Thanks Silver,
I think I have been turned on to the right “head” guy. I will stick with the Navi head.

What I really need is for one of the “tuners’ to step up with a production lower intake for us HD/Lightning guys. I can’t believe with all of the “go fast” parts out there that someone has not done this. I know there have been one offs, and I have spoken at length with one tuner who has built one, and this particular “tuner” is still working out the fuel management issues. I have read threads on numerous boards, and believe the demand for this type of conversion is there. Why can’t a conversion “kit” be offered? I think there would be even more demand once the “do it yourself” factor is removed. You tell me, would you rather spend $2000 for a long tube based exhaust system for your lightly modified Lightning or would you rather have a 32 valve supercharged V8? How many guys would “kill” to have the engine that is going in the new Ford GT? I don’t mind spending the money. I just can’t afford the R and D. perhaps one of the “tuners” can explain to me what I am missing.

The search goes on…

 

You hit the nail on the head. The cost of R&D coupled with the cost of tooling is extremely high. I think we would need help from some of the big aftermarket (Edelbrock, Holley, etc.) before we ever see a production type conversion kit. I have a "little" insight on what it takes to do the conversion and it is much more than it appears. It is not a matter of making an adapter so a 4.6 manifold will fit the 5.4. You have intake paths, coolant paths, and fuel delivery to name a few. It would not be too difficult to cobble together something that would work. To do it correctly and have it perform at it's full potential is a different story. Perhaps the introduction of the GT will bring the parts we need.

 

The question is why should we invest that kind of money on something that nobody even knows if it's worth it. And to do the R&D to find out if it IS worth it, means building one off prototype parts, and making functional pieces, then doing all the testing to see if there is a marketable gain from it, that's going to justify the cost. After it's all said and done, you're looking at over $100,000 in R&D and testing.

If you think $2000 is going to get you a 32V conversion kit, you're insane. You'll need heads and cams, valve covers, timing cover, timing gears and chains, new headers/exhaust, and then the intake itself, which if made in small numbers (i.e. less than 500) will cost probably over $1000 itself. This would not be a cheap job, and would most likely cost double what a set of ModMax heads cost.

Well, the GT is a car, it doesn't weigh 5000lbs. So who's to say this combo would even be worth it? As far as I'm concerned, the only people that will REALLY benefit from a 32v Lightning are road race people, and there aren't enough of those to recoop the costs of a production project. The 32V heads are all about high rpms, and that's another issue. 5.4s don't like to rev. Even with a built and balanced motor, the mechanics of the super long stroke would most likely wipe out the cylinder walls from side load on a motor that's going over 6k.

Anyway that's just my take on it since you asked . I'll be more than happy to start on a 32V conversion kit tomorrow if someone wants to supply the huge amounts of $$ to fund it

 

Hogan's could make an intake for ~3500.

 

Sal,
I understand what you are saying, and when I was referring to the cost being $2000 I was not including the heads.

You obviously know what you are doing and are well respected. You were one of the tuners that I sent e-mail to over a month ago looking for information. The only tuner that returned my e-mail was Sean Hyland. I have spoken at length with Sean concerning a 32 valve S/C engine that he built. I wanted other respected tuners thoughts on what I had been told and even sent you a follow up e-mail.

I understand the concerns with the piston speeds generated by the 5.4 stroke, and that was one of my many questions. If there is some sort of disadvantage to the 4 valve heads, then why would Ford put them on the Navigator? Are there not significant gains made by just supercharging a Navigator? Ford seems to be heading in the direction of additional valves with the 2004 F-150. Why are other manufactures using a 4 valve V8 in there SUV/truck offerings? I am not trying to imply that I disagree with you. I don’t know the answers to these questions.

With all of your experience, I would think you would have looked into this. I would be happy to speak with you by phone or e-mail. Power Surge Performance was one of only three turners that where recommended to me about this.

 

Hmm, I do have about 20 e-mail I still have to respond to in my mailbax, but I don't see anything here like that?? I would have been happy to discuss the options.

As for what's on and coming on trucks, I can comment on that from experiance. I used to be a Lincoln dealer tech, and worked on many Navigators. The 98s were all 2v, most 99s were also 2v with the 4v option later in the year. From 2000 on they have all been 4 valve. Comparing the two, the 2v Navigators pulled way stronger down low, and had nothing up top. The 4v Navigators had tons of top end power, but are total slugs off the line, compared to the 2vs. We even had a few customers trade in 98s for 00s, then take a loss by giving the 00s back and buying their 98s back from us, because the 4v didn't have enough off the line grunt for towing. The upcoming 3 valve heads were designed just for this problem. Ford knows the 4v lacks the proper low end for trucks, and designed the 3 valve head to solve this. It flows more than a 2v head, but the ports aren't so huge like a 4v head that you lose air velocity at low rpms.

I don't have anything against someone that wants to do this, I just can't justify the expense. People are already hitting 10s with ported 2v heads, so where is the real need for the 4v? To me, it's just something more for the wow factor of opening the hood and seeing those huge heads. Just my opinion though.

 

I have feeling those are going to be the heads to look out for and get

 

Sal,
I tried to call on Wednesday, and was not successful. I re-sent you a long e-mail with lots of questions. Thank you in advance for taking the time.

 

I'm leaving for the PRI trade show in a few minutes, but when we return, I'll go over your e-mail and get back to you.

 

Sal,
You working on that e-mail?