Old Diesel-Heads Going Gas

[ModMech]

I had a 460 in a '76 T-bird and it was so gutless and hard on gas that I looked to see if there was a hole in the tank. The only 460s I ever saw were the low-compression low-efficiency environmentally friendly wonders of the mid-seventies.

Yes, the BBs of that era were terrible. I have owned and driven BBs from the 60's thru the 90's and the ones from the very late 60's were clearly the most powerful. My '69 Lincoln made 370 HP and 500 lb-ft per the book, but that is NOT 370 HP and 500 lb-ft by todays standards, more like 290/390.

454s on the other hand came with up to 12.5:1 compression earlier and maybe 8 or 8.5:1 after the legislated changes. Some of the early engines were rated at over 400 H.P. and more than 500 foot pounds of torque.

Ford, GM and Chrysler all had high CR engines that made HUGE power and Tq numbers, but that was NET HP and Tq, no engine since about 1975 has been rated that way. One of the biggest mistakes people make is thinking 500 HP from 1965 is the same as 500 HP from 2005m it's not even close to equal. The 2005 engine is actually making a LOT more power at 500 SAE HP than the older engine was at 500 NET HP.

Does the 5.4L engine make that kind of power and torque?

If you are using the same measurement standards, yes. A little more HP and a little lower Tq, but very close.

2010 5.4L 3V = 310 HP/365 Lb-Ft.

2010 6.2L 16V = 385 HP/405 Lb-Ft (WAY more power, better fuel economy, smaller displacement).

 

[flusher]

If you are using the same measurement standards, yes. A little more HP and a little lower Tq, but very close.

2010 5.4L 3V = 310 HP/365 Lb-Ft.

2010 6.2L 16V = 385 HP/405 Lb-Ft (WAY more power, better fuel economy, smaller displacement).

Interesting. Looks like the 2010 Ford 5.4L 3V is getting close to the numbers produced by the supercharged 2000 5.4L 2V in the F150 Lightning



That Lightning might make a nice towing vehicle with that low end grunt if the frame were stronger.

Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 2000 Ford SVT F-150 Lightning Overview

 

[ModMech]

Yes, adding that one "extra" valve and VVT does wonders without a belt

 

[FlaDon]

Yes, the BBs of that era were terrible. I have owned and driven BBs from the 60's thru the 90's and the ones from the very late 60's were clearly the most powerful. My '69 Lincoln made 370 HP and 500 lb-ft per the book, but that is NOT 370 HP and 500 lb-ft by todays standards, more like 290/390.



Ford, GM and Chrysler all had high CR engines that made HUGE power and Tq numbers, but that was NET HP and Tq, no engine since about 1975 has been rated that way. One of the biggest mistakes people make is thinking 500 HP from 1965 is the same as 500 HP from 2005m it's not even close to equal. The 2005 engine is actually making a LOT more power at 500 SAE HP than the older engine was at 500 NET HP.



If you are using the same measurement standards, yes. A little more HP and a little lower Tq, but very close.

2010 5.4L 3V = 310 HP/365 Lb-Ft.

2010 6.2L 16V = 385 HP/405 Lb-Ft (WAY more power, better fuel economy, smaller displacement).

Shouldn't your statement say Gross HP instead of Net HP. Today's engines are the latter while in the 60s they were the former. Gross HP is where your engine runs with no accesories which is how earlier engines were tested. Add on things like a water pump, exhaust system, alternator, and such and they rob the engine of power that could be put to work at the wheels.

 

[jayste]

LOL. I've only had to be towed three times in 45 years. Twice was with the ONLY Ford I've ever owned, a 2002 F250 SD.

Ken

And probably due to the CPS that they finally recalled on!

 

[Ken45101]

And probably due to the CPS that they finally recalled on!

That was one time. I thought it interesting that they immediately diagnosed it over the phone and had the part in stock at a very small dealership. The other was where the shift linkage got jammed up (manual tranny).

Ken

 

[Diamondpilot]

Interesting. Looks like the 2010 Ford 5.4L 3V is getting close to the numbers produced by the supercharged 2000 5.4L 2V in the F150 Lightning

View attachment 161403

That Lightning might make a nice towing vehicle with that low end grunt if the frame were stronger.

Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 2000 Ford SVT F-150 Lightning Overview

I had a Lightning back in 2000 and it was a terrible tow vehicle. First off the tow rating was only 5K and I can not remember the gearing but it's high, like a 3.55 or something. It had a very soft suspension that made the truck sway and wander when towing. I had a 5,000# 21' boat and talking it up the boat ramp with all that power, wide tires, and a light truck was a chore. I keep it 1 year and traded, after our first snow, for a F-150 4x4 and I was much happier. It was fun eating up Camaro's though. Great toy but was no fun on wet or slick surfaces or trying to work.

Chris

 

[F350]

And probably due to the CPS that they finally recalled on!

There's a world of difference between a $30 CPS sensor that you remove one bolt to change and the high-dollar problems (EGR Cooler etc) with the 6.0.

FWIW - I would love to have confidence in the 6.0 or be able to expect decent fuel ecomomy of the 6.4, but haven't gotten there yet.

 

[flusher]

I had a Lightning back in 2000 and it was a terrible tow vehicle. First off the tow rating was only 5K and I can not remember the gearing but it high, like a 3.55 or something. It had a very soft suspension that made the truck sway and wander. I had a 5,000# 21' boat and talking it up the boat ramp with all that power, wide tires, and a light truck was a chore. I keep it 1 year and traded, after our first snow, for a F-150 4x4 and I was much happier. It was fun eating up Camaro's though. Great toy but was no fun on wet or slick surfaces or trying to work.

Chris

Thanks for the input--I'll scratch the Lightning off the list. The quest continues.

 

[jayste]

There's a world of difference between a $30 CPS sensor that you remove one bolt to change and the high-dollar problems (EGR Cooler etc) with the 6.0.

FWIW - I would love to have confidence in the 6.0 or be able to expect decent fuel ecomomy of the 6.4, but haven't gotten there yet.

?????$30.00??? They sure must have gone down! When I bought mine they were going for $200.00 at the Ford stealership! I found mine at the International dealer for $99.00 and was glad to pay it!