LS1 Heads on a Ford

[Hack]

basically it's just like a 4v cleveland then.....

actually i don't really consider the mod motors to be either good passenger car, muscle car or truck engines, they're too high winding, even the weenie 4.6 SOHC in the crown vics. it's really better suited to something like the GT that's more in the supercar category, especially with the huffer, same for the SC cobras and the GT500s as well thos are cars that are meant to wind higher anyway.


my point, though, was that since the 5.4 mod motor was really designed for the trucks since the SOHC 4.6 couldn't pull a small boat down the damn highway. ford needed something bigger to keep selling trucks so they built the 5.4.


the windsor was never designed to go in a truck it was built to cover the bases between the 302 and 390 in passenger cars, ford didn't even put it in a truck until the late 70's instead they used the 302, 360 or 390 until the 351m/400 and 460's came along, then after they killed the 351m/400 they decided to use the 351w because they didn't even have the 360 anymore, so again it was used to fill the gap between the 302 and 460

Wow, the more carefully I read that post the more I disagree!

Years ago I remember my brother in law being quite annoyed that his new Chevy couldn't keep up with the smaller Ford 4.6 - yes both pulling trailers as well.

Newer cars are getting smaller engines that make more HP. The way to do that is better breathing and wind it. Any NA performance build will always move the peak HP up to higher rpms in order to get the most HP/cube out of an engine.

I was a little annoyed that the human resources woman at my company has a new Camry with 268 or so hp... that's more than Ford ever got out of the pushrod 302. I built something a little stronger in my '83 (GT40 heads and bigger cam), but it bugs me that she might take me if we ever raced! Now if I had a 4.6 (or aluminum aftermarket heads) I wouldn't worry.

 

[mikethebike]

http://460ford.com/viewtopic.php?t=18923&highlight=stock+rods

I found this link yesterday. With all the aftermarket sbf heads on the market now and the custom items needed, I'm not sure he is really saving anything. What are your thoughts?

I think I'd just use good Ford heads and if you want power from a Chevy for god's sake just buy a 585 hp LS crate motor. But I'm kind of lazy at this point in my life.

 

[jake949]

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=NAL-17802134&autoview=sku

how about this all aluminum crate engine from summit for 5300 bucks, if you are going to show prices why not show the low ones also. 440hp. a good thing about the ls engines is that you can change the cams without tearing the motor down.

if you can build me a all aluminum ford engine for 5300 bucks that makes that kind of power let me know.

jake

 

[StangDreamin']

Wow, the more carefully I read that post the more I disagree!

Years ago I remember my brother in law being quite annoyed that his new Chevy couldn't keep up with the smaller Ford 4.6 - yes both pulling trailers as well.

Wow, that's just -wierd.
In October '05; my kid ("Cowgirl Tink" around here) got herself an '02 1500 Silverado, 5.3L LS1; auto tranny, 4x4. Ran like crazy, even dragging horses in the Circle J trailer. In late December '05; my '91 Silverado 1500 - 4.3L V6/5 speed - finally gave up after almost 15 years of me treating her like a BBC C3500; and I found myself in desperate need of a DD. Decided that, if I was gonna make payments on another truck; it was gonna be set up the way I wanted; 4x4, auto (for the wife), bigger motor (for the horse trailer). All my one close friend that sold cars could get me for what I was willing to pay was my present F150. (He had an '04 6.0 PSD SuperDuty; but I wasn't willing to pay $717.84/month for 6 years on a used truck!)
When he showed me the F150 with its leather-covered power everything; I just wanted to see under the hood; because I had been driving an '01 F150 (4.6) at work, and the guys with 4.3L Astro Vans (carrying as much junk as we all do in my line of work) were kickin' my a$$ regularly! The 5.4 (6 more cubes than Tink's 5.3) clinched the deal.

Nope; her DD Chevy (with more miles on the LSx) out-tows my DD cammer Ford; with the exact same trailer and horses.
Period.

Newer cars are getting smaller engines that make more HP. The way to do that is better breathing and wind it. Any NA performance build will always move the peak HP up to higher rpms in order to get the most HP/cube out of an engine.

I was a little annoyed that the human resources woman at my company has a new Camry with 268 or so hp... that's more than Ford ever got out of the pushrod 302. I built something a little stronger in my '83 (GT40 heads and bigger cam), but it bugs me that she might take me if we ever raced! Now if I had a 4.6 (or aluminum aftermarket heads) I wouldn't worry.

Apples and oranges. Even my wife's 29-year-old Quarterhorse - who would crawl in the back of a Toyota Tercel if it meant he didn't have to walk 5 miles - doesn't like being jerked around at high revs in a steel trailer. Most animals don't.
Different thread, different list, same response: Don't want to wait for more revs, gimme torque to move from a standstill at the bottom.
Guys who deal with REAL horsepower (hooves, hay and all) have a term for horses that have the grunt to quickly chase down and pull down a 400 lb steer 8-10 times a day (from 0-20-0 MPH in less than 8 seconds if you want to at least make your gas money back) with no problems and with breath for the last round. It's called "bottom". Not a coincidence.

 

[bnickel]

my experience is pretty much the same. several people i know that have had the 4.6 pickups traded them off as soon as they could if they did any towing at all. one of my old bosses traded in his 10 year old F-150 that had a 150,000 mile 302 efi in for a brand new f-150 with a 4.6 because he got tired of not being able to pull his little bass boat very with it, he was wishing for that old pushrod 302 back the first time he towed the same boat with the 4.6, and he got worse mileage with it too. the reason is that it didn't make enough torque to get the truck moving without having to hammer it and that's always bad for mileage, not to mention towing. last i heard he ditched the ford in favor of a dodge and he's been a ford guy all his life, wouldn't dare own a chevy and since he couldn't get a ford that would tow his little bass boat he got a dodge.

pretty much the same story with everyone i know that has owned a 4.6 ford pickup and towed anything. i'm a ford guy to the bone, my driveway consists of the 69 GT, my 86 town car and wife's 02 escape and nothing else at the moment, until i get the stang sold and get the cougar home and then it'll still be all fords in teh driveway. i wouldn't buy a truck with a 4.6 or a 5.4 either one in it if i was planning on towing antything with it. i wouldn't mind having a new H-D f-150 though but i don't have anything to tow so it would probably be ok, i'd just borrow my best friend's 05 dodge 2500 cummins if i needed to tow anything.

 

[Hack]

Different thread, different list, same response: Don't want to wait for more revs, gimme torque to move from a standstill at the bottom.
Guys who deal with REAL horsepower (hooves, hay and all) have a term for horses that have the grunt to quickly chase down and pull down a 400 lb steer 8-10 times a day (from 0-20-0 MPH in less than 8 seconds if you want to at least make your gas money back) with no problems and with breath for the last round. It's called "bottom". Not a coincidence.

Gearing. No IC engine pulls at zero rpm. You just need different gearing for a smaller engine. It's not rocket science.

Maybe the Ford my brother in law couldn't keep up with had a 5.4 and my memory of it is wrong. They were pulling snowmobiles on trailers, so I would guess it's a lot lighter than a horse trailer. Never the less, it is a fond memory for me.

 

[bnickel]

Gearing. No IC engine pulls at zero rpm. You just need different gearing for a smaller engine. It's not rocket science.

Maybe the Ford my brother in law couldn't keep up with had a 5.4 and my memory of it is wrong. They were pulling snowmobiles on trailers, so I would guess it's a lot lighter than a horse trailer. Never the less, it is a fond memory for me.

a lot lighter than a boat too.

 

[StangDreamin']

Snowmobiles??? What do those suckers weigh, like 600 lbs loaded??? Our lightest horse is the old QH; he goes about 1050, maybe 11 in the winter. Dutch (the Ayyy-rab) goes about 12 in the summer; maybe 1250-13 in the winter; Tink's horse (big-azz Thoroghbred, long, tall and still pretty doggone muscular for a 27-yr-old)) drops down to about 13 in the summer; biggest I've seen him get in winter weight is about 1450. Two-horse '81 Circle J ramp-loader trailer tares at 3300 with the spare tire and an empty water tank; gross is close to the 3-1/2 ton GVWR with two horses, tack, and a bale (130-140 lbs) of alfalfa on the roof.

Snowmobiles???
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

As for your comment on gearing; the best hauler I've had in the last 20 years is my wife's '02 Ram Quad Cab. Last year before the Dodge Hemi, and the gutsy-est Mopar 360 in history, 4spd slushbox and a 3.73 limited-slip. Good from a standing start; will maintain 65 pulling one horse (the big TB) and a boatload of tack, feed and "Rodeo Queen" wardrobe up 10 miles of 4%. But! Average MPG was about 2.2MPG (according to the Dodge's onboard trip computer) for that portion of the run! That truck has never given mileage compared to either Tink's truck or mine; it's only proven appreciably better than the Daimler/Chrysler-sponsored '07 Quad Cab 4x4 (with a 5.7L Hemi) that I drove for 2 weeks during our local Rodeo last year. I didn't haul anything with it (dealership insurance wouldn't cover it) but after driving that truck for 2 weeks (and 411 miles); I promised I'd never overly-complain about Mrs StangDreamin's mileage again!

I guess it's all in your driving habits.... at 45 years of age, I don't need to see 5 grand on a tach regularly any more. It's good enough to know that I can get myself and my load up to a good cruisin' speed relatively quickly; without having hammer the engine and/or stop at every gas station.

 

[StangDreamin']

double post

 

[danny clemens]

I used to have a 4.6 in a 94 T-bird and it seemed well suited to the car. It ran good, had good low end and got pretty decent gas mileage. I test drove a truck in about 02 and it felt OK but nothing great. I wound up buying a Silverado with a 4.8 and for its size it's not too bad. I can pull a 3,000 lb. car behind it and it does good except for big hills.

 

[Hack]

Snowmobiles??? What do those suckers weigh, like 600 lbs loaded??? Our lightest horse is the old QH; he goes about 1050, maybe 11 in the winter. Dutch (the Ayyy-rab) goes about 12 in the summer; maybe 1250-13 in the winter; Tink's horse (big-azz Thoroghbred, long, tall and still pretty doggone muscular for a 27-yr-old)) drops down to about 13 in the summer; biggest I've seen him get in winter weight is about 1450. Two-horse '81 Circle J ramp-loader trailer tares at 3300 with the spare tire and an empty water tank; gross is close to the 3-1/2 ton GVWR with two horses, tack, and a bale (130-140 lbs) of alfalfa on the roof.

Snowmobiles???
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

As for your comment on gearing; the best hauler I've had in the last 20 years is my wife's '02 Ram Quad Cab. Last year before the Dodge Hemi, and the gutsy-est Mopar 360 in history, 4spd slushbox and a 3.73 limited-slip. Good from a standing start; will maintain 65 pulling one horse (the big TB) and a boatload of tack, feed and "Rodeo Queen" wardrobe up 10 miles of 4%. But! Average MPG was about 2.2MPG (according to the Dodge's onboard trip computer) for that portion of the run! That truck has never given mileage compared to either Tink's truck or mine; it's only proven appreciably better than the Daimler/Chrysler-sponsored '07 Quad Cab 4x4 (with a 5.7L Hemi) that I drove for 2 weeks during our local Rodeo last year. I didn't haul anything with it (dealership insurance wouldn't cover it) but after driving that truck for 2 weeks (and 411 miles); I promised I'd never overly-complain about Mrs StangDreamin's mileage again!

I guess it's all in your driving habits.... at 45 years of age, I don't need to see 5 grand on a tach regularly any more. It's good enough to know that I can get myself and my load up to a good cruisin' speed relatively quickly; without having hammer the engine and/or stop at every gas station.

So are you saying that my brother in law is not very manly because his towing loads are lighter than yours?



Oh I feel so sorry for my brother - and myself too because I don't tow big heavy loads!!

I was just saying that the Ford beat the Chevy. I didn't really expect to be attacked for it here, but that's fine. I remember in the late 90s also being pleasantly surprised when my 302 supercab walked away from a new Chevy truck he owned. I realize that a lot of the guys on here haven't accepted modern technology yet and don't like Ford's cammer V8s. I think that there are a lot of great things about pushrod V8s and all my vehicles have them. However, I like the better power/cube of the cammers and I'm looking forward to the future when they are old enough for a cheap person like me to buy.

Really trucks are off topic here and IMO if you want to tow a lot I highly recommend a diesel. A diesel engine will tow a ton and then get quite good mileage when you aren't towing. I think diesel engines are by far superior to gas engines if you tow regularly.

 

[65up2d8]

Gearing. No IC engine pulls at zero rpm. You just need different gearing for a smaller engine. It's not rocket science.

Bingo. I was waiting to see how long this diatribe would go on before someone said this: higher rpm capability+overdrive gives you the ability to: get better low end torque with lower gearing, which=better towing torque.

Should you have to change gears to get this result? No, but everyone else has to do so as well. Things have changed.

 

[bnickel]

Bingo. I was waiting to see how long this diatribe would go on before someone said this: higher rpm capability+overdrive gives you the ability to: get better low end torque with lower gearing, which=better towing torque.

Should you have to change gears to get this result? No, but everyone else has to do so as well. Things have changed.

gearing? so a 3.73 geared 4.6 truck should be able to pull a bass boat then huh? well it won't. sorry, but if i have to go with a lower gear than a 3.73 for my truck to pull a little 16 ft. bass boat i'm getting a different truck which is exactly what all of these people i know did. all of their trucks already had the towing package with the 3.73 gears and the old 302 would pull it better. plain and simple. sorry, that's just the way things are and no amount of anything is going to change that. the OHC motors are great for high rpm sports cars but they suck at towing anything. i'm also not going to go out and buy a big ass super duty diesel to pull a 16 ft bass boat either, talk about overkill. if i ever have to buy a truck and plan on pulling a boat with it i'll get a gas powered dodge unless ford comes out with another pushrod v8 which i'm willing to bet they will when it's time for a replacement for the mod motor at least for the truck lin anyway. especially when you consider that the gasoline powered chevy and GMC trucks can out tow any of the mod motors without even breaking a sweat.

i've driven both and have been in both when they are towing things and i know it to be a fact and nothing anyone here can say or do to change my experiences. my grandfather used to pull a 30' airstream behind his 1/2 ton suburban and it did for almost 300,000 miles and it's still going strong today my folks just drove it up from San Antonio after the funeral along with his new tahoe that he got to replace the 'burb for around town driving but he kept it to tow the airstream with.

 

[D.Hearne]

bnickel--------have you driven a 3V 5.4 or a V10 3V ? (just askin cause I'm too lazy to go back and reread all this again ) The 3V is a far cry from the 2V in terms of power. The only one I've driven so far is my 06 Stang and while it ain't a truck, it will tow an 800 lb trailer @120 mph + And do it from a dead stop without effort. Had a friend laugh when I did a burnout with the trailer behind it. He said that's the first time he's ever seen that happen. Averaged 23 mpg last trip to Colorado doing 80 mph most of the way. GCVW was 5000 lbs.

 

[Hack]

bnickel--------have you driven a 3V 5.4 or a V10 3V ? (just askin cause I'm too lazy to go back and reread all this again ) The 3V is a far cry from the 2V in terms of power. The only one I've driven so far is my 06 Stang and while it ain't a truck, it will tow an 800 lb trailer @120 mph + And do it from a dead stop without effort. Had a friend laugh when I did a burnout with the trailer behind it. He said that's the first time he's ever seen that happen. Averaged 23 mpg last trip to Colorado doing 80 mph most of the way. GCVW was 5000 lbs.

I'd love to have that V10 in one of my vehicles. I towed my '65 F250 behind a big UHaul van with the V10 across country. I drove 75+ most all the way and it had absolutely no problems. It never even seemed to be working hard.

 

[StangDreamin']

As previously stated; my "work DD" is an 08 SuperDuty with a 3V 5.4. Maybe it's because of the way the truck is set-up; it's just not all that impressive.

I've ridden in a 4.6 3V Mustang and it's out- freakin' - standing! I'm told I got out of the car with "the biggest sh....eatin' grin"
EDIT: But again, that's in a pony-car - not something built to carry a big load.

I have driven (and pulled with) a Ford V-10. Awesome engine. Too bad they don't seem to have it anymore at least for the LT-class vehicles; as far as I can tell.

 

[D.Hearne]

The trouble with a 5.4 in a Super Duty is the truck itself. It's too freakin big and bulky for an engine that size. It's better suited to a diesel or the V10. With a 5.4 it's compareable to a 302 in an older F150-----too much truck with not enough motor.

 

[mach1one]

I am adding all this up in my head, and figure the best way to go with something like this is a 351c block, LS6 heads, and LSx truck intake.

The 351c has nearly the same deck height, so you can use a stock intake.
The truck intake is known to be the best stocker out there for the LSx.
The speed guys just can't take advantage of it because it is so tall.
That leads me to the next point...
The tall intake on the trucks is very similar in design to the 5.0 Stang intake.
No interference with the distributor! Unlike the car intake that has the TB over the water pump.
.........

I'm pretty interested in trying this on my 351c. What about headers? Are the bolt patterns the same as well? I'm having a hard time believe that LS heads would bolt up so easily. The dollar value and results of what you're getting would be awesome compared to working 351c heads.

 

[jlangholzj]

another one of fords biggest mistakes, discontinuing the 7.3 deisel. our neighbor has the V10 gas, and granted it doesn't get as good as milage as our 7.3 deisel, it still hauls a$$.
our deisel (w/o a chip)
Mgp- 18 highway.

-load it with a 34' trailer, 2 1600 lb. show steers and a 1500 lb bread heifer and tack and hay, feed to boot:
-16.5 mpg

and it will still bark the tires

but hauling is about all its outstanding for.


I'm going to put on my bill o'rielly hat for a bit here:

But I haven't really heard anyone say what major advantages there are to fitting LS1 heads on a SBF. Granted the LS1 is one heck of a motor, but what advantages are there to puting just the heads on the SBF. aren't there some aftermarket heads that would perform the same that would just bolt right on?? ANSWER THE QUESTION!


granted, the concept that Started this whole conversation is what TRUE hotrodding is about. at the time, there weren't a whole lot of aftermarket choices and guys mixed and matched technology from other cars to produce more hp. but in this modern day and age, wouldn't it be easier and (i would) feel much more comfortable putting on something that was specifically designed for a SBF?? but thats throwing out the adventure part of the deal, which is part of the reason why i kinda like the idea

 

[danny clemens]

But I haven't really heard anyone say what major advantages there are to fitting LS1 heads on a SBF. Granted the LS1 is one heck of a motor, but what advantages are there to puting just the heads on the SBF. aren't there some aftermarket heads that would perform the same that would just bolt right on?? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I doubt if there are any advantages. The only reason I could see doing it would to be different and saying that you were able to do it. With all of the aftermarket heads out there for the Ford engines I just can't believe that none of them are better. I guess everybody has to do their own thing but that sure wouldn't be mine.