cam swap
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: dayton texas
cam swap
ok guys here it is. i wana do a cam swap on a 2002 4.6 4x4. i know that the timing gear is on the can an i have found some at rpmoutlet.com. i really love the sound of cams plus i want more tourque. any info will help, specs or anything.
Temporarily Deactivated
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
I think you have probably done all you can for your 4.6. You have an intake, exhaust and headers correct? I would now have a custom tune done and accept that you have reached the limit of the engines potential, short of spending thousands on forced induction.
The above is correct, cams you can hear are going to eat away at the torque you have. They function to move power up the rpm range while sacrificing the bottom end. HP would go up, torque would move up the rpm range. That isn't what you want on a truck.
Doing a 5.4L swap would get you ~50 lb/ft.
The above is correct, cams you can hear are going to eat away at the torque you have. They function to move power up the rpm range while sacrificing the bottom end. HP would go up, torque would move up the rpm range. That isn't what you want on a truck.
Doing a 5.4L swap would get you ~50 lb/ft.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: dayton texas
hmmm, okay well i thought all cams loped but the cams i found were for 4x4's. guess i wont get the loping of cams but i can live with that if i can turn my 35" tires better in the mud.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
A cam can be spec'd to produce comparable low end torque to the stock cams but run away as power climbs. They won't be big lopers though.
You'll want an intake biased cam grind with less than 220 degrees duration on the intake side. Something like a 216/212 (@ .50) .550"/.525" on 109/111 LCs.
The limits to that 4.6 have hardly been reached.
You'll want an intake biased cam grind with less than 220 degrees duration on the intake side. Something like a 216/212 (@ .50) .550"/.525" on 109/111 LCs.
The limits to that 4.6 have hardly been reached.
Temporarily Deactivated
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
Right...all he has to do is invest the amount of moeny he already has into the truck, say at least $5k, and then you could really see some power from that 4.6. Not much torque, but plenty of power.
Or, for the same money, transplant a Lightning engine and trans which makes 360/440 stock. Show me a 4.6 NA that makes 440 ft/lbs that didn't cost $10k to build.
You can do anything with enough money. You just might want to consider your options and find the most cost effective mods. Unless you have plenty of money that is, then play away.
Or, for the same money, transplant a Lightning engine and trans which makes 360/440 stock. Show me a 4.6 NA that makes 440 ft/lbs that didn't cost $10k to build.
You can do anything with enough money. You just might want to consider your options and find the most cost effective mods. Unless you have plenty of money that is, then play away.
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Or, for the same money, transplant a Lightning engine and trans which makes 360/440 stock. Show me a 4.6 NA that makes 440 ft/lbs that didn't cost $10k to build.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
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
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Temporarily Deactivated
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
Where exactly was I wrong? He asked for loping cams, I suggested such cams would eat away at his torque not improve it. If I am not mistaken, you agreed with that. I never said you couldn't find a grind that improved torque.
Fact is, the 4.6 is way too little motor for a lifted truck trying to turn 35's (or any full size truck).
What are you going to pick up, 20 lb/ft? is that worth $600 and the hassle to replace them? Not in my book, but to each his own.
Fact is, the 4.6 is way too little motor for a lifted truck trying to turn 35's (or any full size truck).
What are you going to pick up, 20 lb/ft? is that worth $600 and the hassle to replace them? Not in my book, but to each his own.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: dayton texas
it was my fault, i thought all cam had a loping to them, but i see other wise i was wrong. but swaping motors is to much of a hassle and i dont have that kind of cash. i really dont care about gas milage,10mpg rite now,i dont drive that far. all i want is more power on the low end to get me through the thick stuff. if you talking big power i can get a twin turbo setup for about 1800 bucks and istall it in about a day- instead of getting a lightning motor which is just a supercarged 5.4L- imo. but like i said, no money. ive done all the small stuff- intake, exhaust, gears and now finnally a programer.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Big Greenie
I would now have a custom tune done and accept that you have reached the limit of the engines potential, short of spending thousands on forced induction.
Temporarily Deactivated
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
Well gee...that happens to be my opinion. There is very little that can be done to cost effectively increase the power of his engine. If you read the OP's posts, cost effective is the focus, not what you could or would do with unlimited funds.
This isnt the Mustang forum last I checked. Doing cams in a 4.6 fitted to a 3000 lb car would make sense to me and give you a boost you could feel. Fitting cams to a 4.6 in a 5500 lb truck turning 35" tires isn't going to give you a boost you can feel. Hence, for all practical and cost effective purposes, the engine has reached its potential with the bolt ons he has used. The headers were certainly a better move than cams
I go go on and on. If you want to be "right" and have the last word, go for it buddy, show us what and expert you are. Post up some dyno sheets showing impressive torque gains on a 4.6 for cheap. I'd love to see them, might even lend some creedence to your posts.
This isnt the Mustang forum last I checked. Doing cams in a 4.6 fitted to a 3000 lb car would make sense to me and give you a boost you could feel. Fitting cams to a 4.6 in a 5500 lb truck turning 35" tires isn't going to give you a boost you can feel. Hence, for all practical and cost effective purposes, the engine has reached its potential with the bolt ons he has used. The headers were certainly a better move than cams
I go go on and on. If you want to be "right" and have the last word, go for it buddy, show us what and expert you are. Post up some dyno sheets showing impressive torque gains on a 4.6 for cheap. I'd love to see them, might even lend some creedence to your posts.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Well gee...that happens to be my opinion. There is very little that can be done to cost effectively increase the power of his engine. If you read the OP's posts, cost effective is the focus, not what you could or would do with unlimited funds.
This isnt the Mustang forum last I checked. Doing cams in a 4.6 fitted to a 3000 lb car would make sense to me and give you a boost you could feel. Fitting cams to a 4.6 in a 5500 lb truck turning 35" tires isn't going to give you a boost you can feel. Hence, for all practical and cost effective purposes, the engine has reached its potential with the bolt ons he has used. The headers were certainly a better move than cams I go go on and on. If you want to be "right" and have the last word, go for it buddy, show us what and expert you are. Post up some dyno sheets showing impressive torque gains on a 4.6 for cheap. I'd love to see them, might even lend some creedence to your posts.
This isnt the Mustang forum last I checked. Doing cams in a 4.6 fitted to a 3000 lb car would make sense to me and give you a boost you could feel. Fitting cams to a 4.6 in a 5500 lb truck turning 35" tires isn't going to give you a boost you can feel. Hence, for all practical and cost effective purposes, the engine has reached its potential with the bolt ons he has used. The headers were certainly a better move than cams
I go go on and on. If you want to be "right" and have the last word, go for it buddy, show us what and expert you are. Post up some dyno sheets showing impressive torque gains on a 4.6 for cheap. I'd love to see them, might even lend some creedence to your posts.Cams do not equal torque loss. Off the shelf cams spec'd for a Mustang intake manifold will result in a turdly F150. You and I clearly aren't talking about the same thing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Raptor119
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
6
Oct 16, 2007 08:51 PM