Jump to content

Project Sierra vs Ford F-150 5.0L

Zane

By Zane
in Article & Review Archive (Pre-2019)

Recommended Posts

Morgan1986 Senior Enthusiast

Morgan1986

Posted
Posted

OHV overhead valves...means the valves are in the cylinder head (unlike the flat-heads with the valves on the side of the cylinder)

 

OHC over head camshaft...the camshaft is sitting in the cylinder head and not on the side of the engine. There are no push rods needed (but most likely rockers).

 

SOHC single overhead camshaft...one camshaft in the cylinder head per cylinder bank (for both, intake and exhaust valves)

 

DOHC double overhead camshaft...two camshafts per cylinder bank (one for intake, one for exhaust)

 

so long

j-ten-ner

 

thanks
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Doug_Scott Senior Enthusiast

Doug_Scott

Posted
Posted

It's basic physics-type stuff, I think. I'm not a scientist. However, it should require a certain amount of energy to keep a vehicle moving at a particular speed or to accelerate. That means you have to burn so much gas to produce that energy, regardless of whether or not that energy is being expended with 4 or 8 cylinders. On the other hand, if you are idling (coasting) I would imagine that it would be slightly beneficial to only have 4 cylinders keeping the engine running as opposed to 8.

 

 

That's exactly how it works, and why things like AFM, 6-spds, and the Ecoboost have the chance for small improvements. They are able to tailor fuel delivery on the fringe when cruising. Imagine 8 cylinders running at the lowest flow rate possible for efficient burning, but that's still more power than needed. Shutting off half the cylinders and tweaking fuel delivery to the other 4 can be more efficient under light load conditions. The Ecoboost is trying for the same, only it's running as a standard V6 during low load conditions. Having more gears helps in the same way, but also on the fringe (small improvements).

 

Personally, I don't see the benefit of AFM with the 6-spds and high gears, but it does help in mine. I get about the same economy overall in this truck as I did in my '99 2wd 5.3/3.42 combo. If mine were a 6-spd/3.42, I wouldn't want AFM... since there's not enough excess power in 6th to really make use of it imho.

 

 

I have heard that it takes about 50hp to maintain hwy speed in a full size car. The economy comes in getting that 50hp with the least amount of fuel. If engines were 100% efficient (all the heat generated by engine is used to propel the vehicle) then you would be getting the most power out of the fuel possible, and therefore the best economy. But, too much heat is wasted for that to happen.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
What gears and transmission on the Sierra?

 

I thought I read in one of the threads it has 3.42s and the 6L80.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Morgan1986 Senior Enthusiast

Morgan1986

Posted
Posted

It's basic physics-type stuff, I think. I'm not a scientist. However, it should require a certain amount of energy to keep a vehicle moving at a particular speed or to accelerate. That means you have to burn so much gas to produce that energy, regardless of whether or not that energy is being expended with 4 or 8 cylinders. On the other hand, if you are idling (coasting) I would imagine that it would be slightly beneficial to only have 4 cylinders keeping the engine running as opposed to 8.

 

 

That's exactly how it works, and why things like AFM, 6-spds, and the Ecoboost have the chance for small improvements. They are able to tailor fuel delivery on the fringe when cruising. Imagine 8 cylinders running at the lowest flow rate possible for efficient burning, but that's still more power than needed. Shutting off half the cylinders and tweaking fuel delivery to the other 4 can be more efficient under light load conditions. The Ecoboost is trying for the same, only it's running as a standard V6 during low load conditions. Having more gears helps in the same way, but also on the fringe (small improvements).

 

Personally, I don't see the benefit of AFM with the 6-spds and high gears, but it does help in mine. I get about the same economy overall in this truck as I did in my '99 2wd 5.3/3.42 combo. If mine were a 6-spd/3.42, I wouldn't want AFM... since there's not enough excess power in 6th to really make use of it imho.

 

 

I have heard that it takes about 50hp to maintain hwy speed in a full size car. The economy comes in getting that 50hp with the least amount of fuel. If engines were 100% efficient (all the heat generated by engine is used to propel the vehicle) then you would be getting the most power out of the fuel possible, and therefore the best economy. But, too much heat is wasted for that to happen.

 

interesting thought to use the heat the engine is giving off and turn it into power. Maybe a steam power extra 50 horse power. recirculating water thing .
MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

Engineers already came up with a system to utilize wasted energy on engines. It's called turbocharging.

Doug_Scott Senior Enthusiast

Doug_Scott

Posted
Posted
Engineers already came up with a system to utilize wasted energy on engines. It's called turbocharging.

 

That is a small percentage of the wasted energy, and is not even used to maintain hwy speed limits.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

It can be. The small turbos GM is using on the engines powering the Sonic and Cruze aren't at all peaky like a traditional turbo motor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doug_Scott Senior Enthusiast

Doug_Scott

Posted
Posted

I don't think the cruze or sonic will be using the turbo to maintain hwy speeds. In order for the turbo to have enough flow to drive them, the throttle would have to be opened more that it is while cruising. They use the small sized turbo so it will spool up quicker, reducing the turbo lag.

  • 4 months later...
09BlackBetty Enthusiast

09BlackBetty

Posted
Posted

guess what powertrain. GMC wins because when that OHC 5.0 breaks down its an arm and a leg. for never could get it right the first time. but yet they ORIGINAL 5.0 was and still is the best 5.0 but ford killed that. and talk about JUNK. sorry i understand 44hp more but when it comes down to it the fact that its a new motor lets see. so far all fords OHC motors suck ask my friends who im having to tow every other month. good review otherwise. two thumbs up.

BlackZ71Silverado Senior Enthusiast

BlackZ71Silverado

Posted
Posted

guess what powertrain. GMC wins because when that OHC 5.0 breaks down its an arm and a leg. for never could get it right the first time. but yet they ORIGINAL 5.0 was and still is the best 5.0 but ford killed that. and talk about JUNK. sorry i understand 44hp more but when it comes down to it the fact that its a new motor lets see. so far all fords OHC motors suck ask my friends who im having to tow every other month. good review otherwise. two thumbs up.

 

 

Sorry but that sounds like a fanboy statement.

There is nothing wrong with the Fors 5.0L OHC engines. A friend of mine pounds the crap out of his 2012 Boss Mustang all the time and the engine has held up great, not one issue. It's nothing but power and torque. What exactly is this problem your friend is having that you need to tow his truck all the time? The Ford 5.0L numbers are impressive for the size of the engine and you have to admit that Ford really stepped up their game when it comes to producing power from their engines, fanboy or not.

Morgan1986 Senior Enthusiast

Morgan1986

Posted
Posted

guess what powertrain. GMC wins because when that OHC 5.0 breaks down its an arm and a leg. for never could get it right the first time. but yet they ORIGINAL 5.0 was and still is the best 5.0 but ford killed that. and talk about JUNK. sorry i understand 44hp more but when it comes down to it the fact that its a new motor lets see. so far all fords OHC motors suck ask my friends who im having to tow every other month. good review otherwise. two thumbs up.

 

 

Sorry but that sounds like a fanboy statement.

There is nothing wrong with the Fors 5.0L OHC engines. A friend of mine pounds the crap out of his 2012 Boss Mustang all the time and the engine has held up great, not one issue. It's nothing but power and torque. What exactly is this problem your friend is having that you need to tow his truck all the time? The Ford 5.0L numbers are impressive for the size of the engine and you have to admit that Ford really stepped up their game when it comes to producing power from their engines, fanboy or not.

 

I was thinking the same thing btw .
MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

He isn't towing his friends truck, I call BS. It's brand new so the guy would call roadside assistance to get it towed. A 5.0 will walk all over a 5.3 but I'd still take the GM. Proven reliable unlike Ford with a new power plant and a history of timing chain issues and spark plug problems.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NitroCherokee Enthusiast

NitroCherokee

Posted
Posted

guess what powertrain. GMC wins because when that OHC 5.0 breaks down its an arm and a leg. for never could get it right the first time. but yet they ORIGINAL 5.0 was and still is the best 5.0 but ford killed that. and talk about JUNK. sorry i understand 44hp more but when it comes down to it the fact that its a new motor lets see. so far all fords OHC motors suck ask my friends who im having to tow every other month. good review otherwise. two thumbs up.

 

 

Sounds to me like it was written by a young punk, probably couldn't tell by looking at them which engine was which

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...