Yeah, not only will the 4.6 be able to handle it, but it will do it a lot more smoothly than the chevy. As much as I love pushrods for musclecars, I must admit that the OHC design makes a nice, smooth running engine for a truck.

On another note, even if you do decide to go with Chevy, I would hold off for a while. Ford has gotten to the point where it appears that they have most (all?) of the bugs worked out of their new 4.6 and 5.4 motors, whereas Chevy just released their new lineup. From what I read, Chevy is having all kinds of problems throwing bearings, breaking cranks, etc. If you want a Chevy, at least do yourself a favor and wait until they have things worked out with their new motors.

------------------
-cm

[This message has been edited by cm (edited 12-23-1999).]

 

notirT,
The weight of my boat/trailer combo is indeed in the 2500lb range and the RPM's that I stated were for climbing a pretty good grade. The normal RPM's that I see are very similar to anyone else who has 3.55's. I personally don't believe the torque comes on until the engine revs close to 4000, and whenever I am in that range there is certainly no lack of power. I intend to do a gear swap and then I know I won't have any complaints about the powerband being too high in the RPM's. I was going to go with a supercharger but was warned that towing or hauling consistently with a supercharger would lead to premature death of engine and/or components.

[This message has been edited by basshunter (edited 12-23-1999).]

 

MSAL: I have owned owned and towed with both the 1997 SC w/4.6 and towing pkg, and the 99, sc, 5.4 w/ towing pkg. I normally tow about 2000 pounds and occasionally tow a center console at about 3500 pounds. My 4.6 never, and I mean NEVER got better than 13 mpg. Towing the small boat would drop the mileage to about 11, towing the large boat would drop the mileage to 9mpg. The 99, 5.4 consistently gets 16-18 mpg. Towing the small boat drops mileage to 14-16, the large boat drops it to 13. Both trucks had exactly the same pkgs for towing, 3.55 ls. Without a doubt, the 5.4 is the towing KING. Look at the torque numbers and this will decide for you. More torque at lower rpm is the answer for towing.
Later D

------------------
99 Lariat, SC, Tow Pkg, Loaded, Sprchpd, K&N, Flowmaster, ex slapper!

 

I have a 99, SC SB, 2wd, 3.55ls, auto and had no problem towing a 3000lb boat with 500lb in the bed. I was aimed at the sky a little but I don't have a towing pkg which would have helped that. The engine loved it.

One thing to be cautions of with the Chev, (if you go that way). Get the factory tow package and have the dealer install a hitch they select so that when the frame cracks, there will be less likely a debate of who's fault it was.

Somebody said they were even cracking at the tie downs when mounted on rail transports. Probably just a rumor. But the front end cracking while plowing is better corroberated.

------------------
99, XL, SC, SB, auto, 4.6L, 255x70R16, 3.55LS, 2wd, Med Tor, Dk Grph, Raider LoRider Tonneau,

More to come!

 

Kinda like your engine fast46!! (except for the mustang)

------------------
Black 99 Silverado 5.3
HPP3, Stull Billet Grill, Gibson Super Truck, Custom Fresh Air Intake, GTS Tail Light Black Outs, "Leveled" 2" In Rear.
15.02 @ 90mph with 2.7 60'

 

Maybe it was 99chevy, but all my torque isnt at 4000rpm.

 

Nobody has mentioned a 5.4L can be had for less $$$ than a Chevy 4.8L so lets compare on a cost basis not a cuin basis.
Isn't cost the REAL issue here, because if it isn't get a PSD.

 

Sorry Fast46Triton, but you must really hate Chevy to be so subjective. Just to let you know, (I am sure you already know but forgot to mention) the 4.6 Triton comes from a car engine (4.6 Crown Vic)too. That does not seem to bother you to much in this engine!? I have a three month old 4x4 SC with the 4.6 as well as a four year old GMC SC with the 5.7 and I can tell you, that Ford could learn a lot from GM in regards of making a good tranny! While I am quite pleased with the engine, the tranny does a poor job of using the torque curve of this engine with btw. likes to be revved to get moving. With regards to the 4.8 Chevy power/torque band, you should do your research and find out, that the torque peaks at 4000 rpm but is almost flat from ca. 1500 rpm to 4000 rpm. Care to compare that to the up and down torque curve of the 4.6 Triton!? I get to drive Chevy's, Ford's and Dodges at work every day in a mining enviroment and while the Ford seams to have the best handling and the best built quality (solidly screwed together) it does not hold up in the powertrain department against Chevy.


------------------
1999 XL S/C 4x4, 4.6w, auto, LS 3.55
XL Appearance Group (Polished alloys, 40/60 bench, colour-keyed bodyside mouldings)
XL Value Group (Air, AM/FM Cassette)
Tilt & Cruise

 

Sorry Fast46Triton, but you must really hate Chevy to be so subjective. Just to let you know, (I am sure you already know but forgot to mention) the 4.6 Triton comes from a car engine (4.6 Crown Vic)too. That does not seem to bother you to much in this engine!? I have a three month old 4x4 SC with the 4.6 as well as a four year old GMC SC with the 5.7 and I can tell you, that Ford could learn a lot from GM in regards of making a good tranny! While I am quite pleased with the engine, the tranny does a poor job of using the torque curve of this engine with btw. likes to be revved to get moving. With regards to the 4.8 Chevy power/torque band, you should do your research and find out, that the torque peaks at 4000 rpm but is almost flat from ca. 1500 rpm to 4000 rpm. Care to compare that to the up and down torque curve of the 4.6 Triton!? I get to drive Chevy's, Ford's and Dodges at work every day in a mining enviroment and while the Ford seams to have the best handling and the best built quality (solidly screwed together) it does not hold up in the powertrain department against Chevy.


------------------
1999 XL S/C 4x4, 4.6w, auto, LS 3.55
XL Appearance Group (Polished alloys, 40/60 bench, colour-keyed bodyside mouldings)
XL Value Group (Air, AM/FM Cassette)
Tilt & Cruise

 

I have owned a 94 ext ranger with the four litre, and now own a 98 ext 4x4 with the 4.6.
I have pulled the same trailer with both through the Rockies, hope this helps you.
The 4.0 and the 4.6 pulled the same, mind you the ranger weighed alot less. Same milage and same pull on the flat ( ranger did work well with the automatic trans). But in the hills, the v-8 held speed better (its weight and momentum) The trailer is total weight of 4400 pounds, one race car and trailer
I decided to go with a bigger truck as I was worried about the trans in the ranger, even with a big tci cooler it still wound build heat. E-mail me at bracketracer@home.com
if you want more the this

 

Its kinda funny you mention GM tranny's so great, because we've never had any problems with either of the trannys in any of our suburbans or c/k's. Except the 700R4. I have yet to know of a stock 700R4 that doesn't need to be rebuilt after a certain amount of time. The only tranny's I know of that Ford has had any serious problems where is the E40d early models(1989-1993). I havent had any problems yet, but the C-6 and Aod were very good trannys. You might want to rethink your idea on GM trannys being better than fords.

 

If room is an issue, then go for an F250 SuperDuty. Since your not towing that much, just get the 5.4L with the 4.10LS.. I prefer the exterior look of the SuperDuty and the interior room and space.. Sure, it is probably 'more' truck than you really need, but if you compare costs, the F250 is not really that much more $$ for what you get..

Take one for a testdrive.

Y2K F250 xlt 4x2 5.4L 5sp 4.10ls

 

68,

I believe I knew that the 4.6 comes from the Crown Vic. I dont really hate Chevy, just dont care for them. Sorry, I am not going to switch to Chevy because you say they are better. I dont care for the chevy engines either, because they were mostly made for speed, not towing.

 

Fast46,

The 4.8 and the 5.3 and 6.0 where indeed designed to be exclusively truck engines,
About the only thing they share with the LS-1
are structural similarities, stronger block, 6 bolt mains and aluminum heads on the 4.8 and 5.3, GM did pretty much the same thing Ford did with the bore and stroke configurations. Smaller bores and longer strokes, Nothing close to the bore/stoke of the 5.7 LS-1. As a matter of fact, The LS-1 5.7 isn't even the same bore/stroke as the conventional truck/car 5.7 but they both measure to displace 350 ci. These engines (Vortecs) are not offered in anything but the pick-ups so to call them "vette" engines is totally wrong. I will admit that the 5.4 has a very slight, (And I do mean slight) low end torque advantage but certainly not enough to brag about as it seems to drop off sharply before it flattens out on it's way up to peak HP.

Also, back to original question, for most of you who claim no problems towing with the 4.6, Yes it will do the job of getting your load from point "a" to point "b" BUT...With much more internal stresses than a larger displacement engine. Maybe YOU had no problems, but if you could measure the internal stresses that cause wear and tear you would find the larger displacement engine does the job easier and for many more miles.
You may most likely get better milage also as the larger engine doesn't work as hard.

Don't ask a boy to do a mans work, Go with the 5.4

[This message has been edited by hotratz (edited 01-02-2000).]

 

what is the mpg any 5.4 owners are getting?
i'm getting 19 mpg highway with a 150 sc with 355 gears 4.6 eng. thanks