[miketan]

Originally Posted by Blown330

Using the manufacturer's advetised numbers the 5.4L make 328 ft-lbs at 1000 rpms and the 5.6L makes 308 ft-lbs. 328 > 308 THAT is off-idle torque and if you'd done your math correctly you'd have know that.

Who measures TQ at 1000rpms? We're not driving diesel trucks. These are 1/2 ton gas engine trucks. If what you say is true, then it doesn't matter anyway. The Endurance has MORE total TQ at a LOWER rpm than the 5.4L. Who cares about 1000rpms. Just rev the engine a few more rpms and get into the powerband. That sounds like a flakey excuse for those who want to make the 5.4L look good. I probably have more off-idle TQ in my L98 than an LS2 C6, but that don't mean squat if I'm trying to compare power curves. Just rev the engine towards the TQ peak and get into the "meat" of the powerband. Gas engines are made to be rev'ed a little. They're not diesels. No matter how many ways you want to spin it, the SOHC 3v 5.4L is a boat anchor compared to the Endurance.

My reading comprehension is perfectly fine. My knowledge of the Ford modulars outstrips yours by a vast margin though. You know how the Cobra R got that much hp using 4V heads (which, btw are a better version than the 4V head the Navigators got. but we both know you don't know as much as you think you do about these motors.)? Having a 6500+ RPM redline. Know what kind of internals Ford put in those hand built motors so they could reliably turn that much RPM? Carillo BILLET I-beam rods. Pretty damned good connecting rods for a naturally aspirated motor only making 385 hp. The Ford GT supercar's connecting rods aren't that good. Good logic there pal, a hand built, low production mill to put in trucks that sell hundreds of thousands of units per year. Any more gems like this?

With all this so-called "vast amount" of knowledge on modular motors, why are you arguing for off-idle torque? Is that the only positive attribute you can muster up for the 5.4L? Oh yeah, I almost forgot. They're also good for S/C'ing. If the Endurance was S/C'ed, it'd still make more power. I was just using the Cobra R reference as an example of what could be done with the right heads and some rotating assembly upgrades. Sure, you'd have to spin it and undersquare motors like the 5.4L don't like to be rev'ed. However, you implied nothing could be gained from 4v heads on a 5.4L. Unfortunately, even with all your "vast" knowledge on mod motors, I proved you wrong. Carillo billet I-beam rods? Yadda yadda yadda. Maybe if Ford started spending some money on rotating assembly upgrades, they could get the performance up to competitive levels. With excuses like "it'll cost too much" and "they're only PU trucks", I feel like I'm talking to a Ford bean counter.

If your "knowledge" is so vast, then why do you have to fall back on "ricer" logic with this off-idle torque crap? To me, that sounds very similar to how ricers have to promote HP per liter numbers over total HP. Who cares if you make more HP per liter. If I make more total HP, I have the more powerful engine.

Going back into what you don't know about other makers motors. GM could keep up like that because the LSx architecture allowed for whole engine blocks to be revised without having to make huge changes to the heads, intake manifolds, and exhaust manifolds.

There you go again with that reading comprehension problem. I'll say it again. GM keeps increasing the displacement on the LSX based truck engines to provide more useable torque in the powerband. People don't like to be reving up their 1/2 ton trucks to 5000rpm to get power. To put it simply, so hopefully even you can understand, this equates to more "area" under the curve. You don't have to rev a larger displacement engine as high to get useable torque. You can use less throttle input per gear to get the weight rolling .

Any idea how many separate engines blocks have been cast between the Gen III and Gen IV motor familys? Try 5. Know how many block revisions Ford's done for the 5.4L? 1. For the 4.6L? 1, and that was going from the iron to aluminum WEP blocks. Ford's taken this long to come out with a whole new set of castings because they had to re-tool their whole operation from the 5.4's because the 6.2L's are significantly longer.

Sounds like excuses to me. Ford could sell a elephant turd for an engine in the F-150 and Furd loyalists would buy it. They have the best selling 1/2 ton PU nameplate in the market and they can't development a better powerplant to remain competitive? Ford screwed up by going with the Mod motor architecture. They're hampered by the 5.4L small bore/long stroke design and it's biting them in the arse. GM did it better with Gen 3 SBC architecture. I never said otherwise.

he VK56 is just a tall deck version of an existing engine Nissan had.

What does that have to do with anything? Nissan needed the extra displacement, via a stroke increase, to provide more torque under the curve for a heavy vehicle like the Titan. Even as it sits right now, 5 full model years later, it still stomps over most of the 1/2 ton competition except for the Tundra 5.7L. Give it tubular exhaust headers, VVT on the exhaust cams and perhaps some factory tuning tweaks and it would outperform even the new 5.7L Tundra.

Roush has a 6.2L prototype making 850+hp n/a on E85 with SOHC heads. I seriously don't think the next gen modulars are going to have a problem keeping up with Nissan. Oh...and unlike the current 5.4L, these have enough room to go up to 7.0L. That's a fact you need to make clear for yourself.

The fact is there's not going to be a Nissan Titan as we know it when those big displacement modulars eventually come out. So, there won't be any 5.6L Endurance to compare unless you're talking about the next gen Armada/QX56. Those are supposed to be coming out with a revised 400hp/400tq Endurance powerplant. When the big modulars do come out for the F-150, you'll have to start formulating arguments against the newly revised DCX 5.7 Hemi that's going in the '09 Ram. That's what's going to be in the next Ram based Nissan 1/2 ton.

DOHC won't solve the hp problems of the 5.4L in naturally aspirated form. Are you really this dense? What part of terminal piston velocities do you not understand? See above Cobra R example and consult a high school physics textbook if you still don't get it.

I agree, so why are you defending it with this off-idle torque crap?

Yeah, not detuned at all. Kinda at odds with the 2008 Trailblazer SS I was helping a friend tune last weekend though. If I thought you had a clue about fuel and timing maps and how they relate to these LSx engines I'd post them.

If he has someone like you talking about off idle torque being an advantage over an engine that puts more total torque at a lower rpm, then I feel sorry for your friend. Oh yeah, post the fuel and timing maps. I'd like to comment on them.

You have absolutely no idea how much power GM leaves on the table with those vehicles between the fuel/spark tables and the torque management setup. I've seen 20+hp peak to peak and over 30hp across the curve gained just from tuning a 5.3L Silverado on our local 87 octane and you are telling me GM doesn't significantly detune these engines. You, sir, crack me up.

You weren't mentioning TQ management or spark timing. You were talking about "breathing through a straw" intakes and "restrictive" exhaust systems. Everybody and their uncle knows about the immense TQ management GM has on those engines. Tell us something we don't know. However, even with a tune, a 5.3L is still slower than a stock untuned Titan so who cares.

I'm just going to quote part of an article Popular Hot Rodding did on the DCX Hemi heads. Unlike you, I don't have a problem giving credit where it's due.

Sorry, nearly everything I have stated came basically from memory. Also, I did mention Edmunds "inside line" for the 60-0 figure so I'm sure why you're saying that. I give credit to information when due, buy I don't feel the need to recite the whole article verbatim.

Anybody who really has a clue about those engines know they are extremely limited from the factory. That is strictly a tuning issue. Had Chysler not saddled those engines with a garbage control system they'd be kicking Titan, Toyota, Ford, and GM *** with minimal effort. I can see things for what they are, I don't let some petty bias pin blinders on me.

If so, then you should be "defending" the 5.6L Endurance as well. The Titan is detuned from the factory just like the others so why not talk up virtues of the Titan? The reason I'm so heavily biased towards the Titan, as you aptly put it, is because this is a Nissan "Titan" site. It's not called F-150 talk. It's not called GM truck talk. It's not called Dodge Ram talk. It's called Titan Talk. Of course I'm going to be pro Titan and pro 5.6L Endurance. It may be the war stories section, but it's still a Titan site last time I checked.