Look in some of the galleries, you'll see full on racing trucks. My truck is a sleeper, a 57 with a engine outa of a racing truck in it. WE can mingle in wih society.

 

I spent 10K on my last engine build. If I would off spent just a bit more to coat the pistons I might not of blown a hole in the piston within the first 3 months.

 

I also have a V8 LS (2001) that feels like any other car off the line. At speed that little V8 is a demon though. Cruising at 50 mph and floor it, you will see north of 100 MPH very quickly.

I also have a 1996 Crown Vic with the venerable 4.6L V8 - 210 HP and 275 torque... it feels quicker off the line than the LS but runs out of breath at about 70 MPH. It will do north of 125+ on a nice flat road but the LS with it's high revs and new technology ruins the Vic at speed.

 

Much has been covered by saying that engines are getting smaller in the interests of efficiency. I also think that they are using OHC and DOHC valvetrains for marketing - in my age group (I'm 21), pushrod engines are uncool.

But that's totally ignoring pushrod engine benefits such as smaller overall packaging and lighter weight for a given HP number.

I even like Flatheads, even though the exhibit no advantages whatsoever today over an OHV engine.

 

OHC vs OHV IMO is a stupid debate. It really dpends on what you want an engine to do. If you are not going to turn over 10k you can build a good engine using OHV tech. ANything more and you need to go OHC. It's all about controling valve timing events.

 

I dont really have anything against OHC engines and don't really hold it against manufacturers for building OHC engines, but they do it because an uneducated public automatically thinks they're better.

 

Nice of you. But just so you know, the educated public thinks OHC is better too.

 

I think its amazing how much innovation goes into these computerized engines
Everywhere you look- always advertizing "more fuel mileage"
Do you honestly think all the junk under nowadays hood's of trucks is worth it?
Does a new truck actually get better fuel mileage than an old 1989?
i dont think so...

 

It's not just about mileage--it's also about emissions. The push today is also to reduce certain byproducts of combustion, not just get more miles per gallon. An engine of today is light-years ahead of one from 30 years ago, even if they get the same mileage. Less carbon monoxide and other harmful chemical emissions. Some of that is newer, better gas formulations, most of it is from better engine technology, whether it is engine materials or computerized engine management.

As for whether computerized engines are harder to work on, I don't believe it one bit. You just have to learn a different set of skills. I've had 4 vehicles in the 140,000 mile range: an '81 Chevy 1/2 ton, a '90 F150, a '93 F250 and a '96 Dodge Grand Caravan. Care to venture a guess as to which one(s) I've worked on the most? Right--the oldest two. I only had the '81 for about 8 months and had to do something on it about every week. The '90 I've put a fair amount of work into, but it never stranded me, it probably needs an engine (again). The '93 needed a starter, TPS and an oilpan last summer. The starter was obvious to diagnose, and the oilpan was a visual diagnosis. The TPS, however, caused some serious running issues--I thought the tranny was going to grenade. However, once I got home, I took 5 min to pull the codes, and another 10 to swap out the TPS--THANKS to the computers--they can tell you what to replace. The '96 (OBDII, the most advanced computer I've owned) has needed almost nothing engine-wise, just a thermostat relay (CEL told me), an EGR valve (CEL told me), and I had a vacuum leak (again, CEL). I don't think there's ever been a carbed vehicle that went 140k miles without needing a bunch of fussing and messing over the years. I'd rather get a near-service-free 150k miles out of an engine, than to get 300k miles out of one that I have to screw around with every couple weeks or months. Heck, even when the tranny went on the Caravan last summer, the tranny's computer put it in limp mode, so I could drive it home in 2nd gear (slow and high-revving, but it got me there). When a 3-speed non-OD, non-computerized tranny goes, you're parked.

The one point I'll concede is that there's usually less knuckle-busting involved when you work on a carbed vehicle, because there are fewer items in the engine compartment. But that's a good thing, because you'll be working on it often...

Jason

 

I forgot all about that nightmare, dad's 1964 Continental. That car didnt even last 100,000 miles. Old and complicated was a terrible combination, electrical problems, transmission problems, vacuum power door locks, and that blasted hydraulic pump that also ran the wipers.

Jim

 

My V10 gets within 2mpg of my 302 in my 86 F150 and my new truck weighs over 3k lbs more, sits way higher, turns twice the tires, has four wheel drive. and has way more HP and torque, I'd say thats quite an advancement!

I posted this a week ago but I towed a 18ftx8ft enclosed trailor over a 300 mile round trip. I follow my buddy in his late 80s chevy 1500 that has a recently rebuilt engine. He was towing a 7x12 enclosed trailor. We drove most of 75 the entire trip with a few rolling hills and two that gave the trucks a workout. I crested the largest hill at the same speed I started the hill with, 75mph, he started the hill at 75 and crested it at a little under 65. I was towing a larger trailor, with more stuff, with a heavier and taller truck. I got 9.5mpg and he just broke 7mpg. I had atleast 5k lbs more weight and a whole lote more wind resistance. Again the newer technology was whining strong!

 

My 2001 V10 has LESS "junk" under the hood than my '97 Cougar. Which has less junk under the hood than my '82 Ford LTD wagon did (carb'd, vacuum lines all over, air injection, etc. etc). The only thing with less junk under the hood than my V10 was my '74 Highboy.

Like SLE said, today's V10's are getting GREAT mileage compared to even 302's of yester-year in lighter trucks and has LESS JUNK under the hood.

parkland, not to be a snot or anything, but I think it's time you walked into a Ford dealer and actually looked under the hood of some of TODAY'S vehicles.

It's funny, I didn't participate in this thread up until now, knowing full well it would be full of "older is better" stuff.

Well, here's a comparison:

'74 Highboy w/rebuilt 390, 11:1 compression, lopey cam, lucky to put out 420ft/lbs TOTAL (gross).

'01 SD V10, 415 cubes (slightly larger than above .030" over 390), puts out 425ft/lbs NET (after accessories!), doesn't try to kill me with CO poisoning while parked 20 FEET away from the garage, puts out WAY less HC's, NOx, etc.

I built that 390 with every power-adding (and reliability) trick I could find. It just doesn't compare to the V10.

Neither does the 302 in my '82 LTD hold a candle to the 4.6L in my '97 Cougar/'96 t-bird.

Oh well, another thread down the tubes

 

I know that those v10's are good motors, i've even heard they get better fuel mileage than the 5.4, but i guess what i was trying to say, is that are they so great because of more precise machining? or computer controlled?

I'd probably be satisfied knowing how to rip off all the enviro-junk and just have a regular old motor under there.

 

The V-10 is a great motor. But it is not one thing, it is the complete package that is so well integrated. All the new motors benefit from more precise machining tolerances because the machines that do the work have such excellent control that they even allow for minute wear of the cutting tools and compensate for it while they are running. The new V-10 is just a very fine piece of engineering.