Thought I would clarify for the 4.6 guys that might be scratching their heads on this one. Quote: "The '91-'92 Romeo SOHC head sports an F1AE casting number, with a bridge-style camshaft support bridge across the cam journals. These heads have no cam bearings. The camshafts ride right on the aluminum saddles (journals) in a cushion of engine oil under pressure. The cam covers sport nine bolt holes. There are two types of spark plug holes: short-reach and long-reach. Long-reach spark plugs indicate early castings. Later castings have a shorter-reach spark plug. This is important to remember whenever you're swapping heads." Ford Modular V-8 Engines Part 2 - Mustang & Fords Magazine

 

Hmmm...this is confusing. I'm not sure that the longer reach plugs had more threads in the head than the shorter reach ones but it would make sense that they do. This is long before any of the engines ended up in a truck application though...1991 and 1992 would have been Town Car and Crown Vic/Grand Marquis only.

Man, they sure went thru a LOT of head designs here. This article is from 2005, so it does not seem to cover the most recent PI heads (which I believe I now have). For the Romeo engine alone, they had the new PI head introduced in 2000(?), the revised PI head with better cooling in mid-2003, and another revision with more plug threads circa 2005(?).

It sure seems to take Ford a while to really get something right, again reinforcing the idea that I do not want to be a "beta tester" for any kind of EcoBoost engine. Even if prototype test engines give stellar test results, moving certain parts (like turbos) to mass production could create yet more problems arising from mass production status.

There are times when I want my 1978 300 inch six back for the wonderful simplicity. Actually, let's go even earlier to get rid of some of the smog controls...

George

 

The heat those turbos generate is going to play hell on underhood temps, could cause vapor lock and all kinds of problems. May even dis-color the hood with certain colors, who knows? Much rather have a belt driven super charger over an exhaust driven turbo any day of the week. To make matters worse, there's two, even more exhaust pipes under the hood.

 

I think by now it's quite obvious that no one's going to change anyone else's mind here so I officially declare this horse dead. I respectfully agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that. It's been an interesting debate.

 

I can agree with that, and it has been a good read.

 

Strange, I don't have those issues on the 6.0 and I'm willing to bet underhood of that truck get's a whole lot hotter then what that EB would.

I haven't heard of an underhood discoloration either from the turbo, now a crack in the EGR blowing soot every which way, that has happened.

 

Since this is the which engine is best thread I posed this very question to three techs and 4 service writers yesterday at my dealer. They unanimously said that the 5.0L will be the best engine for the money......initially until the 3.5L and 6.2L prove themselves.

 

You have a point there Tex, but white paint B/C has been known to discolor from heat on other vehicles. You're also comparing diesel fuel to gas, Gas doesn't like heat.

 

Neither does diesel, it just has a higher tolerance for it. As far as ECT, diesel isn't all that much different from gas atleast with my two it isn't.

 

You want to play, don't you! Go fill your gas car up with diesel and let me know how it runs!

 

All I can tell you is what my PID readings are from the 6.0 compared to my 5.4. Engine temps are not all that much different when comparing both trucks on the same trip, unloaded and driving them both the same way. Now, if I rag on the 6.0, I'll hit 215 fairly easily and it won't get all that much higher on the 5.4, but I've also have a much hotter program on the 6.0 compared to the stock Ford program on the 5.4.

Now, if you want to argue differences in fuel chemistry, energy content of fuel etc, your right there are huge differences. However, based on the PID readings that I have on the major ones, there isn't as much difference between the two given all other variables are pretty much the same.

Now, I have yet to use an intake temp reading and that will probably give us a better knowledge on what it's like directly under the hood between the two, but as far as engine itself(ECT and EOT), PID differences are negligible. Pretty amazing considering I'm basing this on both of my trucks and one of them is a 500+HP truck and the one that you would think ECT would hotter then compared to the gasser even with normal driving.

 

That's interesting Tex, it seems like the higher compression ratio alone would produce more heat. Certainly not going to doubt you, I know you're a smart guy and I'm not up on diesels like you are.

 

Also add in the fact that the 6.0 has almost zero space under the hood compared to all the space that the 5.4 has in the 150, which is even smaller then the SD. That one really has me baffled. I could almost fit in there and work on the engine and I'm 6'3".

 

If I were in the market for a half ton gas truck it would be without a doubt the 6.2. This engine is showing pretty impressive results in the Super Duty and will be a monster in the F150. The 5.0 and Eco engines look very impressive also. These are all great choices and the decision can be tough.

Bottom line is I truly believe all the '11 engine lineup will be MUCH better than the Tritan line of engines...

Let's list some of the historical Triton woes for all the selective memories:
2V Series 4.6 & 5.4
Poor power
Poor fuel economy
Pistin Slap
Spark Plugs shootin out of heads

3V Series 5.4
Uninspiring power
Spark plugs still shootin out of heads
Cam phasers
Spark plug failures
Carbon build up on spark plugs

Enjoy the new '11 engine lineup, I think they'll all be great. Too bad the diesel got dropped.

 

Pulling 6500 lbs. regularly I would go with the 6.2L F150 due to the simplicity of not having the turbos and such to maintain and repair. My 06 5.4L F150 handles my 6800 lb. car hauler great without any problems. The 2011 trucks are improved dramatically over the previous generation with the engine and tranny lineup. When you factor in the improvements made to the brakes and suspension, it'll do the job. The only thing I would do is add a couple of leafs to the rear springs and you'll be good to go. Unless you want a diesel, that's the way I'd go. SD would be overkill and wouldn't deliver as good of fuel economy.