The thing is that our perception of speed and power has changed between now and in 1995. While its probably true that we don't need more than 310 horses, the competition has em, which means we are behind, which could mean to many buyers that the Ford isn't as good of a truck. Also a 1995 f150 with a 351 Windsor; 210 horse 325 torque does 0-60 in 9.1, while the 08 150 with 300 365, does it in 8.8. Thats not much of an improvement and that is because when the power goes up, it seems the trucks base curb weight is too. GM 403, Dodge 390, Toyota 380 and Nissan 318. Ford 310. They can do better and I think that is why many people wish they could do better in the engine debt

 

How about me? I use my truck as a truck at least once a week and I complain about HP.

I want as much as I can get and I see nothing wrong with that. I like my truck to be fun to drive, not boring.

If you're in the how much power is enough crowd, why not argue for 100HP and 250ft/lbs. Geared low enough, it should be able to pull 11K. It won't be easy or fast, but how much power do we really need, right?

Mike

 

If they could get the weight of the truck down to 1995 levels, you would not be whining about horsepower. 310hp in a 4000lb truck would give better acceleration than anyone else. What was the hp rating of a mid-1990's Lightning?

Jim

 

Well that's not likely. We're better off asking for more power than less weight.

First gen Lightning was 240hp/340torque.

Mike

 

I never did buy a Ford truck based on power numbers. I buy them because they hold up for me. Do what I ask off them. An get the job done. Tell you what if you think Dodge an Chevy have better trucks go ahead an buy them. I looked at this new 150 an I like it a lot. Sure its not perfect but what truck is. Yeh Im sure we would like better MPG an maybe in time will get it. But hey its a truck. Ill say it again the build quality on a Ford truck is second to none. Show me a Dodge or Chevy that will stand up like a Ford truck. Sorry to say they wont.

 

Bingo!

With almost 6000 lbs of weight to haul in crewcab trim, and a transmission that's geared more for economy (tall ratios, wide spacing) than acceleration, no wonder 300hp feels weak. Also note that this 300 hp engine often dynos just a bit over 200hp at the wheels. The Hemi dynos 270 or so, and the Titan about the same. The Tundra I think is making over 300 at the rear wheels.

With the new transmission, acceleration and towing will be improved a bit. But in the end, we're stuck with a relatively weak engine that's not a mileage queen either.

 

5.4 3Vs usually dyno about 230 rwhp, Tundras 300-310 rwhp, even saw one lay down 320 rwhp.

It will do pretty well on mileage in the real world, I'm sure. I know guys with Expedition ELs with the 6-speed that are doing 16-17 mpg on average in mixed driving. The F150 will probably do a mpg or two better.

The F150 hasn't been a mileage queen because the 4R75s tall ratios combined with the truck's porky nature made it work way too hard to get all that mass going.

Both have been addressed in the '09. The '09 will be down on power, but it will match and surpass the class on just about every other front.

Still, it's a real shame the Boss 6.2 isn't at least optional, if nothing else it would quiet the HP junkies (which I count myself among) and make for a better impression on the media. It wouldn't matter if it was limited availability, just as long as it was available.

 

i think in petersons magazine it said something about being released in very limited numbers unless they meant next year or they have bad information.

 

I only partially agree with this. The problem is, with the high competitiveness of the current market, having a half-*** powertrain and expect things like "noise and vibration" or "creature comforts" to sell, is just not going to happen. The reason is the competition is also constantly improving these areas as well. The 04 F150 was quite a big ahead of Chevy and Dodge. But now that Dodge has a hydroformed frame and a good interior as well, and the Chevy just as refined as the F150, there's no real advantage on Ford's part any more.

This is exactly the case with my 06 Explorer. The 4.0 is an absolute dog. It gets no better mileage than the competition (Pathfinder, 4runner, etc.), and is much slower, and tows quite a bit less. The qualities that initally attracted me (and others) to this truck, such as quiet cabin, good steering feel, rigid frame, is wearing thin after only 2 years of ownership.

 

The big difference here is that the 5.4 3V doesn't flat-out SUCK and the 4.0L does.

On it's own the 5.4 is torquey and does well in front of the 6-speed, it's also a pretty smooth engine...especially as it revs. Relatively smooth revving has always been a positive trait of the Modulars.

The 4.0L is a rough, thirsty p.o.s. and I completely understand your lack of patience with it.

I've said it a million times, I'm not a fan of the 3V 5.4. I think they should have spent money upgrading the 5.4 4V instead and went for a home run instead of a double in 2004, but the 4.0L really doesn't compare favorably in any respect to any of the Modulars.

 

The 3V heads are actually better than the 4V heads due to the port designs according to several of the Mustang Guru's.

 

I know this is OT but if you think the 4.0 is a dog in a truck, it outright sucks in a Mustang. After a test drive of a manual transmission one, I didnt buy due to that engine. The car screams out for a modern OHC V-6 base engine like in the upcoming Camaro and the new Challenger.

Back OT, three valve heads may breathe better in theory, but GM can get more bang for the buck with pushrods and two valve heads in V-8 engines.

Jim

 

Yes, The LS engines make big HP numbers, but they don't seem to make the low end torque like the 3V and Hemi do. Evrn in the larger 6.0L/6.2L.

 

The 3V heads are notably inferior to the 03-05 high volume 4V heads (Cobra, Mach, Marauder, Aviator) and vastly inferior the raised port 4V heads (2000 Cobra R, Ford GT, GT500). They aren't even in spitting distance. The 3V heads are outflowed literally at every lift point from .050" to .600" by the 4Vs, and are down by a good 35-40 cfm on the intake to the 03-05 run-of-the-mill 4V heads. The R/GT heads are up by nearly 80 cfm out of he box compared to 3V heads.

Put it like this, at 25" of water (most heads are flowed at 28") the 03 Cobra heads exceed 200 cfm by .300" while the 3V head never breaks 200 cfm, even at .600" lift and the factory 3V cams only offer .440" lift.

Those "Mustang gurus" need to check their facts and quit regurgitating old Ford press releases.

 

I agree that the 4.0L sucks in the Mustang. I personally would not own a V6 Mustang, the power is decent in the Mustang but the NVH characteristics are just pathetic. The Mustang is begging for the 3.5L.

In response to the last sentence, Modulars need multi-valve setups because of the smallish 3.552" bore. You'll never compete on valve area (and flow) when you have a 3.5" bore and the comptition has 4" if you stay with an inline wedge setup.

Another drawback to the 3V head, it has two 34mm intake valves versus two 37mm intake valves in the 4V heads and the valve and spark plug placement prevents you from going much bigger.

The 4V chamber will handle two 39mm intake valves.