avalonandl
Full Access Member
The LS water pump can lose efficiency as it gets older. I would have the system checked. The 4 speed trans is very old school. I would suggest a 180 tstat also..easy to change.
I hate to compare.... Chevy 5.3 vs Ford 4.6
- Thread starter Larryjb
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
The LS water pump can lose efficiency as it gets older. I would have the system checked. The 4 speed trans is very old school. I would suggest a 180 tstat also..easy to change.
3Dog
Member
I thought only the Ford 5.4L 24 valve engines from 2004-2008ish had the spark plug and cam phaser problems. I thought the earlier 5.4L 16 valve and the 4.6L avoided these issues.
That said, I have had both a 98 Expedition with the 5.4L 16v and a 2005 F150 with the 5.4L 24v, both great trucks with no engine problems during my ownership. This is the third 5.3L Chevy truck I have owned, same story.
TheAutumnWind
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2015
- Posts
- 3,222
- Reaction score
- 1,921
Lower thermostat wouldn't help, but a worn water pump could effect it. Bigger radiator, transmission cooler, or better fans should help.
Black Limited
TYF Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2020
- Posts
- 27
- Reaction score
- 15
The thermostat in my 5.3L is stamped 187 Deg, dash gauge matches fairly close
swathdiver
Full Access Member
That's how they are rated, that's the initial opening temperature and they are fully open by about 195. I've thought about the Lingenfelter/MotoRad 174 for someday...
According to my Scanguage, it holds the temperature pretty close to the 185-195°F, and the gauge is stable. When I mentioned that it was running hot on the climb up the Coq, the needle began to rise. Because I did not have the Scangauge at the time, I could only surmise that the temperature was starting to rise above the 212°F.
I have read, and I'm not sure where now, that these engines will get hotter under such conditions, rising to 220°F and holding. I was told by a local dealer that that is normal on the Coq. If I had been on any other freeway where it would be safe to pull over I might have been prepared to do so, but there is no such room on that freeway, so I dared not test those waters.
I was mostly curious if others had this experience with the earlier 5.3s.
I have read, and I'm not sure where now, that these engines will get hotter under such conditions, rising to 220°F and holding. I was told by a local dealer that that is normal on the Coq. If I had been on any other freeway where it would be safe to pull over I might have been prepared to do so, but there is no such room on that freeway, so I dared not test those waters.
I was mostly curious if others had this experience with the earlier 5.3s.
Matthew Jeschke
Full Access Member
LS Swap the Ford, end of discussion lol
Truth is whole world is LS swapping, who's swapping in the 4.6 from Ford? LS motors maybe the pinnacle of 16 valve design for a Gas internal combustion engine.
My father has owned numerous Ford's including that 3 valve engine. I think it was the 5.4? It sucked. He owned one of the early v6 ecoboosts. That was damn fast but what isn't with a good turbo? And now he has a naturally aspirated V8. It's nice. Maybe it's the 4.6? I have no clue. It's his truck lol It drives good and gets great gas mileage. I'd assume the newer LS variants are getting great efficiency as well.
I don't know much about the ford motors... I don't like how the GM motors deactivate cylinders. I think that is super stupid. I don't know why they just don't lean out the tune. I think it has something to do with emissions but seems really stupid. (Lean burns create a different kinds of exhaust gases from what I've studied. The motors will tolerate it though and many countries allow for leaner tunes.) Maybe Ford has a better way to get efficiency out of motor without carrying around extra cylinders "just in case" they are needed.
In the meantime I stay away from cylinder deactivation. I think it's liable to stop working about 1/4 of the way through your motors life lol Or at least the internet makes it seem that way. I just don't like the extra mechanical complexity either way.
I have a somewhat modified LS1 in my corvette with heads and cam. Then I have the 5.3L in my tahoe. Both are absolutely beautiful motors. I'm not as well versed on the Ford. My father owns Fords now. The motors seem nice from a driving perspective in the Fords (outside of that crappy 5.4L 3 valve he had). Corvette runs like a ***** ape. The Tahoe is decent. Feels bit like a boat but a strong boat lol This is the tahoe forum so I think you all know what it's like.
I think there's likely no contest though, the LS is super reliable. They are cheap and everywhere as well. Plus outside of cylinder deactivation they are very simple design (and you can delete the cylinder deactivation). They also can make crazy power if you modify them a bit. The only competition in my opinion is in terms of the build of the trucks / vehicles themselves. I might digress as much as I love the SBC / LS, I think Ford builds a bit better interior. The ford Fit and finish is a bit more to be desired. But that's my personal opinion. I think the LS has a laundry list of reasons for betting the best Small Block and still holds that title.
Truth is whole world is LS swapping, who's swapping in the 4.6 from Ford? LS motors maybe the pinnacle of 16 valve design for a Gas internal combustion engine.
My father has owned numerous Ford's including that 3 valve engine. I think it was the 5.4? It sucked. He owned one of the early v6 ecoboosts. That was damn fast but what isn't with a good turbo? And now he has a naturally aspirated V8. It's nice. Maybe it's the 4.6? I have no clue. It's his truck lol It drives good and gets great gas mileage. I'd assume the newer LS variants are getting great efficiency as well.
I don't know much about the ford motors... I don't like how the GM motors deactivate cylinders. I think that is super stupid. I don't know why they just don't lean out the tune. I think it has something to do with emissions but seems really stupid. (Lean burns create a different kinds of exhaust gases from what I've studied. The motors will tolerate it though and many countries allow for leaner tunes.) Maybe Ford has a better way to get efficiency out of motor without carrying around extra cylinders "just in case" they are needed.
In the meantime I stay away from cylinder deactivation. I think it's liable to stop working about 1/4 of the way through your motors life lol Or at least the internet makes it seem that way. I just don't like the extra mechanical complexity either way.
I have a somewhat modified LS1 in my corvette with heads and cam. Then I have the 5.3L in my tahoe. Both are absolutely beautiful motors. I'm not as well versed on the Ford. My father owns Fords now. The motors seem nice from a driving perspective in the Fords (outside of that crappy 5.4L 3 valve he had). Corvette runs like a ***** ape. The Tahoe is decent. Feels bit like a boat but a strong boat lol This is the tahoe forum so I think you all know what it's like.
I think there's likely no contest though, the LS is super reliable. They are cheap and everywhere as well. Plus outside of cylinder deactivation they are very simple design (and you can delete the cylinder deactivation). They also can make crazy power if you modify them a bit. The only competition in my opinion is in terms of the build of the trucks / vehicles themselves. I might digress as much as I love the SBC / LS, I think Ford builds a bit better interior. The ford Fit and finish is a bit more to be desired. But that's my personal opinion. I think the LS has a laundry list of reasons for betting the best Small Block and still holds that title.
Matthew Jeschke
Full Access Member
Now I read your post lol One thing that stood out with my dad's trucks. I LOVED the transmissions! He doesn't pull anything with them though. I think now GM has more gears in their transmissions though. And in terms of highway efficiency.
I wouldn't mind a 6 speed in my 2001 Tahoe (they didn't offer them till later years). However, I always think, once I'm at highway speed it doesn't really matter. Unless the 6 speed has a different ratio overdrive / final gear. In city, I drive like grandma and it does decent. Off road, well it just sucks lol 12 MPG.
Not sure is a fair comparison but I do LOVE the newer Ford transmissions compared to any of the old GM transmissions I have. Although, I've not had a chance to drive any of the newer GM transmissions so isn't much of a fair comparison.
FYI I think VVT is a MUCH more efficient design. It's no contest when compared to single fixed cam like in SBC / LS. Although, in terms of simplicity and reliability you cannot beat an LS (in my opinion). VVT will almost always be better. It's like having a handful of different cams in your motor versus one. The computer can select the best cam for the load. That said I'd still take my LS because I don't like the added complexity of VVT in a truck.
I wouldn't mind a 6 speed in my 2001 Tahoe (they didn't offer them till later years). However, I always think, once I'm at highway speed it doesn't really matter. Unless the 6 speed has a different ratio overdrive / final gear. In city, I drive like grandma and it does decent. Off road, well it just sucks lol 12 MPG.
Not sure is a fair comparison but I do LOVE the newer Ford transmissions compared to any of the old GM transmissions I have. Although, I've not had a chance to drive any of the newer GM transmissions so isn't much of a fair comparison.
FYI I think VVT is a MUCH more efficient design. It's no contest when compared to single fixed cam like in SBC / LS. Although, in terms of simplicity and reliability you cannot beat an LS (in my opinion). VVT will almost always be better. It's like having a handful of different cams in your motor versus one. The computer can select the best cam for the load. That said I'd still take my LS because I don't like the added complexity of VVT in a truck.
The 4.8 made emissions standards in 2002 without EGR but I think it took a couple more years for the 5.3, by 2005 when "Displacement on Demand" was the standard I believe all displacements were EGR free. DOD is a variant of VVT; they both alter the cam performance (albeit in different ways) to meet emission and economy regulations.
