Some love for the 5.4L 4V engine at last

[Franco Cozzo]

I thought this may be of some interest to people here - the 5.4L 4V engine was perceived as a bit of a boat anchor in stocko form as the 260/290 fitted to the BA/BF/FG MKI, I've driven a few Falcons with them under the bonnet and I didn't find them too impressive when I got to have some fun, they're alright but nothing special.

A small Adelaide workshop made a turbo kit for one and it seems this perceived boat anchor turns into a god damn monster - 400KW+ at the wheels on only 11 PSI, obviously these things breathe really well so the boost levels are low for high power figures, more over at the link below:

https://www.facebook.com/spoolinboos...type=3&theater

Its good to see something other than the Barra getting a little bit of love and more so from the little guys - this mob runs at our AFF Heathcote event from time to time.

[nstg8a]

This kit on a Bf gt or fg xr8 with the 290 and zf would make for a very nice combo i reckon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bossxr8]

The 4 valve modulars love boost.

[EFFalcon]

with XR8's so cheap, be good to see a few with these fitted.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The 4 valve modulars love boost.

Very efficient engine it seems, shame it seems it was a step ahead of the customer at the time.

Do you think the reason it has its stigma was that it was launched the same time as the I6T which is a beast?

[KBC]

I think far too many people suffer from the sheep mentality jumping on the band wagon saying they are ****. The LS engines were no power houses in stock form either, they were/are just a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to extract power out of. I think this has a lot to do with the thinking of some people.
Dont get me wrong they were no powerhouses but I do think they have been harshly judged.
These just like the miamis love boost, you only have to look at what they have been doing in the states for years to see what they are capable of.
I love these engines and have a few of the 5.4 quads laying around, I even put one in my Cortina which I am half way through making a 8V-71 blower set up for.

[sly_ba]

There are plenty of options outback there for 5.4 owners if they want to go boosted. The problem is getting it engineered and emissions compliment - in Victoria at least. It’s a nightmare.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by sly_ba

There are plenty of options outback there for 5.4 owners if they want to go boosted. The problem is getting it engineered and emissions compliment - in Victoria at least. It’s a nightmare.

Run the gauntlet, no one has engineered cars here

[sly_ba]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Run the gauntlet, no one has engineered cars here

Not worth the risk. If your going to do it then do it right.

[sly_ba]

double post

[Blue Roo]

The 5.4L loves Super Charging as well.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Very efficient engine it seems, shame it seems it was a step ahead of the customer at the time.

Do you think the reason it has its stigma was that it was launched the same time as the I6T which is a beast?

No the stigma is because they are a long stroke block designed for the truck , with 4 valve heads that need to rev , giving them a narrow power band .....they actually work really well when you consider the physics behind them

[roddy1960]

How does the 3V fit in all this too .. I read somewhere they are more prone to the cam phaser fail but the 4V not so much ..How do you guys feel on that .?

A local bloke here bought a 5.4 3V 260 in a 2004 RTV and cost him a fair bit to fix the cam phasers after a while ..Runs great now though .

[smoo]

Originally Posted by muzman

No the stigma is because they are a long stroke block designed for the truck , with 4 valve heads that need to rev , giving them a narrow power band .....they actually work really well when you consider the physics behind them

Yeah, this wasn’t such an issue by the time BF and FG came with the higher rev limit and 6 speed autos, even though the stigma remained.
Consistent complaints of the Boss when first launch of what you described was more apparent with the 260 Boss and the BAs 4 Spd auto super tall gearing. Power delivery the same as most other quad cam V8s but by ‘03 they all had more ratios/better gearing.
This also made the xr6t underwhelming in standard form as well IMO. First time I drove one I thought... is that it?!

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by roddy1960

How does the 3V fit in all this too .. I read somewhere they are more prone to the cam phaser fail but the 4V not so much ..How do you guys feel on that .?

A local bloke here bought a 5.4 3V 260 in a 2004 RTV and cost him a fair bit to fix the cam phasers after a while ..Runs great now though .

This video highlights the problematic 3 valve very well. My 2005 F150 started rattling the timing chain around 140,000 miles. I got rid of it. Right after the 4R75 tranny died (and chain still rattling).
https://youtu.be/xcN_WcGr4BU

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by smoo

Yeah, this wasn’t such an issue by the time BF and FG came with the higher rev limit and 6 speed autos, even though the stigma remained.
Consistent complaints of the Boss when first launch of what you described was more apparent with the 260 Boss and the BAs 4 Spd auto super tall gearing. Power delivery the same as most other quad cam V8s but by ‘03 they all had more ratios/better gearing.
This also made the xr6t underwhelming in standard form as well IMO. First time I drove one I thought... is that it?!

The only ones I've driven have been ZF variants (BF) - nothing under 3500 RPM then it woke up, be much more entertaining to drive as a manual rowing it through the gears, to me that engine in stock form more suits a smaller, lighter car, something like a 3 or 5 series size rather than a heavy car like a Falcon.

Reminds me of how a Honda S2000 drives to a degree, it'd get clipped by Grandma in her Corolla until 6000 RPM then 6000 - 9000 RPM it flies.

Maybe they should have worked with the 3V 5.4L a little more as its a torque monster suitable for a circa 1700kg car and more appropriate for the tastes that this type of customer who would have bought a V8 Falcon in the early noughties.

The BTR is a terrible box, that silly first gear, though I imagine a set of 3.9/4.11 gears in the diff would liven up a BTR Boss 260

[Nu66et]

Originally Posted by roddy1960

How does the 3V fit in all this too .. I read somewhere they are more prone to the cam phaser fail but the 4V not so much ..How do you guys feel on that .?

A local bloke here bought a 5.4 3V 260 in a 2004 RTV and cost him a fair bit to fix the cam phasers after a while ..Runs great now though .

4V's never had cam phasers so that was only ever a 3V issue.

3V was only 220kw for BA and 230kw for BF.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by smoo

Yeah, this wasn’t such an issue by the time BF and FG came with the higher rev limit and 6 speed autos, even though the stigma remained.
Consistent complaints of the Boss when first launch of what you described was more apparent with the 260 Boss and the BAs 4 Spd auto super tall gearing. Power delivery the same as most other quad cam V8s but by ‘03 they all had more ratios/better gearing.
This also made the xr6t underwhelming in standard form as well IMO. First time I drove one I thought... is that it?!

The stigma remained because the bore and stroke remained the same , .....I think the later ones were better because didn't they introduce that intake manifold with the vacuum operated long runners to increase low end torque and then switch to short runners up in the revs from memory ?

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by muzman

The stigma remained because the bore and stroke remained the same , .....I think the later ones were better because didn't they introduce that intake manifold with the vacuum operated long runners to increase low end torque and then switch to short runners up in the revs from memory ?

Not on the 5.4 V8's. Only naturally aspirated 6's from EF onward.

[Franco Cozzo]

Makes you wonder why it didn't have VCT when the 3V did? Maybe physical size of the head was too big as it was and they couldn't fit it in the engine bay in 4V variant?

Coyote/Miami has VCT right?

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Maybe they should have worked with the 3V 5.4L a little more as its a torque monster suitable for a circa 1700kg car and more appropriate for the tastes that this type of customer who would have bought a V8 Falcon in the early noughtiesl

The story was at the time, Tickford/FPV felt that whilst 3V might have been able to provide enough power for the XR8, the development potential just wouldn't have been possible for a GT level of power. Hence a bespoke 4V 5.4 being developed and made available for both XR8 and GT, the XR8 being key to providing volume to support the cost of development.

In hindsight, perhaps a Supercharged 3V would have been a more suitable power and torque delivery experience for traditional Falcon buyers.

From a personal point of view, I always loved the way these things sounded. They had both induction and exhaust notes, whereas the Miami really on has a manufactured exhaust note and little induction roar except for the supercharger wine. Then if you compare to the Windsor before it, at least the BOSS felt happy in it's upper rev range, smooth all the way to the limiter. A very misunderstood engine.....

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Makes you wonder why it didn't have VCT when the 3V did? Maybe physical size of the head was too big as it was and they couldn't fit it in the engine bay in 4V variant?

Coyote/Miami has VCT right?

Size and the fact that the 4V heads were mostly teamed with a supercharger in US applications, negating the need for VCT to fill out the torque curve.

The Coyote versions were redesigned to reduce physical size and allow VCT. They are still a physically big lump though.

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Not on the 5.4 V8's. Only naturally aspirated 6's from EF onward.

Yep don't know where I got that from ? Google reckons it was cam changes and slight compression increase from 10.5 to 10.8 .....a manifold like that would have helped that flat part under 4000 rpm ,VCT would too

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by muzman

Yep don't know where I got that from ? Google reckons it was cam changes and slight compression increase from 10.5 to 10.8 .....a manifold like that would have helped that flat part under 4000 rpm ,VCT would too

The later ones (BOSS 302/315) had a twin throttle body with corresponding upper manifold change. Perhaps that was what you were thinking of?

[Nu66et]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

The story was at the time, Tickford/FPV felt that whilst 3V might have been able to provide enough power for the XR8, the development potential just wouldn't have been possible for a GT level of power. Hence a bespoke 4V 5.4 being developed and made available for both XR8 and GT, the XR8 being key to providing volume to support the cost of development.

In hindsight, perhaps a Supercharged 3V would have been a more suitable power and torque delivery experience for traditional Falcon buyers.

From a personal point of view, I always loved the way these things sounded. They had both induction and exhaust notes, whereas the Miami really on has a manufactured exhaust note and little induction roar except for the supercharger wine. Then if you compare to the Windsor before it, at least the BOSS felt happy in it's upper rev range, smooth all the way to the limiter. A very misunderstood engine.....

They should've just used the supercharged 4.6 that already existed.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Nu66et

They should've just used the supercharged 4.6 that already existed.

Ford should have just made the 6.2L V8 all along instead of the 5.4. It had the bore of the 302 and 351 with a 3.75” stroke, two large valves, and a nice throaty exhaust.

[PooDog]

Yep with all there global platforms etc it would have made sense to stick with the larger bore , then you can make several different size motors by altering the stroke (a global v8) i guess they were looking to the future at the time thinking motors would get smaller more boost and less capacity .....not expecting the muscle car wars and everyone wanting a big American size ute or SUV ?

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Not on the 5.4 V8's. Only naturally aspirated 6's from EF onward.

The 3v 5.4 had it too , must have been where i got it

The difference in sound i think is the Miami had the firing order changed back to the same as the flathead 15486372 something to do with vibration ?

The 5.4 l was the same as the last Windsors (they sound pretty good) 13726548

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Maybe they should have worked with the 3V 5.4L a little more as its a torque monster suitable for a circa 1700kg car and more appropriate for the tastes that this type of customer who would have bought a V8 Falcon in the early noughties.

The plan was to use the 3V across the V8 range. They just couldn't squeeze enough out of it. I saw one in the engine lab long before BA was released and they were struggling getting FPV power levels. It would have left no headroom to squeeze out more performance in future either.

Originally Posted by muzman

Yep with all there global platforms etc it would have made sense to stick with the larger bore , then you can make several different size motors by altering the stroke (a global v8) i guess they were looking to the future at the time thinking motors would get smaller more boost and less capacity .....not expecting the muscle car wars and everyone wanting a big American size ute or SUV ?

The small bore was chosen so they could use it in FWD models with it mounted east/west. The FWD Mustang they planned to make probably would have had it. Luckily the media got wind of the plan and buyers bombarded Ford with hate mail. That FWD car eventually became the Probe with a v6.

[Nu66et]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Ford should have just made the 6.2L V8 all along instead of the 5.4. It had the bore of the 302 and 351 with a 3.75” stroke, two large valves, and a nice throaty exhaust.

Ford was looking at the 6.2 quite some time later though. I don't think it would have made a good performance engine in a passenger vehicle either given the criticisms the 5.4 already received for it's weight in the Falcon.