5.0L in the new Mustang

[White99GT]

A PFI 5.0 for the Mustang is at 425 HP. Some tech from the FR500 engine.

 

I'm guessing this means a variable "geometry" intake manifold for the 5.0L. Dual runner intakes, FTW.

 

425 hp sounds realistic, seeing as how the 2000 R 5.4L made 410-415 actual horsepower (with the smaller 3.55" bore, no VCT, fixed runner intake, and likely less compression), and the SAE J1349 standard is going to make underrating these engines next to impossible.

 

It's about time Ford developed the Modulars a little bit, I've been tired of these half-hearted factory efforts for a while. The aftermarket has shown these engines (primarily the 4Vs) have a ton of untapped potential even naturally aspirated.

[White99GT]

425 HP from the 5.0L mod gen III means dramatically better breathing to me. Considering that a lot of the FR500 mods addressed breathing, that holds water. It'll be interesting to see what it looks like in final trim.

 

4V FTW. The 3V program was a mistake from the beginning and exemplifies everything that was wrong with Ford in the past.

[silvrsvt]

4V FTW. The 3V program was a mistake from the beginning and exemplifies everything that was wrong with Ford in the past.

 

How was it a mistake? It was cheaper then the 4v 4.6L engine and put as much or more power and I also think cleaner engine to boot!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The 3V, as a replacement for the 2V engine, was a big success. The problem was, Ford never completely rid themselves of the 2V by not doing the R&D work to put it in the F-150 sooner and taking the risk of replacing the engine in the Panthers with it.

[bossed]

Boy I can't wait to see the commercial, "The 5.0 is Back" sounds like she has the makings of a world class engine! Hip Hip Hooray!!!!!!!! :happy feet: :happy feet: :shades: :shades:

[White99GT]

How was it a mistake? It was cheaper then the 4v 4.6L engine and put as much or more power and I also think cleaner engine to boot!

 

It was a mistake. It was an example of the old Ford mentality of looking for a single instead of a home run, or looking for "just good enough."

 

Think about this. Had Ford spent the money they did on the developing the 3V program, what would have happened had they spent that money updating/upgrading the existing 4V program?

 

It would have been absolute cake for Ford to produce a 360-380 HP, 390-400 lb-ft 5.4 4V for the F150/Expedition in 2004. Had they done so, the Tundra's 381 HP wouldn't have looked so shocking in 2007 would it? Instead of being the "second coming", the Tundra 5.7L would have been an also ran.

 

The 5.4 3V w/ VCT and a pretty damn nice intake manifold made the same power as the Navi's 1999 5.4 4V, which had the worst of the tumble port 4V heads, was WAY undercammed, and an intake with more twists and turns (and runner shape changes) than a rat's nest.

 

Sure, the 3V is logically a cheaper to produce cylinder head/valvetrain package (by how much is anyone's guess), sure it's a more compact cylinder head (which offers virtually no real world advantage), but it falls short on power and potential. The 4V DOHC packages also allows for TiVCT, which could possibly make it MORE emissions friendly than the 3V. The 3V sucks, and that Ford is already moving away from it (as is Mercedes) should speak volumes.

[P71_CrownVic]

The 3V, as a replacement for the 2V engine, was a big success. The problem was, Ford never completely rid themselves of the 2V by not doing the R&D work to put it in the F-150 sooner and taking the risk of replacing the engine in the Panthers with it.

I think the 3V is dead in a few years...

[NickF1011]

I think the 3V is dead in a few years...

 

Yep. All along it was only intended as a stop-gap while they worked on entirely new engine architectures. It's a good, solid engine, but it's not a long-term solution to anything.

[TomServo92]

It was a mistake. It was an example of the old Ford mentality of looking for a single instead of a home run, or looking for "just good enough."

 

Yeah, "just good enough" to be named one of Ward's Ten Best Engines in 2006 and 2007. :reading:

Edited April 24, 2008 by TomServo92

[White99GT]

Yeah, "just good enough" to be named one of Ward's Ten Best Engines in 2006 and 2007. :reading:

 

And the Chrysler Cirrus was the 1995 Motor Trend Car of the Year, whoopty-fucking-doo.

[TomServo92]

And the Chrysler Cirrus was the 1995 Motor Trend Car of the Year, whoopty-fucking-doo.

 

Uh yeah...whatever....not sure what that has to do with it.

 

Frankly I'll trust Ward's assessment of the engine before I'll trust yours. :shades:

 

EDIT: Whadda ya know...it made the list again for 2008.... :reading:

 

EDIT #2: Somehow I missed it. It also made the list in 2005. That's four years in row. Not bad for "just good enough".

Edited April 24, 2008 by TomServo92

[White99GT]

Uh yeah...whatever....not sure what that has to do with it.

 

Frankly I'll trust Ward's assessment of the engine before I'll trust yours. :shades:

 

EDIT: Whadda ya know...it made the list again for 2008.... :reading:

 

EDIT #2: Somehow I missed it. It also made the list in 2005. That's four years in row. Not bad for "just good enough".

 

My response was just as relevant as yours was, which is to say it wasn't relevant at all.

 

Ward's Ten Best Engines list is no more meaningul than M/Ts COTY, C/Ds 10Best, or whatever other arbitrary award we can come up with.

 

The 5.4 3V is and was "just good enough." 300 HP, 365 TQ was "just good enough" in 2004, it is behind the curve in 2008 and it's likely going remain well behind the Toyota 5.7L (an undersquare 4V engine) in 2009. The 5.4 3V even started off on the wrong foot, failing to meet it's initial target of 325 HP.

 

As a long-time Ford fan I love to see Ford winning awards, it gives me a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling and all that. But claiming the F150 won the 2004 TOTY award, that the Mustang GT made Car and Driver's 10Best list in 2005, or that the 4.6 3V made Ward's list in 2007 is hardly proof of anything.

 

OTOH, the fact that Chrysler Cirrus was the 1995 COTY (it was an utter p.o.s.), the Tundra was the 2008 TOTY, and that the Mazda DISI 2.3L Turbo 4 is on Ward's Ten Best Engines list for 2008 equally as meaningless. The Mazda DI Turbo 4 even failed Ford's durability tests as per Blue II and we all know the Tundra's story.

Edited April 24, 2008 by White99GT

[TomServo92]

My response was just as relevant as yours was, which is to say it wasn't relevant at all.

 

Ward's engine list is no more meaningul than M/Ts COTY, C/Ds 10Best, or whatever other arbitrary award we can come up with.

 

The 5.4 3V is and was "just good enough." 300 HP, 365 TQ was "just good enough" in 2004, it is behind the curve in 2008 and it's likely going remain well behind the Toyota 5.7L (an undersquare 4V engine) in 2009. The 5.4 3V even started off on the wrong foot, failing to meet it's initial target of 325 HP.

 

OK, whatever.

[White99GT]

OK, whatever.

 

Yep, the 3V is the greatest thing since sliced bread. After all, Ward's auto says so. :rolleyes:

 

Meanwhile in Australia:

 

Barra 220 3-valve SOHC 5.4 L V8, 295 hp (220 kW) @ 4750 rpm, 347 lb·ft (470 N·m) @ 3250 rpm (with VCT)

Barra 230 3-valve SOHC 5.4 L V8, 309 hp (230 kW) @ 5350 rpm, 369 lb·ft (500 N·m) @ 3500 rpm (with VCT)

Boss 260 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 349 hp (260 kW) @ 5250 rpm, 369 lb·ft (500 N·m) @ 4000 rpm (w/o VCT)

Boss 290 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 389 hp (290 kW) @ 5500 rpm, 384 lb·ft (521 N·m) @ 4500 rpm (w/o VCT)

Boss 302 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 405 hp (302 kW) @ 6000 rpm, 398 lb·ft (540 N·m) @ 4750 rpm (w/o VCT)

Boss 315 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 422 hp (315 kW) @ 6500 rpm, 406.5 lb·ft (551 N·m) @ 4750 rpm (w/o VCT)

 

And right here in America:

 

Triton 5.4, 3-valve SOHC 5.4 L V8, 300 hp (224 kW) @ 5000 rpm and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m) @ 3750 rpm (with VCT)

i-Force 5.7, 4-valve DOHC 5.7 L V8, 381 hp (284 kW) @ 5600 and 401 lb·ft (544 N·m) @ 3600 rpm (with VCT)

 

But hey, I only have facts, I'm aware that doesn't compare to arbitrary magazine awards.

Edited April 24, 2008 by White99GT

[RichardJensen]

Blah blah blah. Only a fool would assert that the run of the mill 4v heads on the 4.6 & 5.4 were worth a hoot. The 3V does about as well as the =run of the mill= 4v heads in terms of flow and return better fuel economy for a lower cost in a slightly more compact package.

 

Are the 3v heads as good as the performance tuned 4v heads? No. But you're being a bit disingenuous in comparing the Ford Expedition's 5.4L with the 4.6L in the 2000 Cobra R.

[White99GT]

Only a fool would assert that the run of the mill 4v heads on the 4.6 & 5.4 were worth a hoot. The 3V does about as well as the =run of the mill= 4v heads in terms of flow and return better fuel economy for a lower cost in a slightly more compact package.

 

Clearly you haven't seen flowbench results for any of the heads in question, so I'm not sure why you even feel the need to chime in here.

 

"Run of the mill" 4V heads (FYI there several versions of these, 93-95 split-port A-heads, 96-98 split-port B-heads, tumble-port 99-01 C-heads, 99-03 tumble port Navigators, and tumble port 03-05 heads) easily outflow 3V heads stock for stock. The only possible exception to this may be he A-heads which I haven't seen any flow numbers for.

 

96-98 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~260/190 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore (the ~220cc combined intake port volume kills velocity compare to the tumble port heads)

99-01 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~260/190 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

03-05 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~270/210 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

FGT/GT500 "performance tuned" 4V heads flow ~310/250 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

 

3V heads flow ~240/160 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore stock out of the box.

 

The reason for this is obvious, the 3V heads intake valve placement forces them to make do with two smaller 34.7mm intake valves and one 38.5mm exhaust valve. Compare that with "run of the mill" 4V heads that have two 37mm intake valves and two 30mm exhaust valves.

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads feature an intake port with contours almost identical the "performance tuned" FR500 4V cylinder heads.

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads actually have more intake port volume than the "performance tuned" FR500 4V heads (177cc vs 160cc).

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads outflow the "performance tuned" FR500 4V heads on both intake and exhaust sides above .300" lift.

 

The FPV GTs have made 389-422 HP (Boss 290, 302 and 315) with "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads that "only a fool would assert are worth a hoot." :rolleyes:

 

Are the 3v heads as good as the performance tuned 4v heads? No. But you're being a bit disingenuous in comparing the Ford Expedition's 5.4L with the 4.6L in the 2000 Cobra R.

 

Huh?

Edited April 24, 2008 by White99GT

[atomaro]

Clearly you haven't seen flowbench results for any of the heads in question, so I'm not sure why you even feel the need to chime in here.

 

"Run of the mill" 4V heads (FYI there several versions of these, 93-95 split-port A-heads, 96-98 split-port B-heads, tumble-port 99-01 C-heads, 99-03 tumble port Navigators, and tumble port 03-05 heads) easily outflow 3V heads stock for stock. The only possible exception to this may be he A-heads which I haven't seen any flow numbers for.

 

96-98 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~260/190 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore (the ~220cc combined intake port volume kills velocity compare to the tumble port heads)

99-01 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~260/190 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

03-05 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~270/210 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

FGT/GT500 "performance tuned" 4V heads flow ~310/250 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

 

3V heads flow ~240/160 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore stock out of the box.

 

The reason for this is obvious, the 3V heads intake valve placement forces them to make do with two smaller 34.7mm intake valves and one 38.5mm exhaust valve. Compare that with "run of the mill" 4V heads that have two 37mm intake valves and two 30mm exhaust valves.

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads feature an intake port with contours almost identical the "performance tuned" FR500 4V cylinder heads.

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads actually have more intake port volume than the "performance tuned" FR500 4V heads (177cc vs 160cc).

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads outflow the "performance tuned" FR500 4V heads on both intake and exhaust sides above .300" lift.

 

The FPV GTs have made 389-422 HP (Boss 290, 302 and 315) with "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads that "only a fool would assert are worth a hoot." :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Huh?

 

Seriously, quit while you are behind. Countless tests have been done NA and with FI...the 3v head will run with a 4v when properly setup. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. 2v<3v<4v. The 3v is far from being a crap design. Funny how how the 300hp 3v GT doesn't get dusted (it still loses, but not by a lot) by the 4v 320hp in the Cobra or the supposed (more like 320) 4v in the Mach I.

Edited April 24, 2008 by atomaro

[old_fairmont_wagon]

My favorite part of ALL of this conversation is that the 3V head was designed to be an evolutionary replacement of the 2V head setup, not a replacement for the Hi-Po 4V setups. The 3V assembly, in production, is trivially more expensive than the outgoing 2V head, while being more compact (allowing more installation flexibility) and lighter (aids performance and efficiency). The fact that the 3V SOHC VCT 4.6L mod V8 in the current Mustang has a rated output that is nigligibly different from the 4V 4.6L DOHC non-vct mod v8 in the 03-04 Mach 1 is just icing on the cake. Ford made the wise decision to replace the more expensive 4V setups that were in use in the Navigator with the equally powerful, but lighter, 3V setups.

 

Ford has had a modern 4V head for some time that they never bothered to add VCT to, the 5.4L in the Ford GT has some fairly nice heads as does the GT500 5.4L. Its not like Ford didn't create them. They just decided to keep them at the factory. Heck, we all know that there was a prototype V-10 that was out there with a short stroke and nice heads that would have been amazing in almost anything it would have been installed in. Why didn't they run with that? There's a lot that enthusiasts have to complain about not seeing from Ford. The 3V head is definitely low on the list of things I'd gripe about. compared to the 2V head it replaced, its lightyears better.

[RichardJensen]

Clearly you haven't seen flowbench results for any of the heads in question, so I'm not sure why you even feel the need to chime in here.

 

"Run of the mill" 4V heads (FYI there several versions of these, 93-95 split-port A-heads, 96-98 split-port B-heads, tumble-port 99-01 C-heads, 99-03 tumble port Navigators, and tumble port 03-05 heads) easily outflow 3V heads stock for stock. The only possible exception to this may be he A-heads which I haven't seen any flow numbers for.

 

96-98 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~260/190 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore (the ~220cc combined intake port volume kills velocity compare to the tumble port heads)

99-01 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~260/190 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

03-05 "run of the mill" 4V heads flow ~270/210 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

FGT/GT500 "performance tuned" 4V heads flow ~310/250 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore

 

3V heads flow ~240/160 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore stock out of the box.

 

The reason for this is obvious, the 3V heads intake valve placement forces them to make do with two smaller 34.7mm intake valves and one 38.5mm exhaust valve. Compare that with "run of the mill" 4V heads that have two 37mm intake valves and two 30mm exhaust valves.

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads feature an intake port with contours almost identical the "performance tuned" FR500 4V cylinder heads.

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads actually have more intake port volume than the "performance tuned" FR500 4V heads (177cc vs 160cc).

 

The "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads outflow the "performance tuned" FR500 4V heads on both intake and exhaust sides above .300" lift.

 

The FPV GTs have made 389-422 HP (Boss 290, 302 and 315) with "run of the mill" 03-05 4V heads that "only a fool would assert are worth a hoot." :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Huh?

From the numbers you just provided, I see a 7.6% advantage in CFM for the Continental/MK VIII/1st gen. Navigator 4-v heads and an 11% advantage in CFM for the '03-'05 Navigator heads.

 

I would consider that within the range of "about as well as", which is what I typed.

 

I never said the 3v was =better=. I said that it was 'about as good as' the 4vs, and more economical (which it is, using regular gas, being cheaper to assemble, and returning--by most accounts--better fuel economy), and cleaner (IIRC the 3v carries a higher bin rating than any 4v engine).

 

As far as the 4v heads not being 'worth a hoot', I would base that on the fact that, with more economical tuning, the 3v head turns out more torque than any 'run of the mill' 4v head ever produced. AND more hp.

 

Compare 5.4L 'run of the mill' applications and 4.6L 'run of the mill' applications, 4v to 3v, and you see more hp and more torque. Now how much of that is due to VVT on the 3vs, I can't say (and it does bias the comparison in favor of the 3vs), but the numbers don't lie. The 3v heads, in non-performance applications, deliver more power and torque than the 4v heads.

 

I'm not interested in what tuners (even Ford factory tuners) are getting from the 4v heads, as that opens up a whole can of worms that really can't be answered.

 

Rather, I'm confining this comparison (as clearly stated) to everyday applications of each engine (Navigator, Expedition, Explorer, Mustang, Continental, MKVII, etc.)

[NickF1011]

From the numbers you just provided, I see a 7.6% advantage in CFM for the Continental/MK VIII/1st gen. Navigator 4-v heads and an 11% advantage in CFM for the '03-'05 Navigator heads.

 

I would consider that within the range of "about as well as", which is what I typed.

 

I never said the 3v was =better=. I said that it was 'about as good as' the 4vs, and more economical (which it is, using regular gas, being cheaper to assemble, and returning--by most accounts--better fuel economy), and cleaner (IIRC the 3v carries a higher bin rating than any 4v engine).

 

As far as the 4v heads not being 'worth a hoot', I would base that on the fact that, with more economical tuning, the 3v head turns out more torque than any 'run of the mill' 4v head ever produced. AND more hp.

 

Compare 5.4L 'run of the mill' applications and 4.6L 'run of the mill' applications, 4v to 3v, and you see more hp and more torque. Now how much of that is due to VVT on the 3vs, I can't say (and it does bias the comparison in favor of the 3vs), but the numbers don't lie. The 3v heads, in non-performance applications, deliver more power and torque than the 4v heads.

 

I'm not interested in what tuners (even Ford factory tuners) are getting from the 4v heads, as that opens up a whole can of worms that really can't be answered.

 

Rather, I'm confining this comparison (as clearly stated) to everyday applications of each engine (Navigator, Expedition, Explorer, Mustang, Continental, MKVII, etc.)

 

The fact remains though that these two uses of heads occurred in vastly different eras of engine performance. When Ford was using 4-valve heads widely, the power they made was sufficient for the market at the time, so not much effort was put into extracting more power in their application. With the same amount of effort put into the 4-valve heads as has been put into the 3-valve combos being used now, I don't think the power/torque outputs would even be close.

[RichardJensen]

With the same amount of effort put into the 4-valve heads as has been put into the 3-valve combos being used now, I don't think the power/torque outputs would even be close.

I think that's rather hard to quantify. I mean we have no idea how much 'effort' was put into the 4v or 3v heads. Nor can you really assign numbers there.

 

Bottom line is that the 3v equipped engines deliver more hp and torque in non-tuner trim than the 4v engines ever did and the 4v engines, when tuned for performance, deliver a lot more hp and torque than the 3v heads.

 

I mean you can argue from either side of the fence on this one. I don't think it can be categorically asserted that the 3v heads are bad, as has been done here.

[NickF1011]

I think that's rather hard to quantify. I mean we have no idea how much 'effort' was put into the 4v or 3v heads. Nor can you really assign numbers there.

 

Bottom line is that the 3v equipped engines deliver more hp and torque in non-tuner trim than the 4v engines ever did and the 4v engines, when tuned for performance, deliver a lot more hp and torque than the 3v heads.

 

I mean you can argue from either side of the fence on this one. I don't think it can be categorically asserted that the 3v heads are bad, as has been done here.

 

Like I said, two different eras. When I bought my Cobra in 1997, 305 horsepower was HOT SHIT. At the time, the 4.6 2-valve was making a horrendous 215 horsepower. The fact that the 4-valves benefit so greatly from such minor tweaks tells you that a lot of potential for the engine was left on the table by engineers. Why? Because they didn't need it at the time. The market wasn't demanding it.

 

I'm not saying the 3-valve heads are bad either. They certainly have served their intended purpose. I think it's pretty clear to see though that the 4-valve designs still offer more overall potential though -- they were just abandoned for a more cost-effective means to a similar end.

[White99GT]

Countless tests have been done NA and with FI...the 3v head will run with a 4v when properly setup. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. 2v<3v<4v. The 3v is far from being a crap design. Funny how how the 300hp 3v GT doesn't get dusted (it still loses, but not by a lot) by the 4v 320hp in the Cobra or the supposed (more like 320) 4v in the Mach I.

 

No naturally aspirated 3V has ever achieved over 400 rwhp SAE corrected at stock displacement. 7,200 RPM limited stock bottom end 4Vs have eclipsed 400 rwhp plenty of times now. The NMRA Pure Street 4Vs make ~450 rwhp natually asirated at roughly stock displacement.

 

Stock longblock 03/04 Cobras (completely stock down to the cams and pistons) have eclipsed 1000 rwhp with single turbo systems. When BOTH the 3V and 4V are "properly setup" with optimal supporting mods the 3V doesn't compare. Improperly or incomparbly setup combos results in skewed results which will make any comparison meaningless. I can show you shockingly powerful 2Vs, 2Vs that will leave your typical 4V or 3V owners scratching their heads. But the 2V remains inherently inferior to either the 4V or 3V, with flow numbers of 170/160 @ 28" H2O on a 3.572" bore.

 

As far as the 3V being a crap design, that can be debated. You won't find many Ford techs that are 3V friendly.

Edited April 24, 2008 by White99GT

[White99GT]

From the numbers you just provided, I see a 7.6% advantage in CFM for the Continental/MK VIII/1st gen. Navigator 4-v heads and an 11% advantage in CFM for the '03-'05 Navigator heads.

 

I would consider that within the range of "about as well as", which is what I typed.

 

In the world of engine performance, a ~10% airflow advantage on the intake side is pretty big. That's about the difference in flow between a FRPP GT40X head and an AFR 185 in the small block Ford world.

 

The intake to exhaust flow ratio of the 3V heads is also poor. They have a seriously underachieving exhaust port/valve. A well balanced cylinder head has an I/E ratio of close to 80%, the 3V is down around 66%.

 

I never said the 3v was =better=. I said that it was 'about as good as' the 4vs, and more economical (which it is, using regular gas, being cheaper to assemble, and returning--by most accounts--better fuel economy), and cleaner (IIRC the 3v carries a higher bin rating than any 4v engine).

 

The Navigator made the same horsepower in 1999 as the 5.4 3V does today. The Navi 5.4 4V is also the most choked of all the 4Vs, their intake manifold is a joke, the heads aren't anywhere near the best of the "run of the mill" bunch, and they were extremely undercammed, with only 184 degrees of duration at .050" on the intake cams. The 3Vs have the benefit of VCT and a pretty damn nice composite intake manifold, not mention more aggressive cams.

 

As far as the 4v heads not being 'worth a hoot', I would base that on the fact that, with more economical tuning, the 3v head turns out more torque than any 'run of the mill' 4v head ever produced. AND more hp.

 

One look to the Toyota 5.7 4V shows you what Ford was capable of with the 5.4 4V had they decided to evolve it. Those two engines are extremely similar, right down to bore and stroke. THAT'S why I say the 3V was a mistake, not because it isn't better than the 2V (which it is obviously), but because I wish Ford would have swung for the fences in 2004 instead of going for "just good enough."

 

Rather, I'm confining this comparison (as clearly stated) to everyday applications of each engine (Navigator, Expedition, Explorer, Mustang, Continental, MKVII, etc.)

 

The 4V was never seen in the Explorer, it was however seen in the Lincoln Aviator. The Aviator 4.6 4V made 302 HP in 2003, unmatched by VCT-equipped 3V Tritons (incl. the 5.4) even now, 5 years later.

Edited April 24, 2008 by White99GT

[RichardJensen]

1) The difference in intake airflow doesn't appear to reduce hp or torque numbers for the 3v engines, as compared to the 4v engines.

 

2) How can a 5.7L engine be similar to an engine (the 5.4L) that is allegedly maxed out on bore? I mean if the similarities are what you allege they are, why isn't there a 5.7L Triton?

 

3) It's a bit disingenuous, again, to compare the 4.6L Aviator with the 5.4L Triton, when you know full good and well that the 4.6L 3v in the Mustang is functionally equivalent to the Aviator at 300hp, with more torque. And it's cheaper.

 

As far as swinging for the fences goes, if you'll recall, the mod block was scheduled for replacement back in 2002/3 when these heads were being designed. Why didn't Ford swing for the fences then? Don't you remember? The Hurricane had been approved and was scheduled, IIRC, for a 2008 release back in 2002/2003.