windsor getting carried around - the 4.2L base engine.
First of all the 6.8 v10 2v is rated at the same fuel economy as the 8.1 ...... Fords modular v8's and v10 have been decent engines but haven't excelled in any area
First of all, neither the 6.8L nor the 8.1L are rated for fuel economy as the EPA doesn't rate vehicles of the size that they are available in.
Second, the new 3V v10 has the same towing and payload capacity as the PSD, so how could you say that it hasn't excelled when it has some of the highest ratings in the class, gas OR diesel? The 5.4L 3V has now made the expedition the most fuel efficient large SUV.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.