I've owned or own both the 5.4 and the venerable 300. While the power band of most OHC engines are up in the rpms, the 5.4 actually was built almost right. Almost. It may not make it's peak torque at the same low range of the 300, but if it produces 90% of 350 ft-lbs at 1500 rpm. At that range it is still producing a heck of lot more than my stock 300 at that rpm for 30 more cubes (5.4 =330 ci).

I love the 300, wish Ford would have kept it or at least redesigned it to compete with the OHC's. It ran forever, even when I was on tough times and couldn't properly maintain it. I'll be forever greatful to that motor, and I'll defend it against the 4.6, but don't dog my 5.4. I feel the 5.4 is Ford's closest replacement for the 300. Time will tell if lasts as long as the 300...(crossing fingers).

I will not defend the 4.6 in a discussion between it and the 300. It's simply a non-purpose built motor that Ford threw in everything they needed a V-8 for. It's there to sell the trucks (and cars) to people who THINK they need a V-8, but don't even know why. The 300 was a truck engine, and acted like it.

-Kerry

 

i bought a new 95 300 manual and drove it hard before i moved overseas. Came back to the USA and bought a new 4.6 f150. Never had a speck of trouble from either truck (my 4.6l f150 currently has 140,000 miles on it) but the 95 six cylinder was (make that IS) a better engine. Far as i am concerned, Ford really lost their way when they adopted the 97 style. Nothing sexist meant by this comment, but like the oval rear windowed taurus, the 97-03 ford looks like it was designed by a committee of women (please ladies, dont crucify me. Rounded corners and softer lines do represent what the truck has become). Mechanically my 97 f150 has been perfect ($7 repairs total so far for a new oil filler cap) but when i returned to the USA in 97 i now wish i had bought a used 95/96 superduty f250 , or at least a 95/96 f150. To me, the 2004 ford is a step in the right direction from a styling perspective but not radical enough. for my taste, the 04 needs more of a f250 stance and look. I dont blame ford at all though. The 97 and 04 f150 body styles are designed to sell the maximum number of trucks and ford's job is to maximize shareholder value, not to worry about what the relatively few gearheaded ford fans think. Back in the 60s, 70s and 80's, most trucks were bought by people who needed a truck . Ford met that need but the public's buying priorities have now shifted to those who want (versus need) a truck and wisely enough ford has evolved to match the public's expectations. So if you want to blame somebody for the way ford trucks look today, blame the buying public. i will still say though that the 97 ford redesign was a gross overreaction and the styling changes were born from a lack of conviction, a lack of confidence and a total absence of cajones by ford's truck styling chiefs. They abandoned a long and distinguished line of tuff looking trucks without fully realizing the enduring legacy of prior designs.

 

and p.s. if anybody in dearborne reads my previous post and says "doesnt that pecker wood realize we made 97 styling changes to help meet governent mandated epa rules and so we were compelled to optimize aerodynamic design and weight reduction efforts. " my answer is that is well and good, but overall i rate that response as totally lacking. find a way to produce a great looking truck while working your way thru the various constraints and obstacles. that is your job.

 

I guess not everyone agrees that the 5.4 isnt that great. I agree that its alot better than the 5.8 it replaced, but that didnt take much. It just seems that the engine is set up for a commuter, and not anyone expecting to use it as a pickup. I know someone else mentioned that its the publics fault for wanting that and i agree.
There are thousands of people who have traded in their hondas and toyotas for full size pickups. Its their own perogative, im not trying to discourage them or anything. Its just changed the demographics of the full size pickup owner.
I dont very much like the looks of the 97-present half tons, but ive owned 3. Kept thinking it would grow on me, it hasnt. Only one left is the expedition, and it is definitely not impressing me.
If i buy annother newer ford, it will be a superduty. They seem to be the only ones built to be used.
I love fords and always have, but my current GMC is making my recent fords look bad. Hard to defend my fords to my wife, who is a GM fan, when all the fords weve had have been so problematic and the GMC just goes and goes. The GMC is the only one ive ever bought an extended warranty for. And ive never used it.
Sorry about the long post

Tony Warren
Nebraska

 

There is a "religious" following for the 300 I6.

I am sort of a new guy here, and don't want to be too argumentative, BUT, the 4.6 produces as much or more torque than the 300 from 1000 rpm on up. (225 at 1000 rpm, 260- something at 2000). Then, it keeps pulling right up past 4500 rpm, which means you can keep it in a lower gear to keep the torque multiplied. For example, 275 torque in 3rd gear is better than 275 torque in 4th gear, final drive being equal.

Somebody said "a truck engine should have pushrods not OHC". why? This is like saying no new magnum will drop a deer like Grandpa's old .303. it is just religious sentiment, loyalty. not scientific.

I have driven both 300 and 4.6 in manual and auto and I do like the 300, it has a real truck engine quality and is confidence inspiring because it seems to say, "I'll never stop". but my point is that the 4.6 will get the job done just as well, and since I have heard no reports of the 4.6 "wearing out" even with tough use, under 200,000 miles, there is no huge difference in durability between these engines.

 

I agree with you 100%. The OHC comments never cease to amaze me. Cam placement has NOTHING to do with powerband.

 

Radar Ridr-
I respect your torque and power numbers argument, it makes logical sense. I do not discount that data, I never have. The mileage... well, when we can post a thread that lasts 5 pages about personal experiences of the 4.6 lasting in excess of 200,000 miles, then it will have attained the same legendary cult status of durability that the 300 has.

Sometimes the argument goes beyond the numbers, though. My signature line below pretty much sums my experience up. I may not be 75 years old and have a lifetime of experience, but I've had a pretty good share. I've either drove, performed maintenance on, ridden in or driven darn near every US sold Ford vehicle from the past 20 years with 4 wheels. You see, it was part of my job -an additional duty- to be in charge of several departmental vehicle pools for the government and private companies through the past 14 years and my family has owned quite a few Fords (I was conceived in a '70 BOSS 302, now that's a story for the kids). I have also driven trucks and cars by various other manufacturers over the years. I have personally driven Ford trucks with the 4.6 and the 300. Differing body styles 1 year apart ('96 F250 w/300 and auto, '97 F150 w/4.6 and auto). The 300 felt like a truck that had the ability to pull its own weight and then some. The 4.6 just didn't feel that way. It drove more like an underpowered sports car. You would figure the 3/4 ton weighed more and was an older vehicle, it should have felt like it...

The comparison goes deeper than two vehicles. I have driven other 4.6 and 300 powered vehicles, so I feel I do have some room for comparison. The 300 always had the feeling of grunt, the 4.6 performed as expected in my dad's Continental and the rental Mustang.

What the numbers say is one thing, what I felt was completely different. The 4.6 felt at home in the cars, but seemed alien in the trucks.

By the way, glad to have you aboard radar ridr... it's always nice to here from any Ford truck owner, no matter what they drive

-Kerry

 

KS - point taken. I think there is more of a difference especially with the auto-equipped trucks. I have driven a few 300 auto's and they would accel. readily without downshifting, while my previous truck, a 2000 4.6 auto was pretty flat until you pushed hard enough to trigger a downshift.

I think it's more even with a manual. My pal has a 94 300 4x2 5spd, and I have an 03 4.6 4x4 5spd. The seat-of-the-pants feel is almost identical... until you wind it up a bit. and my rig must weigh about 500 lbs more than his. but when I got my truck I was amazed how much that 4.6 felt like his 300. but i would not make the same claim with an auto.

ANYWAY I get your point and appreciate the fact that you have a lot of experience driving different vehicles. Thanks for the info.

radar.

 

i love my 300 mainly cuz its easy to work on, and has been around for decades. also, it'll pretty much run forever if matianed and overall is a better suited truck engine IMO. the bottem ends on these motors are so overbuilt its not funny. but, to each is his own, but i still think a 300 will out work/tow a 4.6L anyday.

 

I've seen this argument in several forms over the years and it always intrigues me. It seems that simply upping the rear end ratio on a 4.6 would give you all you need. Here's an example from my experience.

I owned a Honda Civic into which I transplanted a stock Acura Integra engine. I could race 4.6 and 5.0 Mustangs all day and fininsh within a few tenths. Sure, I had to wind my engine out to 8200 rpm but I got there just as fast even though I only had 170 HP and 135 lbs-ft of torque. What it came down to is the gearing. The Honda's gearing allowed it take full adavantage of the broad, flat torque curve. Obviously if the Honda was geared the same as the Mustang I would have been sucking dust as they passed me.

 

That's a good point Andrew.

The torque curve of the 300 is relatively flat and short. It doesn't rev as high or as long as a given 4.6, to make it's power. The 4.6 has a longer and higher torque peak, but perhaps the gears aren't a good enough compensation to take care of this, as both would have 3.55's in an F150 8.8" rear from about '86 on in the lowest ratios. The F250's could have bigger and deeper gears, but the 4.6 wasn't found in the F250 later on. Concentrating on the half ton trucks the computers and trannies come into play. The later versions of the 300, for the most part, had the same transmissions as the 4.6: M5OD manuals (some 300's had ZF's) and AOD-e/ 4R70W automatics . So, the only other option that would have any variance is the tuning. Perhaps the 4.6 (and those with autos) wasn't tuned or programmed to take full advantage of the power output? Just a thought...

-Kerry

 

I currently own one of each, a 300 and a 5.4 S/C. I absolutely love my 300 and will probably never own another truck with a 302 or 351 in it. There is one reason being overlooked that the 300 feels like more of an engine than the 4.6 does in the new body style and that is base vehicle weight. My 01 Lightning weighs 4960 lbs with me in it and 1/4 tank of gas. My 1990 only weighs about 4200 with two full tanks, me and my fiance in it. Both trucks are loaded with PW, PL, PS, etc. The new body style weighs almost half a ton more than the old style from the get go. The way to compare the two engines is to put 800-1000 lbs in the bed of the pre 97 trucks and see which one does better, I think you'll find that the 4.6 does just fine. I would still take my 300 over a 4.6, but my 5.4 with 450hp and 540 ft-lbs makes me forget all about my prized 300.

 

As far as the 4.9L 300 cu in IL6 goes, it was a great motor that worked hard in my 94' F150 4x2 XL pickup.

I don't have any experience with the 4.6Lv8-so any opinion I could offer would be based solely on speculation.

The 4.9 does have a very very narrow powerband that is somewhat lower than most v-8's,the tranny in my truck was the POS Mazda, but at least I had 3.55 rears in it.

I drove a buddy's truck once-he had a 93' F150' it was such a dog-it barely got out of it's own way-like me he got all his power down low,but because it was all gone at highway speeds he was sometimes downshifting to third to get up a 10% grade -EMPTY!Same tranny I had, but mine felt like a light granny compared to his!.....that's pretty bad considering this is the M5od we're talkin' about here.
Turns out he had a -get this....2.73 axle ratio!

I made the mistake of letting him drive my truck-poor guy never felt quite like a man driving his truck anymore-and I thought mine was geared too light!

So I agree with the previous post it, it is definately the gearing.
No DIESEL engine made would be worth crap for pulling with a tranny and rear like that!


Regards.

 

This goes against that popular argument that the newer trucks are made flimsier or out of lightweight space age material and the older trucks were built out of good old thick heavy steel

My '82 weighed in at 4400 lbs with a 6000 GVWR, I have no direct comparison, since I now own a S/C with more options and components. It weighs in at 5100, that's 700 lbs (the s/c weighs 500 lbs by Fords specs, and I have at least 200 lbs worth of undercarriage upgrades over a conventional F150 regular cab).... so I don't think the newer trucks weigh more than the older ones, unless you can prove this by comparing a regular cab to a regular cab with basic components.

-Kerry

 

I just did. My Lightning weighs 4960 with me in it and 1/4 tank of gas. My 90 weighs about 4200 with me, my fiance, and two full tanks in it. If you take out my fiance (120 lbs) and reduce fuel in the 90 to 7 gallons (saving 168 lbs) it would drop to about 3900 lbs. I will admit that the weight of my 90 could vary slightly because it was weighed on a scale at a truck stop. I don't expect a scale calibrated for 80k lbs to weigh 4000 correctly, but it should be fairly lose. Since my word apparently isn't good enough, the "official" base weight of a 96 F150 regular cab shortbed is 3886, for a 99 F150 regular cab shortbed it's 4670. Those numbers came from Edmunds.com . It doesn't take much to add lots of weight to a vehicle. There's probably 100 lbs difference in wheels and tires alone. The new body style is also 8" longer than the old. Adding 8" to every thing on the truck like frame rails, drive train, body work, etc. adds lots of weight. the newer trucks also get the 9.25" axle instead of the 8.8. Comparing the two side by side it wouldn't surprise me if the 9.25 is 75-100 lbs heavier. New vehicles have a lot more crap in them also.