Improved 2003 5.4l ?
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Tx.
I'm not sure whether you must have the heavy duty or not. Dodge is not putting the Hemi in the 1500 series. At least according the Dodge dealer about 2 weeks ago. No I wasn't looking to buy 
Pete
Pete
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Margate city new jersey
http://24.118.217.131/F150/powertes.doc go to this post it is an dyno test of the chevy dodge and ford
the 5.4 will serve you well- would stay away from the V10 though very poor gas performance. A fellow contractor has one and burns 50% more fuel than me when we follow each other to jobs. (I get over 17mpg on highway@aprox 70mph) I have a 2000 5.4 litre 4x4 extended cab with short bed. Post is in microsoft word 2000- just hit cancel when it asks you for id and password and pages should open in word
the 5.4 will serve you well- would stay away from the V10 though very poor gas performance. A fellow contractor has one and burns 50% more fuel than me when we follow each other to jobs. (I get over 17mpg on highway@aprox 70mph) I have a 2000 5.4 litre 4x4 extended cab with short bed. Post is in microsoft word 2000- just hit cancel when it asks you for id and password and pages should open in word
Last edited by turbo497; Sep 8, 2002 at 10:59 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
From: Virginia
Turbo497, Excellent post which should quite 'most' dodge & cheby fans, however, that test was with the Ford 5.4L vs. the 'old tech' dodge 5.9L NOT the new 5.7L Hemi vs. the 5.3L cheby NOT the 6.0L
Don't get me wrong, I too believe plenty of torque down low is what is needed in a heavy truck. I also think that the 'advertised' hourse power claims made by cheby are, well, MISLEADING to the 'average consumer' to say the least. I think cheby has been 'overstating' there engines rated power just to grab some free car rag covers as your link shows.
I also think that this 'HP war' with cheby claiming to have the 'worlds most powerful . . ' IS hitting Ford hard in the sales supremicy race. All Ford can do is try to 'fire' back with a improved 5.4L with a high HP rating or the average buyer will will go else where.
Don't get me wrong, I too believe plenty of torque down low is what is needed in a heavy truck. I also think that the 'advertised' hourse power claims made by cheby are, well, MISLEADING to the 'average consumer' to say the least. I think cheby has been 'overstating' there engines rated power just to grab some free car rag covers as your link shows.
I also think that this 'HP war' with cheby claiming to have the 'worlds most powerful . . ' IS hitting Ford hard in the sales supremicy race. All Ford can do is try to 'fire' back with a improved 5.4L with a high HP rating or the average buyer will will go else where.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: central BC, Canada
Thanks for the link turbo, gave some good info, so there's a few things I'd like to point out from that comparison.
The Ford's gearing/tire choice actually gave it a lower ratio than the GM, which helped big time but the truck looks cheeeeezy with the wee little rubber. Due to the fact it looks so bad it shouldn't even be an option, or considered to be tested in a comparison. Who picks this 235-70-16 for a tire on a great looking truck? Next to no-one, it just looks nasty!
Even though the GM's 5.3L is an older version and geared taller, it was still faster than the Ford with a load on, not by much, but every little bit counts. Maybe the dyno testing wasn't as accurate? You guys remember how much trouble the magazines had dyno-testing the '87 f150 5.0L with the 4sp auto? Came up with 104hp, lowest in the bunch but kicked everything in the comparison. I don't know why the 5.4L, with more hp and torque, lower gears, is faster than the Chevy empty but marginally slower loaded. If you think about it, it should increase the performance gap with 800 lbs in the back.
Now, throw on bigger 16" rubber, like most of them have, or 17" rubber with the 3.55's. The 5.4L would be dead last out of the three. The newer 5.3L has 15 more hp and 40 more lbs torque than the one tested here, you can get 4.10's as an option, and Ford has only increased torque by 5lbs. It's easy to see who would be faster, and none of us would like the results.
The old 5.9L with 3.92's squeaked past both trucks in the 1/4m empty. That war-pig put the gears to good use, it was pretty much the F-150's shadow when tested loaded.
I'm not glorifying GM, or Dodge here, I would never own either of them. The GM's look like a huge Lumina, and the Dodge, lipstick on a pig as far as I'm concerned.
It just cheezes me off when I have to spend a huge amount of money on a beautiful truck, but then still have to sink in a few thousand more on performance add-ons just to put it on par with my buddies GM. It isn't right, Ford needs to bump up HP and put some pulling gears in thier diffs.
The Ford's gearing/tire choice actually gave it a lower ratio than the GM, which helped big time but the truck looks cheeeeezy with the wee little rubber. Due to the fact it looks so bad it shouldn't even be an option, or considered to be tested in a comparison. Who picks this 235-70-16 for a tire on a great looking truck? Next to no-one, it just looks nasty!
Even though the GM's 5.3L is an older version and geared taller, it was still faster than the Ford with a load on, not by much, but every little bit counts. Maybe the dyno testing wasn't as accurate? You guys remember how much trouble the magazines had dyno-testing the '87 f150 5.0L with the 4sp auto? Came up with 104hp, lowest in the bunch but kicked everything in the comparison. I don't know why the 5.4L, with more hp and torque, lower gears, is faster than the Chevy empty but marginally slower loaded. If you think about it, it should increase the performance gap with 800 lbs in the back.
Now, throw on bigger 16" rubber, like most of them have, or 17" rubber with the 3.55's. The 5.4L would be dead last out of the three. The newer 5.3L has 15 more hp and 40 more lbs torque than the one tested here, you can get 4.10's as an option, and Ford has only increased torque by 5lbs. It's easy to see who would be faster, and none of us would like the results.
The old 5.9L with 3.92's squeaked past both trucks in the 1/4m empty. That war-pig put the gears to good use, it was pretty much the F-150's shadow when tested loaded.
I'm not glorifying GM, or Dodge here, I would never own either of them. The GM's look like a huge Lumina, and the Dodge, lipstick on a pig as far as I'm concerned.
It just cheezes me off when I have to spend a huge amount of money on a beautiful truck, but then still have to sink in a few thousand more on performance add-ons just to put it on par with my buddies GM. It isn't right, Ford needs to bump up HP and put some pulling gears in thier diffs.
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Margate city new jersey
I love the ford trucks I own two of them a 2000 xlt 5.4 and an 1998 EB expedition 5.4 both are 4x4's
If your looking for a way to shut your chevy buddy down on why you would buy a ford look no further than your rap module. my brother-in -law was in the market for an suv and I suggested the expedition or navigator. I told him the RAP module in these trucks makes it difficult to steal.
He bought a tahoe: Theives stole the tohoe-never recovered.
I depend on my truck to make my living and need it to be there when I come out of my home in the morning.
the money you'll save on your theft part of your insurance policy may cover the price of a few bolt on goodies for your truck.
option B: would be don't modify the truck- keep the money and spend it on guns or strippers.
I'm sure that 5.4 litre will move u and those bad girls around just fine OHYAH
If your looking for a way to shut your chevy buddy down on why you would buy a ford look no further than your rap module. my brother-in -law was in the market for an suv and I suggested the expedition or navigator. I told him the RAP module in these trucks makes it difficult to steal.
He bought a tahoe: Theives stole the tohoe-never recovered.
I depend on my truck to make my living and need it to be there when I come out of my home in the morning.
the money you'll save on your theft part of your insurance policy may cover the price of a few bolt on goodies for your truck.
option B: would be don't modify the truck- keep the money and spend it on guns or strippers.
I'm sure that 5.4 litre will move u and those bad girls around just fine OHYAH
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 4
From: Friendswood Texas
that post has the chevy at 270 h.p., if that is correct, that test is 3 years old and the chevy is now rated at 285. (i think since 2000) the ford is still rated at 260 h.p. the same as 1999. the 5.4 has been rated at 260 for 4 years heading into 5, maybe some of you think it is the perfect engine and want for nothing more. i would like to see if anything better mpg and why not more power? a v-6 camrey can kick my a$$, not like i wont a rocket, just steady constant improvement.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1
From: "Enjoy every sandwich" - Warren Zevon
$29,000, actually. Camry vs F150 is not apples/apples. Given the weight and aerodynamics of the F150, there are lots of little ricer cars that can dust us. And if you're a 4X4, it's even worse.
But, if they hit us, it's lights out for them, and we can just lock 'em in and drive right over them.
But, if they hit us, it's lights out for them, and we can just lock 'em in and drive right over them.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 4
From: Friendswood Texas
car and driver has the camry 0-60 8.4 and 1/4 @ 16.5 they have an xlt 9.0 and 16.9 a 4x4 @ 9.3 and 16.7. you might think .4 is close, its not. you will have plain sight of the tail lights and the tops of the kiddy car seats.
if i wanted to strictly be fast i would skip the lightning and go directly to the cobra. just think if ford improved the base 5.4 , if the base got another 20 h.p. the lightning would go to 400 h.p.
if i wanted to strictly be fast i would skip the lightning and go directly to the cobra. just think if ford improved the base 5.4 , if the base got another 20 h.p. the lightning would go to 400 h.p.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: central BC, Canada
If I want to spank a Camry, I take the wife's 24v taurus (240hp flywheel after a few goodies), I just want more out of my truck. period. The torque is good, but the 5.4 needs another 50hp to complete the package. Oh yea, and some 4.10's with the FX4 SuperCrew. Mmmm, drooling here.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From: WV
Quote from a previous post:
"Ford's 5.4L puts out 260hp at 4,500rpm, GM's 5.3L is 285@5,200rpm. That's quite the honkin' step up in rpm. "
I can't bash the 5.4L for anything since it's a great motor but I do wanna step up here for the 5.3L. Max torque/hp rpms can be misleading. Here's my point:
While the 5.3L puts out it's maximum hp of 285 at 5200rps, it also makes about 260hp at only 4200rpms. In other words, the 5.3L makes the 5.4L's maximum hp at LOWER rpms than the 5.4L can do it.
The max torque output of the 5.3L is also misleading: While it maxes at 325 at 4000rpms, it still makes a healthy 300lb-ft at only 2200rpms and has a fairly flat curve. 5.4L makes max torque of 350 at a low 2500rpms (right?) so there's not as big a difference there as it looks based on maximum output numbers.
Same deal with the new Dodge Hemi-max power at high rpms but plenty of output down low as well. GM designed the 5.3L as a 1/2 ton only engine and Ford designed the 5.4L for use in F150s and SDs and I think that explains the differences in these engines. Here's the 5.3L engine graph so you can look at it for yourself:LM7 5.3L...
Anyone have a link for a 5.4L curve? I can't find one. Don't flame me too bad guys!
I'm not trying to start a brand war-I own a Silverado but I read your boards regularly for the good info and just thought I'd weigh in here. I probably spend too much time staring at numbers and stats but it's part of my job so I can't help it!
Actually I recently towed our 3500lb loaded utility trailer with a 2002 F150 5.4L auto and and I liked it. Definitely a little less shifting at low speeds up to about 40mph but once at interstate speed 65-70mph I couldn't tell a lick of difference between it and my 5.3L. I do have 4.10 gears.
Later guys.
"Ford's 5.4L puts out 260hp at 4,500rpm, GM's 5.3L is 285@5,200rpm. That's quite the honkin' step up in rpm. "
I can't bash the 5.4L for anything since it's a great motor but I do wanna step up here for the 5.3L. Max torque/hp rpms can be misleading. Here's my point:
While the 5.3L puts out it's maximum hp of 285 at 5200rps, it also makes about 260hp at only 4200rpms. In other words, the 5.3L makes the 5.4L's maximum hp at LOWER rpms than the 5.4L can do it.
The max torque output of the 5.3L is also misleading: While it maxes at 325 at 4000rpms, it still makes a healthy 300lb-ft at only 2200rpms and has a fairly flat curve. 5.4L makes max torque of 350 at a low 2500rpms (right?) so there's not as big a difference there as it looks based on maximum output numbers.
Same deal with the new Dodge Hemi-max power at high rpms but plenty of output down low as well. GM designed the 5.3L as a 1/2 ton only engine and Ford designed the 5.4L for use in F150s and SDs and I think that explains the differences in these engines. Here's the 5.3L engine graph so you can look at it for yourself:LM7 5.3L...
Anyone have a link for a 5.4L curve? I can't find one. Don't flame me too bad guys!
I'm not trying to start a brand war-I own a Silverado but I read your boards regularly for the good info and just thought I'd weigh in here. I probably spend too much time staring at numbers and stats but it's part of my job so I can't help it! Actually I recently towed our 3500lb loaded utility trailer with a 2002 F150 5.4L auto and and I liked it. Definitely a little less shifting at low speeds up to about 40mph but once at interstate speed 65-70mph I couldn't tell a lick of difference between it and my 5.3L. I do have 4.10 gears.
Later guys.
Last edited by Hillhound; Sep 11, 2002 at 02:25 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
From: Virginia
Originally posted by hoseclamp
If I want to spank a Camry, I take the wife's 24v taurus (240hp flywheel after a few goodies), . . . Mmmm, drooling here.
If I want to spank a Camry, I take the wife's 24v taurus (240hp flywheel after a few goodies), . . . Mmmm, drooling here.
BTW, I am NOT getting this from the pages of a car rag, I posted my times on the track.
And so you guys with 5.4L F150s (which are about 400-600 lbs lighter then my Expy) don't have pretend to be 'fooling' with your radio dial when your neighbors teenage daught lines up against you at the traffic light, I'll share my times with you
Stock '99 Expy 5.4L, 4r100 auto, 3.73 Limited Slip, plenty o options to make her heavy, approx 5200 lbs. running in mid 90 degree heat with 'is it raining' humidity16.3 @ 83 camery @ss kickin MPH
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 4
From: Friendswood Texas
base camry is a 157 h.p. I-4, could it have been one of those?
the night you ran 16.3 what did the camry run?
do you think that the mags lie about what the camry runs or what the expedition runs, do you think toyota pays them to print faster than stock times, or toyota sent in a 16.5 ringer? or do they sand bag ford products?maybe those guys with the dream jobs of testing just dont know how to drive one.
glad your totally satisfied with the power of your 5.4
the night you ran 16.3 what did the camry run?
do you think that the mags lie about what the camry runs or what the expedition runs, do you think toyota pays them to print faster than stock times, or toyota sent in a 16.5 ringer? or do they sand bag ford products?maybe those guys with the dream jobs of testing just dont know how to drive one.
glad your totally satisfied with the power of your 5.4
