Ford's Future Engine Lineup Goes 1960's?

Seems Detroit is tired of trying to out Japanese the Japanese and instead are increasing going back to doing it the American way.

Proof:

Dodge's Viper Dodge's V10s GM's LS1 and LS2 pushrod V8s GM's Corvette Chrysler's 5.7L and 6.0L Hemis Chrysler 300 Sedan Ford's Bullett Mustang Ford's Mach 1 Mustang Ford's 2005 Mustang Ford's GT-(40) Supercar

Near misses:

Pontiac's GTO Mercury's Marauder Chevy's SSR Plymouth's Prowler Ford's T-bird

And now, maybe, this:

From Hemmings:

"Performance junkies having been hearing for years that overhead cam V-8s are where it's at. But the sheer pulling power of torque is what performance fans live for, and you don't get monster torque without pushrods. GM knew it with the LS-series V-8s and Chrysler nailed it down with its new Hemi V-8. Now we're beginning to hear that Ford may be seeking to abandon -- or at least augment -- its recent modular SOHC v-8 configuration: Informed sources at Ford tell us that a new pushrod 6.0L engine, code-named Hurricane, is on the drawing board now. It's still a long way off -- sources say 2008 or 2009 -- if, in fact, it even arrives at all. Hurricane is said to be in the competition with another larger SOHC-type engine, and a decision will be made to choose one over the other in the coming months. The bad news: These engines would be introduced into the ever-heavier F-series truck line, possibly setting up another two-V-8 format as Ford maintained for years (i.e., FE/385, Windsor/Cleveland, etc). The good news: There's no reason (yet) why Hurricane couldn't be integrated into a car line (or two) somewhere done the line."

NoOp Comment: Yeah, a carline like Mustang!!!!

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick
Loading thread data ...

Pushrods DONT make torque. Never have, never will.

Cubic inches, cams, intake tuning DO make torque.

LJH

95GT

Reply to
Larry Hepinstall

yeah.. And what's wrong with the latest Supercharged enignes Ford has thrown out ? (GT, Cobra, Lightning) ?? Instant Torque.

Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying

Reply to
Rein

I was wondering why it mattered. If anything, you'd think the more instantaneous opening of the valve due to less distance for the cam's energy to travel would help. Unless the cam could be more radical if it were in the block as opposed to on the heads...

Sure, the 5.0 had more torque down low, but it also had cubes on the 4.6, and the new 4.6s are doing just fine without pushrods.

JS

Reply to
JS

Actually, high VE at low rpms makes what everyone wants to call "torque". And the items you mention are part of making high VE at low rpm. Pressure does it just as well, too.

My apparently wimpy 281 makes 500 ft-lbs by 2500 rpms. I guess that's not low end enough nor enough low end for some folks :shrug:

[snip]

Dan

2003 Cobra convertible With some stuff and things
Reply to
Dan

It won't happen in the Mustang line except for concepts. The OHC configuration is here to stay for at least another decade and why not? You can get several hundred easy horsepower out of them along with gobs of low end torque. Why would Ford bother changing?

Dan

2003 Cobra convertible With some stuff and things
Reply to
Dan

Packaging and cost.

GM's LS2 and Chrysler's Hemi are physically smaller than Ford's modulars and probably much smaller than a bigger [6-liter] OHC motor. Plus, GM and Chrysler don't have to resort to bolting on an expensive, hard to package supercharger that adds maintenance and requires heavy-duty (blower proof] internals. When Ford adds it all up, IMO, I think they'll opt for a big, displacement-on-demand, normally-aspirated pushrod.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

Interesting points. However, every V8 powered car in the Ford lineup uses Modular motors. Every new gas powered truck has a Triton 24 valve, VVT motor now, all the way up to the V10. Ford is committed in every large motor'd line to the Modular family and appears to remain so, especially since the 3 valve, VVT is working pretty good for the moment. This means more cost for such a swtich, not less, since several very large production processes would be affected.

The 3 valve head is actually narrower than the Modular SOHC head by a fraction and that's how they've addressed packaging right now. Ford believes in variable cam timing over variable displacement. The DoD systems are proving to provide increased fuel economy only on the highway and not in city driving so it addresses only half the issue, especially for trucks.

Hey, it could happen. In ten years or so assuming the VVT system fails to perform for some reason. Unless something dramatic happens to Ford management, not without possibility, I don't see it. I'm one that doesn't want it either so I'll be keeping an eye out :).

Dan

2003 Cobra convertible With some stuff and things
Reply to
Dan

I wonder if the packaging issues with Ford's mod engines is really the bore/stroke/cylinder spacing rather than them being OHC (at least in the SOHC setup). In other words, what package dimensions would a OHC 302 have if destroked to 4.6L (to be fair). The deck height would no doubt be less, but the bore would offset some of that in the width measurement. It would be significantly longer. But longer in a north-south install might not matter. I don't know. Its interesting to recall the design mantra from the early 80's. Smaller displacement, OHC with greater than 2 valves per, smaller bore/stroke ratio, shorter engine length to make it FWD friendly. Is the 4.6 even used in a FWD Ford vehicle now?

Reply to
DriveSpy

Interesting thought.

Yeah, it fits the mantra but it's target was not small cars originally. The Modular motor was originally designed to fit into the Lincoln Town Car chassis (1991, DOHC) with thoughts towards trucks and the other large RWD sedans that were using the Windsor 5.0L. I don't believe Ford ever intended the V8+ Mod family for FWD use since it never used the other v8s for that purpose. I'm sure they may have considered it just because designers try to consider as much as they can in that business, but the package didn't need to be all that small because the primary targets were pretty big.

Reply to
Dan

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.