5.0L in the new Mustang

[White99GT]

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.

 

They wouldn't be, and that's my whole point. I don't think the 3V was a mistake because it wasn't a big improvement over the 2V (which it was), but because I know the 3V left alot on the table.

 

And with the '07+ Tundra and the '09 Hemi (with MDS and a 6-speed) on the way, there's going to be a pretty big HP disparity without much of a mpg advantage. I doubt the F150 will lose sales leadership because it makes less power, but I bet having a fully competitive powerplant would increase their sales.

 

I know a few people that have bought Titans and Tundras over the F150s because of the percieved power on the test drive. These people don't bother to look at the frame, the sturdiness of the rear shock and spring mounting points, the size of the control arms, and such when they look at trucks. Alot of these guys are concerned with HP and tow ratings and not much else.

[atomaro]

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.

 

 

Explain that to the magazines that ran blower setups on 3v and 4v motors and basically got the same HP once all the supporting parts are there. The 3v head has only been around for a few years....vs 10+ for the 4v. Give the after market time. I have seen 700rwhp turbo 3vs as well. All of the systems were R&D units. I would certainly debate that no 3v has hit over 400rwhp. Like I said...give it time.

[White99GT]

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.

 

Based on what? The 3V falls short on HP despite having other advantages.

 

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?

 

Toyota 5.7: 3.70" bore x 4.02" stroke

Ford 5.4: 3.55" bore x 4.165" stroke

 

They are similar, not carbon copies.

 

The 5.4 isn't maxed out on bore at 3.552" (Mods have 100mm/3.94" bore spacing). Ford flunked the 3.7" spray bore, but it appears they are going to a nearly 3.65" bore in the new 5.0L.

 

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.

 

The Aviator is functionally equivilant to the Mustang 3V how? The Mustang 3V has probably the best "run of the mill" intake manifold ever fitted to a Modular engine. The Aviator has a dual runner intake with internal butterflies (not a single runner intake with runner control plates fitted at the head like the 3V Mustang) with severly pinched short runners and horrible transitions. The Aviator intake is not a good manifold, I have one in the garage and can show you what I'm talking about with pics if you want. The Aviator STILL made more power than the 3V Mustang without dual 2.5" exhaust.

 

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.

 

Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.

[NickF1011]

Explain that to the magazines that ran blower setups on 3v and 4v motors and basically got the same HP once all the supporting parts are there. The 3v head has only been around for a few years....vs 10+ for the 4v. Give the after market time. I have seen 700rwhp turbo 3vs as well. All of the systems were R&D units. I would certainly debate that no 3v has hit over 400rwhp. Like I said...give it time.

 

The 3-valves have an inherent head start though. 1) they are simply a newer design. 2) they incorporate variable timing which can't be retrofitted to the 4-valve heads.

 

As has already been said, it's impossible to directly compare the two since they were designed at different times. Had Ford developed a new 4-valve head incorporating all the changes they added to the 3-valve setups, the 4-valves would be ahead by quite a bit still.

[White99GT]

Explain that to the magazines that ran blower setups on 3v and 4v motors and basically got the same HP once all the supporting parts are there.

 

Show me links. I can recall an issue of MM&FF or 5.0 a while back tht compared Kenne Bell PD blower on a Cobra (dyno's 2 years earlier) and a stock 3V. They made the same horsepower in the end, but the 3V had a larger, updated blower and more compression (8.5:1 vs. 9.8:1)

 

The 3v head has only been around for a few years....vs 10+ for the 4v. Give the after market time. I have seen 700rwhp turbo 3vs as well. All of the systems were R&D units. I would certainly debate that no 3v has hit over 400rwhp. Like I said...give it time.

 

You might debate that no naturally aspirated STOCK DISPLACEMENT 4.6 3V has ever hit 400 rwhp (SAE corrected), but you would lack any evidence to support your case.

 

I've already seen the 3V in virtually every configuration (and I don't get my info from magazines), and I know fully well what they are capable of.

 

Wanna talk potential of the 3V? Lets.

 

Fox Lake's "Stage 2" ported 3V head:

 

Flow numbers @ .300" .400" .500" .600"

Intake 221 249 264 272

Exhaust 142 175 190 204

*** All flow numbers flowed on a stock bore @ 28" H2o ***

 

http://www.foxlakeracing.com/mod3.php

 

Fox Lake's "Stage 2" ported 03-05 4V head:

Flow numbers @ .300" .400" .450" .500" .550"

Intake 241 293 303 315 324

Exhaust 219 249 257 264 270

 

*** All flow numbers with stock sized Ferrea valves, stock bore size @ 28" H2o ***

 

http://www.foxlakeracing.com/mod4.php

 

Yep, you read that right, the ported "run of the mill" 4V exhaust port flows virtually the same as the ported 3V intake port.

 

You can give the 3V all the time in the world, but it ain't ever gonna match the 4V for ultimate potential.

[TomServo92]

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.

 

Wow...you can Google up specs! Way to go! :cheerleader:

[White99GT]

Wow...you can Google up specs! Way to go! :cheerleader:

 

Are we bitter?

[TomServo92]

Are we bitter?

 

Nope. I still stand by the Wards 10 Best Engines four years running no matter how many Google or Wiki queries you run!

[RichardJensen]

Based on what? The 3V falls short on HP despite having other advantages.

Except it doesn't. 5.4L 4v in Navigator was less powerful than the 3v 5.4L in the F150.

Toyota 5.7: 3.70" bore x 4.02" stroke

Ford 5.4: 3.55" bore x 4.165" stroke

 

They are similar, not carbon copies.

 

The 5.4 isn't maxed out on bore at 3.552" (Mods have 100mm/3.94" bore spacing). Ford flunked the 3.7" spray bore, but it appears they are going to a nearly 3.65" bore in the new 5.0L.

The differences between the 5.7 & 5.4 are sufficient enough for you to avoid using the 5.7 as 'proof' of what the 5.4 was capable of.

The Aviator is functionally equivilant to the Mustang 3V how?

Rated hp. 300 vs. 302. And the Aviator is not far off the 292 hp the 3v is rated for in the Explorer.

Edited April 24, 2008 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

Nope. I still stand by the Wards 10 Best Engines four years running no matter how many Google or Wiki queries you run!

 

Ford's 4.6 4-valve was a Ward's 10 Best several times also.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Those little 1.4 litre & 1.7 litre 4 pot engines in 1970's Zakspeed Capri's could pack some punch why do you need such big engines?

http://www.geocities.com/zakcapriturbo/tech.html

[TomServo92]

Ford's 4.6 4-valve was a Ward's 10 Best several times also.

 

And? IMO it merely reinforces that they are both excellent engines and this whole argument is a waste.

[suv_guy_19]

Ford's 4.6 4-valve was a Ward's 10 Best several times also.

 

 

They're both good, how about that .

[suv_guy_19]

And? IMO it merely reinforces that they are both excellent engines and this whole argument is a waste.

 

I see we think alike lol.

[P71_CrownVic]

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

And the Tundra was named the 2008 Truck of the year by MT.

[Edstock]

Tundra: A treeless area between the icecap and the tree line of Arctic regions, having a permanently frozen subsoil and supporting low-growing vegetation such as lichens, mosses, and stunted shrubs.

 

Ah, the Toyota Frozen Swamp, MT's choice. Makes sense, in a way.

[White99GT]

Except it doesn't. 5.4L 4v in Navigator was less powerful than the 3v 5.4L in the F150.

 

They both make 300 hp.

 

The differences between the 5.7 & 5.4 are sufficient enough for you to avoid using the 5.7 as 'proof' of what the 5.4 was capable of.

 

I disagree. The 5.4 4V has proven it's capabilities outside of factory offerings, the 5.4 4V should easily be able to produce within 10-20 HP of the Toyota 5.7 with comparable top-end setups. I also believe Ford has more development into their 4V Modular heads (thank you Rough Rider, FIA, Grand Am Cup, Rolex 24, etc.) than Toyota does into their UR-family V8s.

[NickF1011]

They're both good, how about that .

 

I don't disagree. I like the 4.6 3-valve. However, I think its time has come. It appears the new 5.0 will signal the return to a 4-valve head from all indicators we've seen. Hopefully it will be somewhat more compact than the previous 4-valve mod heads though. Sure, they look pretty, but they are a PITA to work around.

[suv_guy_19]

I don't disagree. I like the 4.6 3-valve. However, I think its time has come. It appears the new 5.0 will signal the return to a 4-valve head from all indicators we've seen. Hopefully it will be somewhat more compact than the previous 4-valve mod heads though. Sure, they look pretty, but they are a PITA to work around.

 

 

I agree with that. Things change, they have to. No reason to keep something on past it time.

[TomServo92]

I don't disagree. I like the 4.6 3-valve. However, I think its time has come. It appears the new 5.0 will signal the return to a 4-valve head from all indicators we've seen. Hopefully it will be somewhat more compact than the previous 4-valve mod heads though. Sure, they look pretty, but they are a PITA to work around.

 

I agree as well. I took issue that the 4.6 3V was "only good enough".

[RichardJensen]

They both make 300 hp.

 

 

 

I disagree. The 5.4 4V has proven it's capabilities outside of factory offerings, the 5.4 4V should easily be able to produce within 10-20 HP of the Toyota 5.7 with comparable top-end setups. I also believe Ford has more development into their 4V Modular heads (thank you Rough Rider, FIA, Grand Am Cup, Rolex 24, etc.) than Toyota does into their UR-family V8s.

1) True, however, since the 3v has a broader torque curve and a lower torque peak than the 4v, at most RPMs the 3v engine will deliver more hp, as it is producing more torque. More area under the curve means more power available at more RPM.

 

2) While I've no doubt the 5.4 could be tuned to 380+ hp, I would question the suitability of such a setup for use in a pickup. I think, due to the difference in bore and stroke, that Ford would much more easily top Toyota's torque figure than their hp figure. And I would argue that they can top the torque figure with the 3v setup.

 

Oh, and fuel economy is up, I think something like 1-2mpg for all the engines in the F150 lineup for 2009.

[White99GT]

I agree as well. I took issue that the 4.6 3V was "only good enough".

 

Take issue all you want, it was not a swinging for the fences effort, it was a stop-gap or "just good enough" effort. And I didn't qualified the 4.6 3V, I have been speaking of the 3V program as a whole.

[TomServo92]

Take issue all you want

 

Thanks! I Will! :happy feet:

[RichardJensen]

Take issue all you want, it was not a swinging for the fences effort, it was a stop-gap or "just good enough" effort. And I didn't qualified the 4.6 3V, I have been speaking of the 3V program as a whole.

I don't know that I can agree with that outside of the Lincoln Navigator.

 

Consider that the 4.6L 3v brought Mach1 performance to the stock GT, while dramatically boosting the performance of Ford's truck engines without substantially increasing the cost of materials/assembly. As such, taken for what it was intended, it's a very solid engine.

 

Of course it was never intended to be Ford's performance engine, and therefore, it should not be treated as such. Rather, as an affordable mill intended, always, to slot under the 4v option, it is an outstanding piece.

 

And that brings us back around to the Navigator which, IMO, should have had a special edition monster with the S/C 5.4 in it available, just to keep ahead of Cadillac.

 

The Navigator is the only place where the 3v's deficiencies are obvious. Even as a truck engine, the 5.4L's more hampered by the 4 speed tranny than anything else.

[Ford-150]

guys please shut up about your head problems, you guys have not mentioned the 5.0L 4v in the last two pages, take your argument into a new thread if it has to be won by someone

 

the info is interesting(except for the bitching) but we all get who likes the 3v and who doesn't

 

please keep this to the 5.0L...

Edited April 24, 2008 by Ford-150