SVT F-150 Raptor Video

[jpd80]

Or look at it the other way around, a 5.4 4V if fitted with VCT would equal or surpass Toyota's 5.7

[Ford-150]

the LS3 is a 6.2L

 

the L76 or Vortec6000 is a 6.0L

[chevys]

Relevant values isolated.....

 

The Toyota has a whopping 2.8% torque advantage over the PUBLISHED Ford numbers.

 

IMO that makes them statistically equivalent. As with the 6.0L LS3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or are we living in a world where 5000+RPM performance in truck engines is important?

 

 

Technically, its more like 9 percent when you figure 99 percent of people are running on gas instead of E85. Then factor in the real world numbers of what reaches the ground and I bet a cup of coffee that figure would be closer to 15 percent at minimum. Ford is notorious for losing gobbs of power through the drivetrain on F150/s in the past and that is why a lot of people complain. I have seen Toyotas dyno graphs and they are impressive as all get out.

 

My point is that its worse in the real world than it looks on paper. You will get no argument from me that the Tundra is a flimsy built truck and Im not trying to defend them. Im holding out hope for the 5.0 in the 150 and stang.

[suv_guy_19]

Ford is notorious for losing gobbs of power through the drivetrain on F150/s in the past and that is why a lot of people complain.

 

There's no indication that that is in fact the case in the new model.

[joihan777]

Somewhere a hippy in a VW microbus is crying.

 

That made my night!

[F250]

4 Valves per cylinder...4 Valves per cylinder...4 Valves per cylinder...4 Valves per cylinder...4 Valves per cylinder...4 Valves per cylinder...4 .......

It's make a HUGE difference, and with and extra 18 ci... it's not rocket science.

 

Ford has 4-valve heads for the 5.4L and the current 3-valve engine has VCT so if it makes such a HUGE difference on the Modular why didn't Ford add VCT to their existing 4-valve 5.4L? Excuses, excuses...

 

Edit: The 99-'04 Linclon Navigator had a 4-valve 5.4L Modular and it made only 300 hp and 355 ftlb torque.

Edited November 3, 2008 by F250

[jpd80]

Instead of a 4.6/5.4 Mod and 6.2 Boss, could the plan now be a 5.0 Mod and a 5.4/6.2 Boss?

That would be one way of justifying all the expense of the bigger Boss engine's development

Edited November 3, 2008 by jpd80

[atomaro]

This thread has become too painful to endure any further.

[White99GT]

See post above.

 

Funny, I didn't see any DOHC engines listed.

 

Lincoln Aviator 4.6 4V made 302/318 in 2004. And the Chevy 4.8 barely makes more power on the dyno than the 231 HP 4.6 2V circa 2001.

[White99GT]

Ford has 4-valve heads for the 5.4L and the current 3-valve engine has VCT so if it makes such a HUGE difference on the Modular why didn't Ford add VCT to their existing 4-valve 5.4L? Excuses, excuses...

 

Edit: The 99-'04 Linclon Navigator had a 4-valve 5.4L Modular and it made only 300 hp and 355 ftlb torque.

 

Ford developed the 3V for cost reasons, less parts and cheaper to build than 4Vs and offered more airflow than the 2V could.

 

People that throw around factory numbers as examples of a certain engine's "potential" are just dense. The Navi 4V heads easily outflow the 3V head, and by fairly wide margins. The Navigator engine was choked by tiny duration cams and a rat's nest of an intake manifold, in spite of that and a lack of VCT it still matched the 3V on power and produced peak torque at 1,000 rpm lower (2750 vs 3750).

 

What do you think would have happened had Ford evolved the Navi 5.4 4V engine with 3V-like intake ports, a comparable intake manifold, and twin independent VCT?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

According to Blue II, Ford prototyped a 4V, TiVCT, GDI 5.4L Mod v8 and wasn't that satisfied with the performance it gave. That tiny bore head gets very crowded with two intake valves, two exhaust valves, a plug and an injector and apparently, cylinder airflow suffers. I would imagine that Ford would do better to apply the same mojo to the 5.4L that they applied to the 4.6L to get the 5.0L MOD DOHC 4V. That would give you a 5.9L V8 with excellent airflow and efficiency and likely a nice improvement over the 5.4L in all cases.

[White99GT]

According to Blue II, Ford prototyped a 4V, TiVCT, GDI 5.4L Mod v8 and wasn't that satisfied with the performance it gave. That tiny bore head gets very crowded with two intake valves, two exhaust valves, a plug and an injector and apparently, cylinder airflow suffers. I would imagine that Ford would do better to apply the same mojo to the 5.4L that they applied to the 4.6L to get the 5.0L MOD DOHC 4V. That would give you a 5.9L V8 with excellent airflow and efficiency and likely a nice improvement over the 5.4L in all cases.

 

Yea, apparently that engine made 335 HP. Sounds like a hatchet job to make sure the Boss moved forward to me.

 

Ported Ford GT can heads can approach 400 cfm on a 3.552" bore.

[Ford-150]

what does the Ford GT motor make without the supercharger?

[White99GT]

what does the Ford GT motor make without the supercharger?

 

Australian 5.4 4V Boss 315 makes 422 HP 407 TQ. It uses the same heads as the Lincoln Aviator, not the better much flowing FGT heads.

[Ford-150]

Australian 5.4 4V Boss 315 makes 422 HP 407 TQ. It uses the same heads as the Lincoln Aviator, not the better much flowing FGT heads.

why hasn't Ford tried to mess around and use the heads from the Ford GT on the Aussie 5.4L and put VVT on the damn thing!

 

the 5.0L and 3.5L TT better be F**cking great

[Noah Harbinger]

Somewhere a hippy in a VW microbus is crying.

 

It probably still has better gas milage and cleaner emissions than the microbus...

[RichardJensen]

It probably still has better gas milage and cleaner emissions than the microbus...

I was actually thinking of one specific hippie when I typed that.

 

He's got a cherry red and white microbus with the words "Groovy Grandpa" in script on his door. He has hair generally of George Carlin length, but has it cornrowed.

 

---

 

And it always makes me chuckle, because unless he's retrofitted that engine with about 40 years worth of soot and NOx controls, he's polluting more than about a hundred late model cars on the road at the same time.

[F250]

Ford developed the 3V for cost reasons, less parts and cheaper to build than 4Vs and offered more airflow than the 2V could.

 

People that throw around factory numbers as examples of a certain engine's "potential" are just dense. The Navi 4V heads easily outflow the 3V head, and by fairly wide margins. The Navigator engine was choked by tiny duration cams and a rat's nest of an intake manifold, in spite of that and a lack of VCT it still matched the 3V on power and produced peak torque at 1,000 rpm lower (2750 vs 3750).

 

What do you think would have happened had Ford evolved the Navi 5.4 4V engine with 3V-like intake ports, a comparable intake manifold, and twin independent VCT?

 

Results are what matters. What the manufacturer actually installs in the truck for the customer to buy is what matters not what you think of an engine's "potential."

As the F-150's top engine the 5.4L Modular has been in production and under constant development for 12 years and the latest and greatest 2009 version offers 310 hp and 390lb-ft torque which is hardly class leading.

 

So do you think that Navigator 4-valve 5.4L would have challenged Toyota's 381 hp and 401 lb-ft torque with just a better intake and VCT? Dream on. If that's all it took Ford would have done it. Cost shouldn't be a problem because ALL Toyota Tundra engines have 4-valves and VCT.

 

The 5.4L modular is an excellent truck engine, after all I have bought 2 new trucks with the engine. Ford has the technology, 4-valve, VCT etc so the only apparent limitation is displacement caused by bore spacing...which is what I said when this started.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, just a VCT addition to the old NAVI engine with no breathing enhancements would have yielded a 10% boost in hp and a 5% boost in torque (with proper engine management upgrades and cams ground accordingly). That yields 330HP and ~375 lbs of torque. Further increasing the intake airflow might have yieldedanother 5% on top of that, assuming that the old intake was really as restrictive as has been stated. That would give a tally of 345 HP and 385 lbs of torque or so. Those numbers, I don't think, would have been worth investing in 4V heads for the truck motors and the expense of developing a reliable TiVCT system for the engine as well. They don't match or exceed any of the competition and just add complexity.

 

On top of all of that, for the last 5-7 years, powertrain engineering has worked off and on on the BOSS. With the knowledge that this bigger, better engine was coming, why waste effort on the 5.4L to make better power numbers? Instead, concentrate on emissions and efficiency goals instead. Up to the point where it was realized that the BOSS wasn't going to be suitable for the application, this made sense. Once that was realized, the problem was too late to fix. But, for truck duty, the 4.4L Diesel will be a much better engine, assuming that it comes into fruition sometime soon.

[V8-X]

DELETE POST!

 

Looks like the links and infor I posted was in another thread titled "Raptor Revealed".

 

Sorry.

Edited November 5, 2008 by V8-X

[White99GT]

Results are what matters. What the manufacturer actually installs in the truck for the customer to buy is what matters not what you think of an engine's "potential."

As the F-150's top engine the 5.4L Modular has been in production and under constant development for 12 years and the latest and greatest 2009 version offers 310 hp and 390lb-ft torque which is hardly class leading.

 

310/365 on gas, 320/390 on e85

 

So do you think that Navigator 4-valve 5.4L would have challenged Toyota's 381 hp and 401 lb-ft torque with just a better intake and VCT? Dream on. If that's all it took Ford would have done it. Cost shouldn't be a problem because ALL Toyota Tundra engines have 4-valves and VCT.

 

Yes, had Ford re-engineered the Navi 4V cylinder head with raised intake ports, a better transition into the valve seat, better bowl blending (like they did with the 3V) and maintained the two 37mm intake valves, it would have flowed a good 80 cfm more than the existing 3V heads with far superior low and mid-lift numbers. The existing Navi head with fairly compromised intake ports outflowed current 3V heads by a good 30 cfm from .200" lift and up, and held an edge at every lift point measurable.

 

A modern 4V head with VCT and a better manifold would have approached Toyota 5.7 numbers UNDOUBTEDLY. What, do you think Toyota uses Voodoo dolls and magic fairy dust to produce their numbers? The Toyota 5.7 is also very undersquare (3.7"x4.05") engine that displaces within 18 cubic inches of the 5.4.

 

A question for you, do you think the Toyota 5.7 would produce 381/401 with 3V heads with two 34mm intake valves, a single 37.5 mm exhaust valve and NO VVT?

 

As for cost, do you honestly think a 4V head with TiVCT is no more expensive to produce than a 3V with VCT? This claim is made all the more hilarious by Ford's own press releases that state the 3V was designed for minimal costs while offering improvements over the 2V, as they require even less machine work than the 2V head!

 

The 5.4L modular is an excellent truck engine, after all I have bought 2 new trucks with the engine. Ford has the technology, 4-valve, VCT etc so the only apparent limitation is displacement caused by bore spacing...which is what I said when this started.

 

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. As I've stated already, ported Ford GT heads can flow damn near 400 cfm (around 380 cfm @ 28") on a 3.552" stock bore size. That's about as good as worked LS7 heads do on a massive 4.125" bore. The smallish bore size simply isn't the limiting factor some believe it to be when paired with multi-valve cylinder heads. That fact that N/A 5.4 4Vs can make nearly 500 rwhp with a basic H/C/I packages, and have eclipsed 600 rwhp N/A with more radical setups show that the bore size isn't too much of a limiting factor when paired with 4V heads. The 5.4s biggest limiting factor is raw displacement, you can only ask so much from a 330 ci engine.

Edited November 5, 2008 by White99GT

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, displacement and safe operating RPMs. Given the architecture decisions that were made with that engine, it doesn't make it easy to spin it at very high RPMs without some fairly expensive internal bits being replaced by more expensive internal bits. I know that's a gross oversimplification, but, its roughly the deal. I'm very much in favor of Ford doing the same treatment to the 5.4L that the 5.0L Mod project was to the 4.6L. If they could achieve the same bores, they could maintain the economies of scale that supposedly exist in the Mob engine program. I dare say that if the 5.0L really is the performer that has been hinted at, there's no reason that a 5.9L or 6.0L Mod wouldn't be either.

 

While I don't think that anybody would even be interested in it, the same treatment could be given to the 6.8L V-10 as well. Just thinking out loud, the end product would be around 7.5L if they maintained the same high deck height. If they chose a short deck version, then it would be 6.2-6.3L. But, more importantly, you'd be dealing with (and again, these are based on the supposed numbers for the 5.0L) 440 lbs of torque N/A for the short deck and 530+ for the tall deck height with HP numbers in the 400-450 range (assuming a truckish tune). Its purely academic, but, a possibility if desired. If gasoline prices stay significantly below diesel prices, and the 6.2L V-8 proves to be as poor a product as it has been made out to be on here recently, that's a low-risk route that can be persued to replace it.

[89CARLSON]

Ford needs this truck like they need a hole in the head!! They currently need money from the government (our tax money) just to make it, and they want to waste money like this. Why don't the svt team focus more on making their Hybrids more powerful? We need more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. I work at KCAP and this makes me sick!

[PREMiERdrum]

Ford needs this truck like they need a hole in the head!! They currently need money from the government (our tax money) just to make it, and they want to waste money like this. Why don't the svt team focus more on making their Hybrids more powerful? We need more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. I work at KCAP and this makes me sick!

 

A halo, aspirational model which has gotten nothing but jaw dropping, pant soiling praise from damn near everyone makes you sick? If they didn't have a great small car and fuel efficiency program in place, it would be a different story. These projects develop loyal followings, energize your base, and get bodies in the showroom. Nothing to complain about there!

[White99GT]

Well, displacement and safe operating RPMs. Given the architecture decisions that were made with that engine, it doesn't make it easy to spin it at very high RPMs without some fairly expensive internal bits being replaced by more expensive internal bits. I know that's a gross oversimplification, but, its roughly the deal. I'm very much in favor of Ford doing the same treatment to the 5.4L that the 5.0L Mod project was to the 4.6L. If they could achieve the same bores, they could maintain the economies of scale that supposedly exist in the Mob engine program. I dare say that if the 5.0L really is the performer that has been hinted at, there's no reason that a 5.9L or 6.0L Mod wouldn't be either.

 

I'm not sure that displacement increase is as feasible with the 5.4 and 6.8L. The 5.0 is getting it's displacement over the 4.6 through a combination of bore and stroke increase. Apparently the 5.0L is remaining a fairly square engine, so it's something like 3.63"x3.65". I'm not sure they would want to increase the 5.4's piston speed any further by increasing that 4.165" stroke.

 

However, they could achieve roughly 5.7L (5650cc, 345 ci) by adopting the ~3.63" bore alone.

That bore diameter would also bump the V10 up to 7.1L (7063cc, 431 ci).

 

Might be worthwhile...

 

While I don't think that anybody would even be interested in it, the same treatment could be given to the 6.8L V-10 as well. Just thinking out loud, the end product would be around 7.5L if they maintained the same high deck height. If they chose a short deck version, then it would be 6.2-6.3L. But, more importantly, you'd be dealing with (and again, these are based on the supposed numbers for the 5.0L) 440 lbs of torque N/A for the short deck and 530+ for the tall deck height with HP numbers in the 400-450 range (assuming a truckish tune). Its purely academic, but, a possibility if desired. If gasoline prices stay significantly below diesel prices, and the 6.2L V-8 proves to be as poor a product as it has been made out to be on here recently, that's a low-risk route that can be persued to replace it.

 

The short-deck V10 has always been intriguing.