Lincoln Aviator variable length intake runners

[Geo]

I just read a road test on the 03 Aviator, which uses the same engine as the Maraduer with the exception of it's intake runners which are different from the Marauder's. Ford wanted the engine to make more torque in order to propel the 5000lb. vehicle to 7.6s. Why not use these runners in the Marauder to make it the stump-puller it should be. The Aviator's torque peak is around 3400RPM as opposed to the 4200RPM that I believe the Marauder's is. The horsepower and hp peak RPM was the same and the torque was 300 instead of the Maruder's 318.

Just a thought to ponder with everyone here.

I think the runners and an X-pipe with 4.10s would make most V8 sedan crazies (like me) happy.

GEO

[Geo]

....and also the the Aviator can tow up to 7000+ lbs. with that motor; the setup can't be all that bad.

GEO

[Sean]

It would be a nice setup from the factory, but for how much it would cost, you could probably buy a nice used centrifigul blower on ebay

[Racerx88]

I may be mistaken, but I think the Aviator's intake points to the passenger side of the vehicle. Ours point to the driver's side. It was about 2 months ago when I drove the thing, but that's what I remember. Anybody know for sure?

[LincMercLover]

That shouldn't matter should it? You'd need the lower intake off the Aviator and the upper of the MM, right? I've been trying to get my Dad to find a junk motor around work there to pop the intake off and possibly bring home. Thing is, intakes don't exactly fit in a lunch box...

[89lxbill]

More than likely, it would be too tall to fit under the hood of the Marauder.

[89lxbill]

I just looked up the upper gasket. It is the same. So, it is feasible, but hood clearance would be my only worry.

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by Geo
I just read a road test on the 03 Aviator, which uses the same engine as the Maraduer with the exception of it's intake runners which are different from the Marauder's. Ford wanted the engine to make more torque in order to propel the 5000lb. vehicle to 7.6s. Why not use these runners in the Marauder to make it the stump-puller it should be. The Aviator's torque peak is around 3400RPM as opposed to the 4200RPM that I believe the Marauder's is. The horsepower and hp peak RPM was the same and the torque was 300 instead of the Maruder's 318. GEO

You lost me on this 411 GEO, and I would like to clarify.

Are you suggesting that the Aviator's intake runners produce less torque, but produce that torque earlier in the RPM range? If so, there may be some benefit here, but it's not obvious to me. Our factory power numbers on the MM are 302 HP and 318 TQ, does the Aviator intake lower these numbers? Or, just produce them earlier in the RPM range?

Knee jerk reaction says it doesn't sound like the trade off is a good one, though it may be beneficial in some special cases. Getting more torque in lower RPMs can be had without trading out hardware, and I agree that hood clearance will most likely be a bar to the swap anyway. It's really tight quarters already.

[LincMercLover]

Originally posted by 89lxbill
More than likely, it would be too tall to fit under the hood of the Marauder.

Who need's hoods?

[WolfeBros]

Both engines are rated 302 HP @ 5750 rpm
The Aviator torq spec is 300 @ 3250 rpm
The MM torq spec is 318 @ 4300 rpm

Does the Aviator get to 300 ft lbs sooner due to the intake runners? I don't know what rpm the MM reaches 300 so I can't answer.

[LincMercLover]

If my calculations are correct (which they more than likely aren't, but probably close...) the MM is making approximately 290ft.lbs at the fly wheel at about 3300 RPM (where the Aviator is making it's peak torque of 300ft.lbs.). I'm getting these numbers from others dyno's when bone stock. I would like to see an actual dyno graph of the Aviator personally to compare curvature to. The MM's max torque of 318 is at 4300 RPM, which we all know torque is best used at a lower RPM than that. So... the question is, who's gunna give me money so I can try this?

[looking97233]

I have looked at the Avaitor, looks like a run of the mill 4.6. i.e. a normal 32v DOHC 4.6L. I don't think any difference in the lower intake would account for the torque peaking 1000 rpm lower. Sounds like different cam profiles to me.

[Geo]

Indeed, I believe that even though the Aviator's TQ is less than the Marauder's (by 18) and that the Aviator's TQ peak comes in 1000 RPM earlier (where I like it for a 4200lb car) that the benefit is more stump-pulling capabilities (better throttle response) which obviously is needed to propel a 5000lb truck to 60mph in the fashion that it does and to also have the amazing tow capacity that it does.

To compare, the Cadillac Seville STS had 300hp and the SLS had 275hp (same motor but different torque curves). The SLS was designed for throttle response for city driving. The concept obviously is to compare the two TQ curves of the Aviator and the Marauder. I believe the TQ should start high with no dips early in the band like some motors do. Ofcourse, one may arque that 4.10s would solve the problem, however the Impala SS's 3.08s are very similar to the Marauder's 3.55s in that the Marauder has a larger tire diameter in the back than the Impala and the Marauder's first gear planetary in the transmission is taller than the Impala's 3.06:1 planetary. Many Impala owners like putting 3.73s which is like going 3 significant steps up from stock. The Camaro Z28 performed well with the stock "3.23"s and it had "mid-size tire diameter" specs, therefore a modified Impala would benefit from the same gearing Camaro which would mean a 3.42 (2 steps up to accomodate the tall tire and the steeper OEM gear of the pony car). So a tuned Impala would run well with 3.42s (only 2 steps up).

With the Marauder, as far as I am concerned, 4.10s is only 2 steps up from stock and would parallel 3.42s if it was an Impala with a slightly taller tire diameter and if the GM Hydramatic had a 2.84:1 planetery of the Marauder (it is 2.84 I believe without checking my charts). But the Impala already had a broad TQ curve so WHY NOT play with the intake runners if it can do for the Marauder what it can do for the Aviator.

If the runners are to tall for the hood, then this would be a good time Edelbrock to step up and offer a intake and camshaft(s) package that would (when combined) with 4.10s BEAT the Impala all around since the steeper gears would be ideal more for a 4 CAM engine than the LT1 but with all the TQ of an LT1 (or should I say TQ curve) down below.

I think alot can be learned from Ford about how the Aviator's specs are for SUV usages. The reason for the differences may also be political, inorder to satisfy the large demanding buying clientel that the Aviator delivers TQ sooner as opposed to the hot-rod Marauder it came from and still use the Marauder lineage as a marketing tool (as they did in the Motor Trend test I read calling it a muscle-car motor). Also the emmisions output of the torquier Aviator may be less than passable for passenger car emmisons standards and ditto for fuel economy standards

[Geo]

Yes "looking" I am with you on the camshafts. The motor trend write up mentioned the only difference was the variable length intake runners contributing the TQ difference but they may have overlooked the cam profiles. This would have to be reseaeched too. That's why I say Edelbrock should create a combo kit.

GEO

[Bigdogjim]

The thing that struck me as odd was Roush did the upper end of the MM and SVT did did the Lincoln. Why did Fords own STV team
not help Mercury out? Nothing against Roush. I know I am off topic but, I ahve always wonder why?
Big Dog