Mustang and Ford Performance Forums banner

New here, first post need engine build advice

2K views 11 replies 3 participants last post by  Motorhead4Ever 
#1 ·
Hello, I am newish…to building mod motors but not hot rodding. I am doing a 4.6/5.4 swap on a 04’ expedition, the original 4.6 is anemic to me and I did not find the power to my liking, hence the full swap to a same year 5.4. I’m keeping all internals stock as this will be simply a tow/camp weekender vehicle. I want to use 99’ dohc Lincoln pistons with a .020” overbore and theoretically the c.r should be around 10.4 with the pi heads at 42.5-43cc heads? I’m not positive on the head chamber size as I kept getting conflicting info. Is this compression ratio feasible for a stock internal engine? I’m only looking for a little more ho/tq and compression will do it at a low rpm which is what I’m looking for. Not looking to build a performance motor or throw aftermarket parts at it. Just a compression bump. Thanks in advance for any help
 
#4 ·
If you want to keep things simple, you should not be overboring and certainly not 0.020". Get a stock 5.4 and put it in. If a stock 5.4 does not suit you then it is time to be going to either one of the V-10 ModMotors or a different engine family. Very important to remember is that your modified Expedition is going to fail its emissions test at the testing station, so it will pretty much be impossible to license it for daily driving.

Something you should also be aware of if you intend to bore your engine, everything else notwithstanding, is this article => Why You Want to Use a Standard Size Bore.
 
#7 ·
Hi, I’ve done a little research and it’s once again conflicting. Some builds I see are boring the cast iron mod motors up to 0.030” and some are saying they are way too thin to do anything with. So what is the consensus on these motors here? I also don’t have to worry about passing an emissions test here where I live. I also have managed to find a .25mm over piston set which should equate to around .009-.010” so would that be doable and safe on these things to clean up the bore?
 
#6 ·
#8 ·
There are two different block casting materials. One is Aluminum, and one is cast iron. When you read the post, it specifically references the Aluminum Blocks. Cast iron blocks do not have sleeves. Only Aliminum Blocks have sleeves.

Cast Iron blocks have the same dimensional metrics because they are built on the same 100 mm bore centers and use the same 90.22 mm bore size. Therefore, you should be able to do the math for the iron block, having already seen the math done once for the Aluminum Block. The only thing you need to decide is if you think the bore size admonitions are valid for cast iron and Aluminum versions of the block.

You already have a suggestion to use caution. A 600 HP engine might not break any cylinders, but then again, like a number of Eaton-equipped cars of 20 years ago, they actually did! Then, of course, there is always the possibility their tunes were perhaps a little raggedy, but then again, there is also the possibility they were not. You have all the information and a recommendation. All you have to do is decide if you want to embrace the recommendation or if you want to roll the dice. It really comes down to a personal choice.

In the event you can find empirical data that supports the block's ability to reliably operate at bore sizes which this empirical data argues against, then all you have to do is decide which data set you choose to believe. However, I have yet to see any empirical data of that sort. You will find folks on this site who have cracked standard bore cylinders in iron blocks. Sooo, the call is yours. Do whatever your critical thinking and situational analysis says is correct for you.
 
#9 ·
Thank you for your informative answer. I may just try honing the block and going standard. Thanks for your time. I ran 385 series blocks for years in racing and was accustomed to bored as big as .120” with the proper sonic check. These things are a different animal. Thanks again
 
#11 ·
I just tried Firefox on my Mac and had the same experience Tom, so I fired up Win 11 and tried Firefox on Win 11. Same problem — did not work. After the Firefox failure on both platforms, I tried MS Edge in Win11, and it worked! It might be a security setting in Firefox that needs to be set differently.

Is anyone else using Firefox? Are you having a similar problem? How have you set your security settings?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top