Project Faster150!!!
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,760
Likes: 4
From: Nebraska
While Im a 5four man myself, it will be cool to see a 4six truck that can hopefully hang in there with things pretty well. I gave you a lot of chit with your bolt on 4six, but its going to be fun to see a lil 4.6 truck that should be able to hold its own out there.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: I live in Meridian.Ms
i have no trouble running , other fords, chevy, or dodge, i've only lost to a 5.4L s/c harley truck, and that dude was fast, and a 199? camaro with Ls1 motor, but i tried them all. i think my 4.6 for its class is very fast. i've ran it 129 mph and drive line started to feel shaky, i have a garmin to test mph and it read 129, truck shifts at 5800 instead of 5000, little upgrades .thinking of a wet 50 hp shot of nitrous only when needed.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,389
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth,Tx
i pushed mine to 6K no problem.
got the front cover cleaned up fairly well and the rough casting flaws sanded off the body shop next door has some connections and is gonna get the stuff blasted and powder coated fro me
got the front cover cleaned up fairly well and the rough casting flaws sanded off the body shop next door has some connections and is gonna get the stuff blasted and powder coated fro me
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 7,030
Likes: 3
From: WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA
HI!... Well you didn't say anything about the TQ converter. The trans will handle over 6000RPM all day long. The TQ converter on the other hand won't. In that 4 year span I went through 4 converters. Two stock units, a DAYCO, and a custom built one. Then I went with a Precision Industries "STALLION" converter and couldn't be happier.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 3
From: Eastern TN
this guy rehermorrison kinda convinced me not to go with a long stroke motor if ur going for peak performance
http://www.rehermorrison.com/techTalk/53.htm
An engine produces peak torque at the rpm where it is most efficient. Efficiency is the result of many factors, including airflow, combustion, and parasitic losses such as friction and windage. Comparing two engines with the same displacement, a long-stroke/small-bore combination is simply less efficient than a short-stroke/big-bore combination on several counts.
Big bores promote better breathing. If you compare cylinder head airflow on a small-bore test fixture and on a large-bore fixture, the bigger bore will almost invariably improve airflow due to less valve shrouding. If the goal is maximum performance, the larger bore diameter allows the installation of larger valves, which further improve power.
A short crankshaft stroke reduces parasitic losses. Ring drag is the major source of internal friction. With a shorter stroke, the pistons don’t travel as far with every revolution. The crankshaft assembly also rotates in a smaller arc so the windage is reduced. In a wet-sump engine, a shorter stroke also cuts down on oil pressure problems caused by windage and oil aeration.
http://www.rehermorrison.com/techTalk/53.htm
An engine produces peak torque at the rpm where it is most efficient. Efficiency is the result of many factors, including airflow, combustion, and parasitic losses such as friction and windage. Comparing two engines with the same displacement, a long-stroke/small-bore combination is simply less efficient than a short-stroke/big-bore combination on several counts.
Big bores promote better breathing. If you compare cylinder head airflow on a small-bore test fixture and on a large-bore fixture, the bigger bore will almost invariably improve airflow due to less valve shrouding. If the goal is maximum performance, the larger bore diameter allows the installation of larger valves, which further improve power.
A short crankshaft stroke reduces parasitic losses. Ring drag is the major source of internal friction. With a shorter stroke, the pistons don’t travel as far with every revolution. The crankshaft assembly also rotates in a smaller arc so the windage is reduced. In a wet-sump engine, a shorter stroke also cuts down on oil pressure problems caused by windage and oil aeration.
The 5.4 does not suffer from being a "small bore" engine - it can breath as well as a 4.6 of comparable configuration.
Add in the longer stroke which produces MORE torque (what you need to move a heavy vehicle) and it makes sense why Ford uses the 5.4 as a truck motor.
As far as "peak performance", has any 4.6 equipped truck gotten anywhere near the times posted by the Lightning crowd ?
Take the '03 / '04 Cobra engine - 390 HP vs the 5.4L Lightning @ 380 HP. Drop them both into your favorite flavor of F150 and which do you think will outperform the other ?
There is no replacement for displacement....
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,760
Likes: 4
From: Nebraska
HI!... Well you didn't say anything about the TQ converter. The trans will handle over 6000RPM all day long. The TQ converter on the other hand won't. In that 4 year span I went through 4 converters. Two stock units, a DAYCO, and a custom built one. Then I went with a Precision Industries "STALLION" converter and couldn't be happier.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,389
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth,Tx
yeh lol i had a feeling it would turn into this. probably has alot to do with Jealousy of not saving and finding the deals to do it themselves.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
well im excited to see how it turns out. should be interesting. curious to see what kinda low end tourqe your gonna have if any with a 4.6 and a PC. but once that thing makes boost it should be gone, prolly long gone lol. i get all excited when anyway does something cool like this with their truck, who cares 4.6 or 5.4? its fun to play with whatever you got 
