5.4 vs 5.8l?
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by swann79
I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head, but I don't think so.
My seat-of-the-pants evaluation told me that my '95 F-150 5.8 had better bottom-end torque than my '99 Expy 5.4 did. Gearing was pretty close in both.
Again, for what it's really worth to the OP. He hasn't chimed in or provided more precise clarification on his question, so I don't know if it really matters or if it was a serious question or not.
My seat-of-the-pants evaluation told me that my '95 F-150 5.8 had better bottom-end torque than my '99 Expy 5.4 did. Gearing was pretty close in both.
Again, for what it's really worth to the OP. He hasn't chimed in or provided more precise clarification on his question, so I don't know if it really matters or if it was a serious question or not.
Taking a WAG..............I'd imagine your Expy weighed quite a bit more than the 150.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,147
Likes: 1
From: Joppa, Maryland
the 4 speed trans they have behind the 5.4 is terrible too, makes it feel a lot weaker than it is in first. I had an '00 f150 w/ 5.4.
Never driven a 460 powered truck, but my dad's v10 is a monster when it comes to towing (at least at the weights we've used it to tow at, always use the diesels for the big loads).
Never driven a 460 powered truck, but my dad's v10 is a monster when it comes to towing (at least at the weights we've used it to tow at, always use the diesels for the big loads).
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 46
From: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder
Look, you seem to be a nice enough guy; so I'll give you a quick explanation.
OHC, in theory should allow SAFER high RPMS.....this is especially true on REAL DOHC motors whose cam lobes ride directly on the valves (usually a shim or bucket used to set lash)
Two things to remember though......Ford still uses rockers on there OHC motors AND a hydraulic "lifter" to set lash (except for the 3.5L V6) and all the new pushrod motors not only use roller lifter but also roller rockers.
Just take a gander at GM's LS motors and compare revving ability.
On to powerband, Bore and stroke, rod ratio, rod length, air flow into the heads, AND cam specs all contribute to where a motor will make power.
In other words, given all the same specs, there would virtually 0 difference in a push rod vs OHC motor regarding powerband.
And I repectfully disagree with you concerning the V10 vs 460 and the 5.0 vs the later 4.6's .....I, too, owned all the various versions and think the Mod motors make just as much low end and a tad more peak power.
OHC, in theory should allow SAFER high RPMS.....this is especially true on REAL DOHC motors whose cam lobes ride directly on the valves (usually a shim or bucket used to set lash)
Two things to remember though......Ford still uses rockers on there OHC motors AND a hydraulic "lifter" to set lash (except for the 3.5L V6) and all the new pushrod motors not only use roller lifter but also roller rockers.
Just take a gander at GM's LS motors and compare revving ability.
On to powerband, Bore and stroke, rod ratio, rod length, air flow into the heads, AND cam specs all contribute to where a motor will make power.
In other words, given all the same specs, there would virtually 0 difference in a push rod vs OHC motor regarding powerband.
And I repectfully disagree with you concerning the V10 vs 460 and the 5.0 vs the later 4.6's .....I, too, owned all the various versions and think the Mod motors make just as much low end and a tad more peak power.
We were not discussing GM or Dodge or any other brand of engine other than Ford. What you said may be true... I don't know and really don't care. What I do know is that's how these Ford engines produce power "out of the box". Would you feel better if I didn't say it was because of the valvetrain design? Fine. Even though all of the Ford motors still fit that description (to me), I will refrain from making that statement.
I'm glad you think I might be a "nice enough guy"... but this is twice now that you've seen fit to come close to flaming me. I appreciate the "respectfully this and that" comments, but please think before you type. Just because you know a little of this and that doesn't make you a friggin' genius and everyone else an idiot. We all have our experiences and like to share them.
BTW Paul, great class. I respect you more than I do any of the other "minions".
Tuned
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 311
Likes: 3
From: Arkansas
That's because the 5.4 DOES make better low-end torque than the 5.8's. It's not the displacement but the fact that the 5.4 has a 4.16" stroke (vs a 3.50" stroke). Simple, higher mechanical advantage at work. Also the 5.4 is far from a rev-happy engine despite OHC. That much stroke means very high piston speeds...you won't push a stock 5.4L past 5500 too often. Take a look at the rotating assembly Ford used in the Cobra R's to make them capable of a 6600 rpm redline. Very high dollar and lightweight Carillo I-beam rods among other parts.
Also, the 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8 all use direct acting roller-finger-followers that have hydraulic lash adjustment. A distinctly roller-type valvetrain if ever there was one.
Also, the 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8 all use direct acting roller-finger-followers that have hydraulic lash adjustment. A distinctly roller-type valvetrain if ever there was one.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 46
From: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder
Taking a WAG..............I'd imagine your Expy weighed quite a bit more than the 150.
I've always felt that weight dragged down the upper RPMs more than it did the lower... no scientific basis, just my own comparison.
I also never said that the pushrod engines were better... I also feel that the modulars work better all the way around. They just feel different. Most folks who are used to driving older torque monsters think that they are dogs until they figure out that they make better power at high RPMs than they re used to.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 46
From: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Originally Posted by 2000BLK54
Also the 5.4 is far from a rev-happy engine despite OHC. That much stroke means very high piston speeds...you won't push a stock 5.4L past 5500 too often.
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Here's my first comment regarding the subject:
You reply:
Your idea of "flaming" is pretty warped.....
Not sure what other time your writing of......but it must be tough holding a grudge.
Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder
Where in the world does that urban legend come from???
A motor could not care less where its cams are in relation to powerband.
A motor could not care less where its cams are in relation to powerband.
You reply:
Originally Posted by swann79
Comes from me driving, working, and owning both engines.
Also basic general knowledge.
Prove me wrong.
Until the 3v came out, peak torque in the 5.8 was at a lower RPM than it was for a 5.4.
Same goes for 5.0 vs 4.6, 460 vs. V10, on and on an on...
"A motor could not care less where its cams are in relation to powerband"
WTF are you talking about? The cam is the single biggest factor in setting the powerband!
Also basic general knowledge.
Prove me wrong.
Until the 3v came out, peak torque in the 5.8 was at a lower RPM than it was for a 5.4.
Same goes for 5.0 vs 4.6, 460 vs. V10, on and on an on...
"A motor could not care less where its cams are in relation to powerband"
WTF are you talking about? The cam is the single biggest factor in setting the powerband!
Your idea of "flaming" is pretty warped.....
Not sure what other time your writing of......but it must be tough holding a grudge.
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by swann79
We were not discussing GM or Dodge or any other brand of engine other than Ford.
.
The reason it was brought up is the push rod offerings from the competition rev higher and make more peak power than the supposed higher revving OHC motor from Ford....
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
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 46
From: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder
Not sure what other time your writing of......but it must be tough holding a grudge.
After looking at the posts again, I did jump the gun and assume a bit much. The "urban legend" thing rubbed me wrong. I apologize. I also did not catch what it was you were trying to contradict - OHC vs pushrod. It looked as if you were going to try to tell me that a cam had nothing to do with the powerband. I had to call BS on that. I realize that other factors go into it, but suffice it to say that a cam is at the heart of that determining factor. I've seen what a difference a simple cam swap can do to the powerband of an engine.
I didn't accuse you of flaming me... just coming close.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 46
From: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder
The reason it was brought up is the push rod offerings from the competition rev higher and make more peak power than the supposed higher revving OHC motor from Ford....
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by captain p4
Hey DOHC, tailgate fall off that yota yet?
I've averaged 2 a week.....they just keep replacing 'em.
(oh, so far so good on my 3rd Ford transmission.....almost got 5,000 miles on this one.............how about that 6.OHOH, head bolts and turbo still in one piece???
)
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by swann79
I did notice that on the Dodge... one of the reasons I've been looking at the Power Wagon. I was curious as to how they managed to accompish that. However, I've also seen the Chevy 6.0, 5.3, and Hemi's at work towing a camper... I was not impressed.
Ok......not gonna debate with you which "works" 'mo better.
But let's say you're correct.....wouldn't that be exactly the opposite of the "general knowledge" concerning the powerbands???
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,512
Likes: 18
From: Detroit
No fewer parts in a V8....
Originally Posted by LastSplash
I always thought one of the main advantages the OHC's had over the pushrod's was that the OHC design has a lot fewer parts.
I actually love my 4.6 and the mod motors in general, but given their long stroke design, I believe the only reason they exist is that Ford mandated a move to all OHC engines "so they could seem more modern" or something like that. I think they're there except for the Vulcan (is that still used in the Ranger) which was the '86 Taurus motor. Iron block and heads, pushrods.
Any *real* advantage of the OHC is lost with the long-stroke nature of the engines (the long stroke in the 4.6 makes it better, IMO, than the 302 for truck and van applications, but the ultra-long stroke in the 5.4 is getting into overkill territory). The long strokes are there because the mod motor was designed to work in a transverse FWD application (Lincoln) and chose short bore centers.
Now engines like the Duratec (with a 6500 RPM redline) put OHC's to great use, but the 4.6 in my van, or in Grandpa's Grand Marquis, not really.
George