Hey guys, I know this is probably old news to most of you.

I just read the hp/tq. specs for GM's year 2000 small block V-8 line-up. It appears that they greatly increased the hp and torque for the 4.8L to 270 hp, the 5.3L to 285 hp and the 6.0L to 325 hp.

I would have thought that they already squeezed all the power they could from those antique push-rod motors. Apparently not! Are they still sitting on their ace in the hole overhead cam small block? and if so how long before they drop it on the market?

My question is, has anybody had a chance to challenge any of these trucks?

 

Maybe the 5.3 will keep up with the 5.4 now. I still would bet that the 260 horse 5.4 will get more power to the rear wheels than a 285 hp 5.3. The torque of the 5.3 was also boosted but nothing close to the 5.4s 345 @ 2300 rpms. I think the 5.3 now has 325 ft*lbs. @4000 rpms. However the 5.4 will get a greater percentage of its 345 to the rear wheels than the percentage of the 5.3. Anyway, I would bet that fords has a few tricks up thier sleeves. Something like dual overhead cams. I have been reading that ford will offer 3 valves in 2003 for the triton motors. Ford probally doesn't see a need in changing since they are already selling so many.

------------------
1997 4x4 5.4 ORP XLT extended cab Dark Toreador red Westin nerf bars tint HARDER THAN A ROCK AND FASTER THAN A HEART BEAT


[This message has been edited by ford-tough1 (edited 11-30-1999).]

 

Fordtough is right, the 5.3 doesnt dyno anywhere near the 5.4! And yeah, the 3 valve 5.4 should be around soon {I heard 2001}.

 

No doubt, the 5.4 is a torque leader and I'd put my money on it in a stump pulling contest. But as far as 1/4 mile times, I would really like to see these two trucks side by side, I really don't care about Dyno tests unless of course you can derive rate of acceleration from a dyno. I'm sure thats possible but nobody's doing it

I'm sure somebody will get the chance to challenge one so please post honestly if you do.

 

Don't knock those pushrod motors too hard.
They had lots of HP per cu in back in the 60s and 70s.

 

Why does the Ford have more wheel hp than the Chevy? I can't quite figure that out. And why a 3-valve head? The 5.4 would be a beast with 4-valves.

Also, 54REgCab: Pushrods always had good hp and torque, not JUST in the 60's and 70's.

[This message has been edited by Pastmaster (edited 11-30-1999).]

 

Your right Pastmaster, the 5.4 IS mean with 4 valves per cylinder. Ford is putting it in the Navigators. I think the HP number is 300 and the torque is equally impressive! I bet it really opens up. I just wish they would offer it in the F150!

------------------
'97 F150 Lariat, Flareside, white/sliver, SC, ORP, 5.4 (FQR 8/99) running Mobil 1
Mods: 305/70/16 GY ATS, AR Baja wheels, dual exhaust, Smittybilt Nerf Bars, Edelbrock IAS Shocks, K&N Filter, Carbon Fiber Bug Gaurd and rigged the fog lights too.




[This message has been edited by kkirt1 (edited 11-30-1999).]

 

Oppps, my bad I knew that, give them time sure that a SVT will have that.

 

Torquey engines always perform better on chassis dynos. Truck Trend Feb. 99 tested the Chevy 5.3, Ford 5.4 and Dodge 5.9 on a chassis dyno.

Ford 5.4 advertised 260/345 - rear wheel 209/281
Chevy 5.3 advertised 270/285 - rear wheel 183/222
Dodge 5.9 advertised 245/335 - rear wheel 195/258

Yes, a four valve head is superior at high horsepower, but it gives up torque. The three valve is a happy medium. I'd certainly love to see a 4v engine (I've spent some quality time with a 32v 4.6 - whatta screammer at high revs), but I don't know if Ford will go that route.



------------------
99 XLT Black Ex-cab, Flareside, 5.4, ORP, 3.73, Gibson Supertruck, K&N, Raised front 1", Modified Airbox, Slap-Free Motor at @19k, Superchip on order

 

What's this I hear?

Grumblings for a 5.4L DOHC Intech XLTi ?

[This message has been edited by SDDL-UP (edited 11-30-1999).]

 

hotratz-if dyno #'s told the story, I would lose against the 5.4 and Dakota RT. It hasn't happened yet. Its only a matter of time though. Person with the most money invested wins. But if you take comparatively modded trucks, the Chevy will win. Those dyno charts are really for "paper racers". As far as getting the power to the ground.......man I'm stumped on that one. If you take the #'s given by GM and the dyno's the magazines are getting, that is a lot of hp getting chewed up by that tranny. Although I have never dynoed my truck, similar modded 5.3's are dynoing in the 230's and 240's. Just my two cents.

 

I'm not sure but were'nt the dyno tests of the trucks in the 4x4 versions? (truck trend) if so that would eat up a lot of horsepower if the transfer case was'nt efficient or disconnected cleanly from the front shaft output. Also SWEET99CHEVY a friend of mine at work has a new Silverado with a 5.3 he has 9000 miles on it. He went to start it the other day and a big cloud of blue smoke rose from the tail pipe. Since, it is happening everytime he starts the truck, he is getting a little embarrased and peaved, is Chevy having some valve guide seal problems? Any ideas.

------------------
1999 F150 S.Cab 4x4
Northland Edition,5.4
Off road pkg. Fleetside
Black w/grey int.

 

I test drove both the 2000 F-150/5.4 and the 2000 Silverado/5.3. The Silverado had no limited slip rear end, but definitely more acceleration per the seat-of-the-pants test... Was able to get 1/3-1/2 second better in the 0-60, but again without limited slip it's really not an easy comparison.

Bad intererior, though!

Mike

 

RLAFOND,


Thanks for the info. I hope to dyno my Expy (5.4) and Navigator (5.4 32v) on the weekend. I just got my G-tech yesterday. Now I know the % to use when calculating my RWHP measurment into theoretical.

The numbers you provided calculate as follows:

HP/TQ lost (Advertised to Dyno)

HP Lost:

Ford 51 19.6%
Chevy 87 32.2%
Dodge 50 20.4%

TQ Lost:

Ford 64 18.6%
Chevy 63 22.1%
Dodge 77 23.0%

Thanks for the info...it's exactly what I need. Will post results. Now...where to go to get exact weight of trucks, so measurement is accurate??/



[This message has been edited by ml (edited 12-01-1999).]

 

Sweet99,

I too am very skeptacle of these published dyno numbers, especially the claims of drive train losses. If these numbers are true, someone needs to explain to me how the three gentleman I work with who own 98 and 99 Chev's, can consistantly get 19 and 20 miles per gallon highway if the are loosing 32% of power through the drive train,
I know they get this mileage, I rode with one of these guys on a hunting trip and saw the calculations,
Also, Drive train losses can easily be attributed to a heavier duty drive train.
Ask any of those Chevy guys who installed turbo 400 transmissions in their muscle cars to get a beefier trans but found out real quick that their ET's suffered and re-installed the turbo 350.

I don't think someones telling the truth.

[This message has been edited by hotratz (edited 12-01-1999).]