From: owl on

"aarcuda69062" <nonelson(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nonelson-8D0F03.23063101042007(a)newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <tvydnWe6oPj0w43bnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d(a)comcast.com>,
> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:46105255$0$4939$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com...
> > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to
form:
> > >
> > >
> > > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have
hydraulic
> > > > lifters hence not DOHC.
> > > > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine.
> >
> > Yeah ?
> > http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp
> >
> > says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers
>
> Are you trying to win some sort of award for stupid?

I'm just used to DOHC meaning no rockers and no lifters.
I have always associated lifters with pushrods.

Does condesention make your point better, or are you trying to win an award
for something else ?

>
> How does any of the above equate to the engine not being an
> overhead cam engine?

I think a better question is how does a DOHC valvetrain have lifters in the
traditional sense. They are not lifters they are cups and shims.

I've been looking all over the site, I guess to get the spark plug in the
middle, and DOHC you have to get the Shelby.


>
> Do you even know what a camshaft does?


From: owl on

"Kevin" <ksmabon(a)mts.net> wrote in message
news:vpZPh.16617$Ng1.3320(a)newsfe19.lga...
>
> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zOmdnac7YKa81I3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> >
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:NtFPh.22207$oV.19591(a)attbi_s21...
> >>
> >> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:o_GdnSpR05DpnpLbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:GCEOh.17698$tD2.10404(a)newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> >> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the
> >> >> major
> >> >> full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell
> > you
> >> >> which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide
details
> > of
> >> >> the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The
> >> > Tundra
> >> >> clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who
actually
> >> > NEED
> >> >> trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a
clear
> >> >> demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't
> > really
> >> > do
> >> >> much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers
> >> >> final
> >> >> statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter
> > than
> >> > the
> >> >> competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from
> >> >> the
> >> >> start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be
> >> >> interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was
30
> >> > feet
> >> >> shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was
> > gained
> >> >> during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually
> >> > correct
> >> >> it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe
something
> >> > that
> >> >> was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road
> >> >> Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras
> >> >> stopping
> >> >> distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet.
A
> >> >> similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and
> >> >> Driver
> >> > 2007
> >> >> pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet,
Dodge
> >> > 1500 -
> >> >> 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187
> >> >> feet.
> >> >> So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had
> >> >> exceptional
> >> >> brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to
drag
> >> > race
> >> >> your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work
truck.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ed
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > When I buy a new vehicle I place priority in the engineering behind
the
> >> > engine.
> >> >
> >> > The engine is used to a greater extent of it's fullest potential more
> > than
> >> > any other part of the truck.
> >> >
> >> > This means I prefer engine design consistent with 2007 instead of
1957.
> >> >
> >> > I want engines that produce high power and torque for their
> > displacement,
> >> > while their fuel consumption and emissions stay low.
> >> > I don't care who produces these cars I will buy them.
> >> > I seem to remember Ford himself talking about how they had to make a
> >> > new
> >> > focus on fuel economy technology.
> >> > Tell me why the new Mustang has only graduated to 3 valves ?
> >>
> >> They are getting 300 hp from 4.6L. Isn't that good enough? They have 4
> >> valve heads for the modular engine but if they are meeting their
> > horsepower
> >> targets with the 3 valve heads, why go to the extra cost?
> >
> > 4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use. That is unless
> > you
> > don't think the consumer deserves it.
> > Also, is the 4.2 L ford engine a 90 degree V6, Is that an indication of
a
> > lower red line ?
> >
> > The 4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve.
> >
> > The mustang engines are still pushrod design.
> >
> > Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ? How about variable valve
timing
> > ?
>
>
> You should research before you spout. 4.6L, 5.4L, and 6.8L are all OHC,
not
> pushrod. Lincoln Navigator has used four valve heads for almost 10 years.
> Mustang V8s are also OHC. Check it out.

You should check out the Ford Web site before you spew.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/

I was looking at the GT model.

The 4.6 says OHV right on it. However, clicking on the link and spawning
the child window..
The engine is a SOHC. Looks like Ford has an ERROR right on their website.
I guess their mistake on their new product sales collateral was
misinformation.

The starting context of this entire thread was in reference to the F150 4.2
versus the Tundra 4.0
both V6 engines.

The F150 4.2 v6 is a OHV design.

>
>
> >>
> >> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
> >>
> >> There is in mine if a Corvette is wrapped around it. I think it foolish
> >> to
> >> say you won't consider a pushrod engine. Most current Ford engines are
> >> overhead cam. The only exceptions are the 4.2L and the 3.0L V-6 truck
> >> engines. I think GM has done great things with push rod engines. It is
> > hard
> >> to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and horsepoer
> > per
> >> cubic inch of space occupied under the hood.
> >
> > OH ?
> > Corvette V8 6.0 L 16 valve OHV 400hp-6000rpm 400ft-lbs-4400rpm
> > Tundra V8 5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm
> > Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm
> >
> > Similar numbers out of less displacement. This would suggest the
Corvette
> > would benefit greatly from an updated valvetrain design.
> >
> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
> > lifters hence not DOHC.
> > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.
> >
> >>
> >> > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake
> >> > rotors.
> >>
> >> And what does this mean? Do you think that four piston calipers work
> >> significantly better than 2 piston sliding caliper brakes? I've had
cars
> >> with four piston brakes and not seen any advantage. Despite Toyota's
> >> hype,
> >> their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks. So
what
> > is
> >> the advantage?
> >
> > That's easy with pistons on both side of the rotor, more even, and
> > responsive pressure can be applied on more braking surface area without
> > having to float the caliper.
> >
> > It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area.
> >
> > I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2.
> >
> >>
> >> > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?
> >> >
> >> > http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224
> >>
> >> Same basic engine. But if you notice, all the "problem vehicles" were
97
> > and
> >> 98 models. If you think Ford is unique in having head gasket problems
do
> >> some research on Toyota v6 head gasket failure -
> >>
> >> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
> >> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html
> >>
> >
http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
> >> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1
> >>
http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm
> >>
> >> Ed
> >
> > Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket
recalls.
> > What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
> >
> >
>
>


From: C. E. White on

"owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zOmdnac7YKa81I3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> 4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use. That is
> unless you
> don't think the consumer deserves it.
> Also, is the 4.2 L ford engine a 90 degree V6, Is that an indication
> of a
> lower red line ?
>
> The 4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve.

No it is not. The 4.6L V-8 in the trucks is a 2 valve SOHC design.

> The mustang engines are still pushrod design.

No, the 4.0L V-6 in a Mustang is an SOHC design, The 4.6L is the three
valve SOHC design.

> Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ? How about variable valve
> timing ?

Currently none of the Ford V-8s have 4 valves. In the recent past
certain models got the DOHC 3.9L, 4.6L, and 5.4L V-8s, but Ford is
getting essentially the same horsepower from the 3 valve SOHC design,
so they aren't offering a 4 valve V-8 at the moment. Ford does offer
several 4 valve DOHC I-4s and V-6s. All the 3 valve engines have
variable valve timing, as do the DOHC engines.

>> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
>>
>> There is in mine if a Corvette is wrapped around it. I think it
>> foolish to
>> say you won't consider a pushrod engine. Most current Ford engines
>> are
>> overhead cam. The only exceptions are the 4.2L and the 3.0L V-6
>> truck
>> engines. I think GM has done great things with push rod engines. It
>> is
> hard
>> to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and
>> horsepoer
> per
>> cubic inch of space occupied under the hood.
>
> OH ?
> Corvette V8 6.0 L 16 valve OHV 400hp-6000rpm 400ft-lbs-4400rpm
> Tundra V8 5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm
> Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm

Look under the hood of a Tundra, and then look under the hood of a
Corvette. Which engine takes up more space (the Tundra). Which engine
weighs more (the Tundra).

> Similar numbers out of less displacement. This would suggest the
> Corvette
> would benefit greatly from an updated valvetrain design.
>
> According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have
> hydraulic
> lifters hence not DOHC.
> So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.

No true. You don't have to have push rods to have hydraulic lash
adjusters.

>> > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front
>> > brake
>> > rotors.
>>
>> And what does this mean? Do you think that four piston calipers
>> work
>> significantly better than 2 piston sliding caliper brakes? I've had
>> cars
>> with four piston brakes and not seen any advantage. Despite
>> Toyota's hype,
>> their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks.
>> So what
> is
>> the advantage?
>
> That's easy with pistons on both side of the rotor, more even, and
> responsive pressure can be applied on more braking surface area
> without
> having to float the caliper.

Spoken like a techno geek who thinks if race car has something it is
the best thing for a street car. The "pressure" applied is no
different if everything is working properly. With sliding calipers the
biggest problem is sticky sliders. With modern sliding calipers that
are properly maintained this isn't much of a problem. 4 piston caliper
don't suffer from sticky sliders (there are none), but they do suffer
from sticky pistons (been there) and you have twice as many seals to
leak. As far as I am concerned there is only one advantage to 4 piston
calipers - you can plumb the pistons in pairs to achieve true dual
circuit braking. I am not sure it Toyota is doing this - do you know?
I doubt it since they would have to have twice as many brake lines
running to the front of the truck.

> It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area.

No, this wrong.

> I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2.

The Tundra doesn't stop any better than competitive vehicles. If there
is no performance advantage, then it is hype.

>> > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?
>> >
>> > http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224
>>
>> Same basic engine. But if you notice, all the "problem vehicles"
>> were 97
> and
>> 98 models. If you think Ford is unique in having head gasket
>> problems do
>> some research on Toyota v6 head gasket failure -
>>
>> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
>> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html
>>
> http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
>> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1
>> http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm
>>
>> Ed
>
> Yep I'm well aware all manufacturers have had issues with gasket
> recalls.
> What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down
> ?

Or sludged up engines that burn up your car? You should look at the
history of the cruise control deactivation switch recall. Initially
there were a very few vehicles from a clearly designed production
range that appeared to have a problem. Ford announced a recall for
those specific vehicles. Suddenly every sort of Ford truck built in
the last 15 years was accused of catching on fire. Fords were accused
of burring up that didn't even have the same style circuit. Sort of
like the Toyota sludge case don't you think?

Ed


From: Kevin on
DOHC stands for double overhead cam, it refers only to camshaft placement
and has nothing to do with valve placement. There ARE 3 and 4 valve engines
that use pushrods. I wouldn't be buying something based on terms I don't
understand, if I were you

"owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ybOdneERr7mfM43bnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d(a)comcast.com...
>
> "aarcuda69062" <nonelson(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:nonelson-8D0F03.23063101042007(a)newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <tvydnWe6oPj0w43bnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d(a)comcast.com>,
>> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:46105255$0$4939$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com...
>> > > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to
> form:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have
> hydraulic
>> > > > lifters hence not DOHC.
>> > > > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.
>> > >
>> > > Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine.
>> >
>> > Yeah ?
>> > http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp
>> >
>> > says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger
>> > Followers
>>
>> Are you trying to win some sort of award for stupid?
>
> I'm just used to DOHC meaning no rockers and no lifters.
> I have always associated lifters with pushrods.
>
> Does condesention make your point better, or are you trying to win an
> award
> for something else ?
>
>>
>> How does any of the above equate to the engine not being an
>> overhead cam engine?
>
> I think a better question is how does a DOHC valvetrain have lifters in
> the
> traditional sense. They are not lifters they are cups and shims.
>
> I've been looking all over the site, I guess to get the spark plug in the
> middle, and DOHC you have to get the Shelby.
>
>
>>
>> Do you even know what a camshaft does?
>
>


From: Kevin on

"owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:opydnUZF3NZvKI3bnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
>
> "Kevin" <ksmabon(a)mts.net> wrote in message
> news:vpZPh.16617$Ng1.3320(a)newsfe19.lga...
>>
>> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:zOmdnac7YKa81I3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:NtFPh.22207$oV.19591(a)attbi_s21...
>> >>
>> >> "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:o_GdnSpR05DpnpLbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:GCEOh.17698$tD2.10404(a)newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
>> >> >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> major
>> >> >> full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They
>> >> >> tell
>> > you
>> >> >> which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide
> details
>> > of
>> >> >> the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up).
>> >> >> The
>> >> > Tundra
>> >> >> clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who
> actually
>> >> > NEED
>> >> >> trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a
> clear
>> >> >> demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't
>> > really
>> >> > do
>> >> >> much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers
>> >> >> final
>> >> >> statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter
>> > than
>> >> > the
>> >> >> competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was
> 30
>> >> > feet
>> >> >> shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was
>> > gained
>> >> >> during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was
>> >> >> factually
>> >> > correct
>> >> >> it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe
> something
>> >> > that
>> >> >> was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road
>> >> >> Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras
>> >> >> stopping
>> >> >> distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet.
> A
>> >> >> similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and
>> >> >> Driver
>> >> > 2007
>> >> >> pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet,
> Dodge
>> >> > 1500 -
>> >> >> 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado -
>> >> >> 187
>> >> >> feet.
>> >> >> So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had
>> >> >> exceptional
>> >> >> brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to
> drag
>> >> > race
>> >> >> your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work
> truck.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ed
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > When I buy a new vehicle I place priority in the engineering behind
> the
>> >> > engine.
>> >> >
>> >> > The engine is used to a greater extent of it's fullest potential
>> >> > more
>> > than
>> >> > any other part of the truck.
>> >> >
>> >> > This means I prefer engine design consistent with 2007 instead of
> 1957.
>> >> >
>> >> > I want engines that produce high power and torque for their
>> > displacement,
>> >> > while their fuel consumption and emissions stay low.
>> >> > I don't care who produces these cars I will buy them.
>> >> > I seem to remember Ford himself talking about how they had to make a
>> >> > new
>> >> > focus on fuel economy technology.
>> >> > Tell me why the new Mustang has only graduated to 3 valves ?
>> >>
>> >> They are getting 300 hp from 4.6L. Isn't that good enough? They have
>> >> 4
>> >> valve heads for the modular engine but if they are meeting their
>> > horsepower
>> >> targets with the 3 valve heads, why go to the extra cost?
>> >
>> > 4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use. That is
>> > unless
>> > you
>> > don't think the consumer deserves it.
>> > Also, is the 4.2 L ford engine a 90 degree V6, Is that an indication of
> a
>> > lower red line ?
>> >
>> > The 4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve.
>> >
>> > The mustang engines are still pushrod design.
>> >
>> > Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ? How about variable valve
> timing
>> > ?
>>
>>
>> You should research before you spout. 4.6L, 5.4L, and 6.8L are all OHC,
> not
>> pushrod. Lincoln Navigator has used four valve heads for almost 10 years.
>> Mustang V8s are also OHC. Check it out.
>
> You should check out the Ford Web site before you spew.
> http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/
>
> I was looking at the GT model.
>
> The 4.6 says OHV right on it. However, clicking on the link and spawning
> the child window..
> The engine is a SOHC. Looks like Ford has an ERROR right on their
> website.
> I guess their mistake on their new product sales collateral was
> misinformation.
>
> The starting context of this entire thread was in reference to the F150
> 4.2
> versus the Tundra 4.0
> both V6 engines.
>
> The F150 4.2 v6 is a OHV design.
>
And you, sir, should understand engine construction before inserting your
foot in your mouth. Referring to a 4.6L as an OHV is not an error. OHV means
overhead valve, which is exactly how it is built. There's nothing wrong with
pushrods engines, especially in low RPM applications like trucks. If Ford
and Chev are competetive with pushrods engines and 3 valve engines, who
should worry? Maybe Toyota if they make a 4 valve? If they have to go to
added engineering and construction expense to stay competetive, who's the
dumb one.

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines.
>> >>
>> >> There is in mine if a Corvette is wrapped around it. I think it
>> >> foolish
>> >> to
>> >> say you won't consider a pushrod engine. Most current Ford engines
>> >> are
>> >> overhead cam. The only exceptions are the 4.2L and the 3.0L V-6 truck
>> >> engines. I think GM has done great things with push rod engines. It is
>> > hard
>> >> to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and
>> >> horsepoer
>> > per
>> >> cubic inch of space occupied under the hood.
>> >
>> > OH ?
>> > Corvette V8 6.0 L 16 valve OHV 400hp-6000rpm 400ft-lbs-4400rpm
>> > Tundra V8 5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm
>> > Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm
>> >
>> > Similar numbers out of less displacement. This would suggest the
> Corvette
>> > would benefit greatly from an updated valvetrain design.
>> >
>> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic
>> > lifters hence not DOHC.
>> > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake
>> >> > rotors.
>> >>
>> >> And what does this mean? Do you think that four piston calipers work
>> >> significantly better than 2 piston sliding caliper brakes? I've had
> cars
>> >> with four piston brakes and not seen any advantage. Despite Toyota's
>> >> hype,
>> >> their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks. So
> what
>> > is
>> >> the advantage?
>> >
>> > That's easy with pistons on both side of the rotor, more even, and
>> > responsive pressure can be applied on more braking surface area without
>> > having to float the caliper.
>> >
>> > It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area.
>> >
>> > I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ?
>> >> >
>> >> > http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224
>> >>
>> >> Same basic engine. But if you notice, all the "problem vehicles" were
> 97
>> > and
>> >> 98 models. If you think Ford is unique in having head gasket problems
> do
>> >> some research on Toyota v6 head gasket failure -
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html
>> >> http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html
>> >>
>> >
> http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/
>> >> http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1
>> >>
> http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >
>> > Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket
> recalls.
>> > What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>