DeWayne F -
The current hp ratings are the net hp at the flywheel, not at the rear wheel. In the old days, the manufacturers used 'gross' hp, which was the hp at the flywheel plus whatever hp the manufacturer wanted to add back in for power loss from spinning the alternator, oil pump, fuel pump, etc... They also added in the hp it takes to spin the engine (the power to overcome the valve springs, friction etc...).

I had an old performance guide from Ford. The difference in the 'net' and gross hp on an old 289 was around 55-60 hp, I forget the exact number. So a 225 hp 4 barrel 289 was really 165-170 hp by today's method. The bigger engines had a greater difference between gross and net.

[This message has been edited by dirt bike dave (edited 02-26-2000).]

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your dyno numbers for the Chevy, but something just doesn't sound right. I recently ran a 14.89 quarter mile at 90 MPH. Seeing that my truck weighs 4400lbs with me driving that equates to 262 REAR WHEEL HP. Stock engine with just a Gibson Cat-Back.(270 hp version)

A dyno I saw in a magazine has rear wheel torque at around 260 by 1800 rpms and topped out at around 271 by 4200 rpms or so. WOW!!! thats not a torque curve, that is a torque line....a long one. I believe it is still short of your peak torque in the 5.4, but damn, that is pretty impressive. I'm not trying to discredit Ford in any way. Just standing up for my brand.

I'll tell you what, I'm gonna try to talk the boss...I mean woman into dynoing my truck this Tuesday. (we are both off) I'll post my results whether they are good or bad. Even if it dyno's at the "famed" 191 rwhp, I know it is not true. You can't get 4400 lbs to 90 mph with 191 rwhp in 1320 feet.

------------------
Black 99 Silverado 5.3, Gibson Cat-Back
9.46 @ 74 MPH
14.89 @ 90 MPH, 2.13 60'

 

Sweet,

Every dyno ive seen tells different, so you're probably right. ANyways, this info is from TruckTrend

 

I would be interested in seeing your dyno results. I would like to one day have mine tested.

Your rear wheel power IS impressive...

Just for grins..I am seriously thinking about putting a superchip in mine. If fuel prices were a bit lower..I would already have one. I don't see them coming down until later this year.

------------------
2000 F-150 XLT, 4x2, 5.4L Supercab, Styleside, Black with silver two-tone, 3.55, class III towing package with heavy duty cooling package, 4 wheel disk ABS, overhead console, sliding rear window, keyless entry, dark graphite interior, in dash CD, Pendaliner bedliner, K&N air filter, rubberized undercoating, cabin filtration system, Bugflector II, 5W-30 Mobil 1, engine build 10/4/99

 

Hey guys, I was reading at LS1.com, this is what I found in their LS1 truck section. Take it for what it's worth. Hehe

"Only thing that has ever been hauled in it was a motorcycle to Florida, and with all the blankets and junk to protect the bed, we looked like the Beverly Hillbillies. Never could convince hubby that we needed a trailer instead. Hubby has a F150 that we use for any major hauling. His has a liner and mat. Mine is defintly the "cadillac" truck in the family."

Its in the Zaino the bed post. Yeah the italic and bold are courtesy of me. Just another example of which brand does the work and which is for show...

A little friendly game Ford=1 Chevy=0
I own a 66 Chevy. Original motor (250 inline 6), don't know if it has 20k,120k, 220k, 330k, or 420k miles, it can't count past 100k. Ok?


------------------
99 Black Lightning
created 8/17/99, bought 9/25/99
#3681/4000
CD changer, Tow package, factory tonneau cover
100k mile warrantee, bed/under liner, paint protected

 

hey guys,
I drive a 97 5.4 (company owned) and I just gotta say I think the low end power sucks. Its a great engine, 80,000 miles with no problems. I also own a '92 Flareside with a real engine, a 351, you know, when engines still had pushrods. For pulling a trailer, I'd take the 351 any day. The triton runs smoother, but it doesn't make any power until its wound up. Factory hp and torque numbers are BS by the way. You just can't compare a ford to a chevy using those numbers. Actually I'd prefer to use mom's 454 vortec suburban to pull that trailer, and I'd never even know it's hooked to the back!
As for looks, personally I think the new light duty fords are ***-ugly (I expect to get flamed for that). If I were considering buying new, I'd look at a Super duty or a Toyota or a Chevy. Thank god for old trucks!

 

OK rockcrawl...you have been FLAMMED!

You must have a bad 5.4L...both of mine have been real @ss kickers at the low end....especially this 2000 I have (3.55 rear in each). Overhead cam, in my opinion, is *far* superior to the pushrod technology..for many reasons.

------------------
2000 F-150 XLT, 4x2, 5.4L Supercab, Styleside, Black with silver two-tone, 3.55, class III towing package with heavy duty cooling package, 4 wheel disk ABS, overhead console, sliding rear window, keyless entry, dark graphite interior, in dash CD, Pendaliner bedliner, K&N air filter, rubberized undercoating, cabin filtration system, Bugflector II, 5W-30 Mobil 1, engine build 10/4/99

 

Sorry gentleman, I never made it to a dyno. Maybe next time. I would like to know what it dynos myself.

 

I also read that Truck Trend where they had World War 4x4!! And they could not get the Che** to dyno any way near there claimed rateings!!! Not only In Truck Trend but Ive read that In other places too! I realize that what each factory claims Is not the Rear wheel horsepower tho. Antbody know why they dont? I suppose the numbers would be smaller and not so impresive, but at the same time R.W.H.P. is what really counts to us. Not those other figures. Also on the note of Chevy 5.3 L engines all the stories I have heared about those TOILET engines makes all the problems about the 4.6/5.4 L engines look like small potatoes!!!!! You could look at Pickup truck .com just to read so of there nice 5.3 engine troubles. Every new truck has Its bugs, the new silverado seems to be Infested tho!!!!!!! just my .02

 

rockcrawl,

Dustoff is right, you must have a bad 5.4l, because low end is their specialty. Go drive a 99 or newer 5.4l and you'll forget about that 351. And I dont know how you can say they're ugly! The Tundra and Silverados are ugly IMHO.

 

I wonder what my opinion is? the late 351's had the exact same Torque numbers as the early 5.4L did (330). I have to agree with RockCrawl, again. The tundra is a poc and the Silverado is a good looker. Ford: Time for a facelift!

You must enlighten us to how the ohc is *far* superior to the pushrods, that have a excellent reputation for POWER!

[This message has been edited by Pastmaster (edited 03-04-2000).]