04 3 valve heads ?
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 7,030
Likes: 3
From: WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA
HI!... Here are some pics of a "04" 5.4 3valve intake manifold I aquired.....
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73890.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73891.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73892.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73898.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73899.jpg
There are a ton more pics of it in my gallery. Just go to the "ENGINES" gallery and scroll to the bottom. As you can see the intake ports are totally different than from the 2-valve set-up. If you installed 3-valve heads on a 2-valve equipped 5.4 you would have to fabricate a custom intake manifold for a supercharger. Plus the PCM would have to be changed due to the DBW (drive by wire) TB, 4 wire TPS and the vairable timing set-up on the new 3-valve 5.4's
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73890.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73891.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73892.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73898.jpg
https://www.f150online.com/galleries...-794-73899.jpg
There are a ton more pics of it in my gallery. Just go to the "ENGINES" gallery and scroll to the bottom. As you can see the intake ports are totally different than from the 2-valve set-up. If you installed 3-valve heads on a 2-valve equipped 5.4 you would have to fabricate a custom intake manifold for a supercharger. Plus the PCM would have to be changed due to the DBW (drive by wire) TB, 4 wire TPS and the vairable timing set-up on the new 3-valve 5.4's
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 6
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Silver,
Don't take this wrong but maybe the ML is just sloooowwww. A 3.2L V6 trying to push 5,000 lbs. of truck is a pretty big task.
And the new 'Vettes are DBW...the Z06 seems to do pretty well with it.
Don't take this wrong but maybe the ML is just sloooowwww. A 3.2L V6 trying to push 5,000 lbs. of truck is a pretty big task.
And the new 'Vettes are DBW...the Z06 seems to do pretty well with it.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
From: Milford, Ohio USA
Whoa, Podner!
Struck:
Damn right it's slow, but not THAT slow. You're looking at 215 HP (nominal, I removed an inlet restrictor for 220 HP) pushing somewhere around 4300 pounds. Let's not forget full-time 4WD, which should be good for getting off the line.
The problem is the crappy drive-by-wire system. Or more specifically, the TUNING of the throttle opening. Being a damn Benzo and all, I suppose the gang in Stuttgart (or more accurately Tuscaloosa) didn't forsee a lot of "spirited driving" and certainly not drag racing in the future of their trucks. Hence, when you mash the pedal (request that the throttle SLAM open), the computer modifies that "obviously errant" request into something like "slowly, gently open the throttle over a period of a second or two". Hence the pathetic 2.5-plus-second 60 foot time. Once the thing gets off the line, it trucks along just fine (traps at over 80 MPH despite...), but the throttle tuning effectively shuts down the show. You can feel the throttle open over a rather long period of time, followed by a pretty good pull to redline.
Naturally, the Z06 system works just fine, as the vehicle ostensibly has some sporting intentions. Tuned for such usage.
Give the manufacturer a chance to tune a throttle for my Dad (slow) or neighbor (slower), and they will. You know - the kind of folks who buy a vehicle for the "ride", and really don't care about "short times" too much.
No worries for the next Lightning (I hope), but I would be willing to bet that the throttle tuning hampers the off-the-line performance of the more pedestrian versions of the new F150 (yes, I said "pedestrian").
Damn right it's slow, but not THAT slow. You're looking at 215 HP (nominal, I removed an inlet restrictor for 220 HP) pushing somewhere around 4300 pounds. Let's not forget full-time 4WD, which should be good for getting off the line.
The problem is the crappy drive-by-wire system. Or more specifically, the TUNING of the throttle opening. Being a damn Benzo and all, I suppose the gang in Stuttgart (or more accurately Tuscaloosa) didn't forsee a lot of "spirited driving" and certainly not drag racing in the future of their trucks. Hence, when you mash the pedal (request that the throttle SLAM open), the computer modifies that "obviously errant" request into something like "slowly, gently open the throttle over a period of a second or two". Hence the pathetic 2.5-plus-second 60 foot time. Once the thing gets off the line, it trucks along just fine (traps at over 80 MPH despite...), but the throttle tuning effectively shuts down the show. You can feel the throttle open over a rather long period of time, followed by a pretty good pull to redline.
Naturally, the Z06 system works just fine, as the vehicle ostensibly has some sporting intentions. Tuned for such usage.
Give the manufacturer a chance to tune a throttle for my Dad (slow) or neighbor (slower), and they will. You know - the kind of folks who buy a vehicle for the "ride", and really don't care about "short times" too much.
No worries for the next Lightning (I hope), but I would be willing to bet that the throttle tuning hampers the off-the-line performance of the more pedestrian versions of the new F150 (yes, I said "pedestrian").
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 6
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Silver,
You're looking at 215hp and 233 torque at the crank...factor in drivetrain losses associated with the tranny and full-time 4WD and you're looking at maybe 160-170 and 170-180 at the wheels (figuring 20% for the 4WD). That's about the same as the early Expy's and they ran high 16's - low 17's depending on 2 or 4WD, etc.
Help is just a phone call away...the local Mercedes dealer for an ML55 or Kleeman for a little motor work. And I could have sworn that Motor Trend and C&D has tested them faster than that...
You're looking at 215hp and 233 torque at the crank...factor in drivetrain losses associated with the tranny and full-time 4WD and you're looking at maybe 160-170 and 170-180 at the wheels (figuring 20% for the 4WD). That's about the same as the early Expy's and they ran high 16's - low 17's depending on 2 or 4WD, etc.
Help is just a phone call away...the local Mercedes dealer for an ML55 or Kleeman for a little motor work. And I could have sworn that Motor Trend and C&D has tested them faster than that...
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
From: Milford, Ohio USA
Benzzz
Struck:
Another thread jack. Oh well.
Indeed, the major magazines got numbers more like 16.5 for the ML320. Recognize that I was running on an 80-degree day, and got the crappy 60-foot.
I've G-Teched the thing at 16 flat on a 5 degree below zero day, so obviously atmospheric conditions weigh in.
As for the launch, I brake torqued the thing as hard as I could hold back with the brakes to get around the stupid throttle. So when I came out of the hole, the throttle was already partly open. Unfortunately, I forgot to turn off the ESP (traction/spin control), and the front driver side wheel spun like a mother. This triggered a response from the ESP system, which arrests wheelspin (open diffs at both ends) or vehicle yaw by clamping down brakes on any/all of the wheels. The familiar grinding sound, flashing yellow triangle on the cluster, and pulsing brake pedal signaled the end of the 60-foot party. Hence, the 2.6-ish short time. I only got two passes that day, as I was campaigning the 'Bolt as well.
If I get it back to the track, I should be able to pull a decent 60 via abusive power-braking and free wheelspin by keeping the ESP off. No doubt there is a 16.5/84 pass in the thing in good air and decent driving.
That's slow, but not sloooooow. About as fast as an early-80's IROC Z (damn, that's funny). I've seen 440/six pack MOPAR muscle run right about there also. Of course, there are all sorts of exceptions, so don't feel the need to defend the honor of your Challenger or 'Cuda, pleeeeeeze.
Another thread jack. Oh well.
Indeed, the major magazines got numbers more like 16.5 for the ML320. Recognize that I was running on an 80-degree day, and got the crappy 60-foot.
I've G-Teched the thing at 16 flat on a 5 degree below zero day, so obviously atmospheric conditions weigh in.
As for the launch, I brake torqued the thing as hard as I could hold back with the brakes to get around the stupid throttle. So when I came out of the hole, the throttle was already partly open. Unfortunately, I forgot to turn off the ESP (traction/spin control), and the front driver side wheel spun like a mother. This triggered a response from the ESP system, which arrests wheelspin (open diffs at both ends) or vehicle yaw by clamping down brakes on any/all of the wheels. The familiar grinding sound, flashing yellow triangle on the cluster, and pulsing brake pedal signaled the end of the 60-foot party. Hence, the 2.6-ish short time. I only got two passes that day, as I was campaigning the 'Bolt as well.
If I get it back to the track, I should be able to pull a decent 60 via abusive power-braking and free wheelspin by keeping the ESP off. No doubt there is a 16.5/84 pass in the thing in good air and decent driving.
That's slow, but not sloooooow. About as fast as an early-80's IROC Z (damn, that's funny). I've seen 440/six pack MOPAR muscle run right about there also. Of course, there are all sorts of exceptions, so don't feel the need to defend the honor of your Challenger or 'Cuda, pleeeeeeze.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
From: Milford, Ohio USA
Huh?
For real? That would be some sort of coincidence...
By the way - Cave Creek is cool! Spent some time there recently drinking (Crazy Ed's Satisfied Frog) and hiking (some public park on the south side of Cave Creek proper - miles of trials around a mesa).
By the way - Cave Creek is cool! Spent some time there recently drinking (Crazy Ed's Satisfied Frog) and hiking (some public park on the south side of Cave Creek proper - miles of trials around a mesa).