Mmmmm, no, they're not.

OHV as the Chevy chart does mean overhead valve, but it is meant to also indicate the camshaft in still in the block, while the Ford lists SOHC for Single Overhead Camshaft.

I do have one question - If you're going to all the trouble to do an engine swap, why would you consider the 5.3 instead of the 6.0 when the engines are the exact same external dimensions, the electronics are the same, etc. For the money you spend it will SPANK your other options. Just my opinion.....

I wanted to compare the two... 5.3 is so much more closer to 5.4 than 6.0...
Besides, if I did a comparison of 5.4 vs 6.0... Surely the performance of the 6.0 will be better.

But I'm not just looking into performance.. I'm also looking into maintenance... I'm looking for issues with the engines that people have had with them.
I understand that there are quite a number of issues people have had with both engines.... But most issues seem to isolate themselves to their particular units, rather than the engine design.
I'm looking for the ones that hold on as actual design flaws... And I bet that even though there are fans of either engine, they will admit to something being a flaw in the engine's design.

Does anyone have an answer for the above question??.. This left me confused.... I always thought low down torque meant (more@less-rpm)
If that is true, then shouldn't the 5.4L Triton have the advantage??? 'Cos that's what the comparison chart shows...

Max torque at such a low RPM means this engine doesn't have a wide RPM range at all, rather like a diesel. It would mean choosing your gear ratio's very carefully as you don't want cruising RPM 500RPM past max torque. If you are always towning then that would be the better choice, but for everyday driving I would rather sacrafice a bit of lower range torque for a wider performance envelope and wider torque range. So the Triton would have a 16 lb.ft but the Vortec 5.3 would have more torque over a broader RPM range making it perform better overall.

Here is a good report for the 5.4 Triton. It seems that the torque range was pretty good and this guy didn't face problems...
Does anyone have a similar testimonial for the 5.3 Vortec???

OK... I'm a little confused.... if an engine produces more torque at a higher rpm, then that means it has a better range of torque???

I'm also confused that the Triton would produce more low end torque over the Vortec with the Vortec being a pushrod. I know pushrods are supposed to have more low end torque.. or is that all down to tuning???


You did mention that having more low end torque is a better deal for a van. Or should I consider sacrificing some low-end torque with the Vortec..

Pushrods more low end torque? Where did that rubbish come from?

There is nothing you can divine from a max tq number made at one rpm vs another w/o seeing the chart other than one made more max tq than the other.

????

I wasn't suggesting that one design has inherent advantages over another as there are too many variables that can affect the outcome. However, overhead cam design generally will have the advantage in max RPM due to the reduced reciprocating weight of it's valvetrain, and a large majority of engines employing that design take advantage of that. And since that used to mean a drop in lower RPM torque (prior to variable valve technology) I can see why some have that impression.

Now, back to KnightJP's last comment - yes. A van would be better off with more low end torque, so a high rpm screamer isn't the best idea. In comparing the specs you gave for the Triton and Vortec, the Triton displays a small advantage in maximum torque, but by the listed RPM one can infer that the power falls off rapidly after that. The Vortec has a slight disadvantage in max torque, but by the numbers you gave showing the higher RPM, the Vortec is building torque over a wider RPM which in my mind offsets that difference. Of course either engine can be modified to suit whatever your needs are, but you stated you wanted stock comparisons. And again, I am only offering one opinion based on limited info. Take what you will from it. Both engines are very well designed and will last a long time. And either one should suit your needs. The question at that point becomes simply which one you'd rather see under the hood?