4.2 V6 (pushrod) v. 4.6 V8 (OHC?)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

jchludzinski@gmail.com - 13 Jul 2007 04:34 GMT

Looking into getting a !basic! new F150, sort of a "super Ranger", and
am trying to decide whether the 4.6 V8 (OHC?) v. [4.2 V6 (pushrod)] is
worth the cost: ~$650. Plan to get the manual 5. And no, I don't
foresee pulling and carrying vast weights.

Am also having trouble trying to figure out if the mileage is
significantly (or any) better?

---John

Reply to this Message

Mike H - 13 Jul 2007 17:42 GMT

On Jul 12, 10:34 pm, "jchludzin...@gmail.com" <jchludzin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Looking into getting a !basic! new F150, sort of a "super Ranger", and
> am trying to decide whether the 4.6 V8 (OHC?) v. [4.2 V6 (pushrod)] is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> ---John

Is the 4.6 even available with a 5 speed in the truck?

The 4.2 is the same design of the 3.8litre motor in Mustangs and
Tbirds/Cougars. some of these Mustang guys are bolting 4.2 cranks
into their block, slapping on a turbo or votech blower and pushing out
over 600 rwhp.

I'd test drive both versions and base the decision on that. I'm not
sure economy is much different between the two.

Reply to this Message

My Name Is Nobody - 14 Jul 2007 17:57 GMT

> On Jul 12, 10:34 pm, "jchludzin...@gmail.com" <jchludzin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Is the 4.6 even available with a 5 speed in the truck?

Only in the lowest trim model the stripped down XL.

> The 4.2 is the same design of the 3.8litre motor in Mustangs and
> Tbirds/Cougars. some of these Mustang guys are bolting 4.2 cranks
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I'd test drive both versions and base the decision on that. I'm not
> sure economy is much different between the two.

Reply to this Message

Joe - 15 Jul 2007 02:07 GMT

>> On Jul 12, 10:34 pm, "jchludzin...@gmail.com" <jchludzin...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Only in the lowest trim model the stripped down XL.

Wow, that's a change. They didn't offer that last year, did they? I've
been very curious why Ford has started limiting their options so much. In
addition to eliminating the manual transmissions, they don't offer their
F150 crew below the XLT trim level. I'm sure they've got their reasons.
I'm also sure their market share has dropped from 25% to less than 17%. No
end in sight.

Reply to this Message

My Name Is Nobody - 16 Jul 2007 02:12 GMT

>>> On Jul 12, 10:34 pm, "jchludzin...@gmail.com" <jchludzin...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> I'm also sure their market share has dropped from 25% to less than 17%.
> No end in sight.

The automatic only issues are rooted in the emissions control area.
California emission standards have pushed the Ford and Chevy (maybe Dodge
too) one-ton pickup trucks to ONLY be available with automatic
transmissions, in California. You have not been able to get one with manual
transmission for some years now. As more and more states adopt California
emissions standards, the manual transmissions will dwindle to extinction.

Reply to this Message

CJB - 14 Jul 2007 16:03 GMT

> Looking into getting a !basic! new F150, sort of a "super Ranger", and
> am trying to decide whether the 4.6 V8 (OHC?) v. [4.2 V6 (pushrod)] is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> ---John

I'm pretty sure the resale value of the v-8 vs. the v-6 is gonna be
significantly more. It may be one of those rare options that pays for
itself.

Also, I loathe the 3.8 and its head gasket problems, and I've seen 4.2's
with their supposedly "improved" design exhibit the same problem.

CJB

Reply to this Message

Mike H - 16 Jul 2007 03:33 GMT

> <jchludzin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Also, I loathe the 3.8 and its head gasket problems, and I've seen 4.2's
> with their supposedly "improved" design exhibit the same problem.

I dunno, pushing 12psi of boost through my 3.8 with simply MLS head
gaskets and ARP head studs. Hasn't blown yet after daily driving and
a good 60 runs down the strip.

I find the biggest issue with the head gaskets is the composite ones
and lack of maintenance of the cooling system. Cooling passages on
the rear of the block and heads leave a thin thing of metal before the
combustion chambers. The 3.8 heads don't have enough head bolts to
prevent lift. Thus the gasket has to be able to maintain itself as
the head moves around during WOT. The rear cooling passage starts to
impinge into the fire ring on the stock gasket. That works o.k. until
you add in a cooling system that isn't maintained. The fire ring
starts to corrode and eventually the gasket fails. Any composite head
gasket on any ford 3.8 motor (The Essex V6) will eventually fail no
matter how careful you are due to this issue.

Ford started using the MLS head gaskets in the Mustang and F150
motors. this is a multi-layer steel gasket that is stamped steel and
riveted together. Felpro and Federal Mogul eventually came up with the
latest Perma-torque MLS gasket. This is a MLS gasket with a
rubberized (not rubber, some composite) coating. The coating allows
for a less than pristine head and block surface as well as gains some
better sealing to prevent cold water leaks. It also can stand up to
the head moving around.

I just fired up my new motor that I rebuilt with a 9:1 compression
ratio that will be using a twin screw blower built for reliable
operation over 6000 RPM and 22psi of boost.

Reply to this Message