TCCoA Forums banner

81 - 100 of 255 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,598 Posts
95crwnvic54 said:
That's what all the CrownVic guys say! "You can't fit a 5.4l of any size in a CrownVic, SOHC or DOHC".

Knowing how much room you guys have compared to my Vic.....If you guys can pull it off, I know for a fact I can!
I reccommend a 98 F-150 intake, and a bit of cleaning up internally. You have tons of room, and the only thing you need to do is close the hood G-e-n-t-l-y, the first time... If you can put a 5 speed in a vic, you darn sure will have no probs with a 5.4, any valve configuration.... ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
95crwnvic54 said:
I've got a complete FOOT( ' ) not inchs ( " ) between my fenders and the vavle covers.!
We only wish we had the room that you have. I doubt you will have as many problems like we had with the install. In addition to what Mr. BS pointed out you can always replace, relocate or remove the wiper motor. I do not remember what a CV intake looks like but here is a picture of the one that LJ is talking about:



I prefer aluminum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Leland Jacobson said:
I reccommend a 98 F-150 intake, and a bit of cleaning up internally. You have tons of room, and the only thing you need to do is close the hood G-e-n-t-l-y, the first time... If you can put a 5 speed in a vic, you darn sure will have no probs with a 5.4, any valve configuration.... ;)
True!

I think I'm going to try the Lightning S/C intake with a Marauder upper instead of the regular truck intake. We've talked about this before on one of the "other" sites.

Giving the amount of torque these jewels put out and the fact that the truck intake is desighned for torque, I would think that a very short runner intake is what it would take to get a 2v pumping a little harder. I know it may not be much, but I would think more.

I think the runners are only like 3" to 4" in an open area where the intercooler sits. May be a good idea just to add horns to the runners.

Now if I can come up with a Lightning intake.

Come on people lets brain storm! :bangwall:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
J.Miller said:
We only wish we had the room that you have. I doubt you will have as many problems like we had with the install. In addition to what Mr. BS pointed out you can always replace, relocate or remove the wiper motor. I do not remember what a CV intake looks like but here is a picture of the one that LJ is talking about:



I prefer aluminum.

A CrownVic intake look exactly like the Thunderbird's in '95. After '95 I beleive all 4.62v went plastic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
Please correct me if I am completely ignorant on this but....Isn't the lightning intake designed for a supercharger, as in, you have to put the M112 or a replacement on it?

Am I just dumb?

Dan
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Dan, you are correct. The Lightning intake has really short runners. Modifications will have to be made to make them longer for a NA application. Unless he is going for a supercharger??? Hummm... anyone have a picture?

The converse is true with the truck intake. The runners are too long...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
For all those who believed BS, here is the published numbers that was requested. This NA 5.4L has port and polished heads, a good exhaust, 80 mm MAF but still less than what others are using today. This only goes to show that if you have the right components, good tune from someone who cares, you can get some power with a NA 5.4L.

 

·
Like Titles Matter
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
J.Miller said:
For all those who believed BS, here is the published numbers that was requested. This NA 5.4L has port and polished heads, a good exhaust, 80 mm MAF but still less than what others are using today. This only goes to show that if you have the right components, good tune from someone who cares, you can get some power with a NA 5.4L.

OK, I have port and polished heads, a good exhaust, 80MM MAF. I still make more HP than that with a 4.6. Article doesn't say on that page what the 5.4 has for a trans, is it a manual which is inflating those numbers? I can see it says a C4 is coming later. Show the other pages of the article. Although there are constant suggestions on here that I have some kind of race engine, the truth is I have a very streetable combination with good idle quality that has no problem providing enough vaccuum for the brakes. Hell I only have .495 valve lift. As for power under the curve, what really is important, it appears that 5.4 hits 275 HP about 4200 RPM and stay above that until 5000 RPM when it is done. I hit 275 about 4700 and stay above it all the way to 6700. 2000 RPM worth of the same power lever will beat the pants off of 800 RPM worth every single time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Those numbers were massaged out by a tuner "who cares" yet there isn't any air to fuel ratio to examine? The new 3v in the Expedition puts out 300 hp anyways, I don't think there ever is an issue with thinking a 2v with a great deal of money put into it would too. This proves nothing about the success of dropping this motor into the MN-12.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
Kris,

My understanding is that you wouldn't want the 5.4 to stay in the 6000-7000rpm range for long anyway. As was said earlier:

the fact that at 4.06" of stroke (on a 5.4L) the piston speeds are astronomical when you get up in the RPM the 5.4 has some inherent faults the you just can't get around ... The problem of piston speed and trying to keep the rings seated on the walls is the next hurdle...
It sounds to me like the 5.4 is a high torque, low rpm engine, best used in a truck or utility vehicle. Think that's why Ford puts them in the Lightning??

-mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Have any of you ever heard of Al Pipito(I think thats how he spells it)?

I need to look for the mustang issue where they did a big Cobra shoot out.

I think Al came in secound or third with his N/A 5.4l DOHC tumble port. He wouldn't specify compresion and the intake was stock with a modded upper.

10.5 sec. in the 1/4 :bowdown: :bowdown:


I know we are on the subject of 2v, but look at the potential!

The 5.4l can make horsepower with over 7000rpm rev........It's out there.

But horsepower with 2v :zdunno:

The 2v heads just don't flow for the 4.165" stroke(or 105.791mm) however you look at it.

Heads
INTAKE FLOW Exhaust FLOW
Non-pi= [email protected] [email protected]
PI = [email protected] [email protected]
Tumble port
DOHC 4.6l [email protected] [email protected]
DOHC 5.4l [email protected] [email protected]

The 5.4l hands down is a torque motor...period. It can have horsepower though!
The 5.4l DOHC tumble port heads are your beat bet. They have more meat to port than any other. Unless your shooting for the 5.4l Cobra R heads.

As far as 2v, their have been debates on non-pi and pi. Witch flow the best after porting for HP.

My sugjestion would be, if your going to build any thing, get a book. A good start would be "How to build Max-Performance 4.6-Liter" by Sean Hyland.

He even shows a successful package 4v 5.4l with 510hp @ 7000rpm's and 420ft-lb @ 4800 torque! That's a sh+t pile of torque N/A for a 330ci engine!
As for 2v 5.4l, it was S/C. It had 685hp @ 5500rpm's & 720ft-lbs torque @ 3800

720ft-lbs of NO GETIN UP OUTA YO SEAT TORQUE!

Power can come from these engine regardlees of what you do as long as you do it smart and right.
It wouldn't be good idea for a 5.4l 2v and putting 4.10's or 4.30's behind it S/C or not.
With a 5500rpm max MAYBE!
4v would be a diffrent story. It would be like all the other applications...More RPM's ...More gear.
 

·
Refrigerator Raider Hater
Joined
·
11,719 Posts
95crwnvic54 said:
I know we are on the subject of 2v, but look at the potential!
No doubt that mod for mod a 4v has an advantage, but it is also more expensive. That means for the same money, you can mod a 2v more than a 4v. IMHO, the difference is enough to more than make up the difference (a 2v w/ $5000 invested would be faster than a 4v w/ $5000 invested). Granted in an all out build for maximum horsepower a 4v is an easy decision, but for the rest of us there is a cost/benfit ratio.

I'm buying some 2v heads that outflow the 4v numbers you posted at .500 lift, and I'm going to get them for less than half the price of a set of worked 4v heads.

As for RPMs, just look at KenB's GT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
95crwnvic54 said:
As far as 2v, their have been debates on non-pi and pi. Witch flow the best after porting for HP.
Careful.. that debate is over. There has been a bunch of hard data posted here and at MD showing the OVERALL (not just peak) numbers of both heads.

I'm not sure what numbers you are comparing, but here are the numbers from the first generation Renegade NPI's across the board:

Lift..............Intake................Exhaust
.100"--------- 67----------------62
.200"---------120----------------97
.300----------165---------------137
.400----------193---------------152
.500----------210---------------164
.600----------222---------------175

The most recent batch are higher, but I can't find my flow sheet. The key is not peak flow at max lift.. it's overall flow... the valves are only at max lift for an instant, the rest of the time they are somewhere else. The other thing is balance between intake and exhaust.. not to have one or the other way higher, and not to sacrifice low lift flow for peak flow.

My sugjestion would be, if your going to build any thing, get a book. A good start would be "How to build Max-Performance 4.6-Liter" by Sean Hyland.
You gotta be kidding!!!


And please explain how having 4v instead of 2v affects the piston speeds and ability to keep the rings seated on the cylinder walls?? How come you say to limit the 2v to 5500 and rev the 4v higher. You must just be considering the airflow without concern for the piston speeds and rings.

If the engine builder I quoted, who builds both 4.6's and 5.4's has not found a way to overcome that, how do you propose to do it???

This debate always goes on and on the same way... a bunch of 5.4 proponents stating what the 5.4 SHOULD, COULD, OUGHTTA, WILL SOMEDAY BE ABLE TO MAYBE do.. and 4.6 guys talking about what they are already doing... Not what professional special built race car owners are doing, but what just regular guys modding their 4.6's are doing now.

So go ahead, put the 5.4 in you Vic and let's see what it does... I'm sure KD or JL or Hans Solo, or any number of other 4.6 guys (me if GB was still N/A and Eric Z if the Silver Slut were still N/A) will be happy to put it to the test heads up...

For future reference.. Sean Hyland and his book, does not hold much credibility here.... If you want to know how to make a 4.6 lead sled go fast, do a search right here you'll be better off...

-mike
 

·
Like Titles Matter
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
No one was talking about 4V engines. But yes, absolutely the 4V head is the best fix for the 5.4. Even better if you use the new GT block and take it out to a 3.7" bore, that makes for 358 inches of 4V power.
 

·
Moderator, Iowa Chapter Director, Uber Luber, TCCo
Joined
·
8,978 Posts
so you get proof (like you constantly ask for) and then you find a way to bash it anyway... nice.
 

·
Like Titles Matter
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
Thomas said:
so you get proof (like you constantly ask for) and then you find a way to bash it anyway... nice.
Proof of what? I still haven't seen one make what my totally streetable not the racing engine some want to make it out to be 4.6 makes. Getting much closer if you look only at a peak number though. Yes the 5.4 in the article is considerably better than any I have seen to date, but it still isn't there yet now is it? Making less power just makes a car slower now doesn't it? Making power over a very narrow RPM range makes it slower now doesn't it? Carrying the extra weight makes it slower now doesn't it?

As much as certain individuals want to try and twist that into a "bash", those are just the cold hard facts. Deal with it.

Yeah I got the proof, more proof they still don't make the power a 4.6 makes. I guess you read something different than I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,598 Posts
Hey! KD, Goldberg, all 'youse guyz' !! You'll all allways be faster than me inna straight line, so whats yer point? I really dont have any professional experience with these engines ,and am just playin' around with the 5.4, cause I still think that with a certain mindset good things can be found... but once again , What do I know? As my favorite playtoy heretofore, was a 30,000 Shaft hp sultzer RN90Dn, metric, two stroke twin turbo, or was that one a triple , i get confused... hmmm ? anyhow I dont even remember the displacement, but the 9 cylinders were about 3 ft dia. and the stroke was a tad over 6 feet. the HP was peaked at 116 RPM, and who could even guess the torque? Point is the big engine had its place, and worked great, and at 30,000, certainly made power, but a different mindset hadda be applied. Now I wonder what kinda power that would make N/A
does anybody care? I just dont like over revving a motor , and never let them take mine over 5600 on the dyno... really must get those shift points closer to 5000, and I am happy as a pig ... my car is a streeter, with about 30 passes at the strip for evaluation purposes, and I hope you all get in the 11's this year... my big heavy boat likes the big motor , and so do I, now quit picking on miller as it proves allmost as much as blasting a Pm all over the internet, go figure....
And My name is jake, and I said that ......:xpwink:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
I had the article scanned at Office max and it is humongous. I tried to e-mail it to Dan. I hope I did not choke his e-mail? If you like, I will try to find a way (possibly black and white) to post the entire article?

As far as bashing goes sometimes it seems to be the norm here. It was obvious that the attack on my person was a simple bash. I deal with it because I have nothing to sell or prove here. I make my money elsewhere. I am only here to post technical articles (as long as I have HD space) and help others. Check out my web site. I already outgrown the limits that the TCCoA gave me. I tell the truth to the best of my knowledge. If I see a perceived fault I will be the first to open my mouth. Deal with it.
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with putting a 5.4 into an MN-12, it's just a fact that you're not going to make as much power as a 4.6. These aren't opinions backing it up, it's physics and limitations of the motor.

To try and defend your point that the 5.4 makes more power by using the Lightning as an example, or a 5.4 in a Mustang running a manual trans skews your entire argument.

Also claiming the tune on your car isn't right, because you didn't hit a peak horsepower # you envisioned is like crying over spilled milk.

Bottom line is, if whatever route you take with your car is fully planned out and calculated, in the end not only will you be satisfied, you'll be able to recognize the pros and cons associated with it. I certainly don't race my 4.6 down a glass track or store it in a glass house.
 
81 - 100 of 255 Posts
Top