Ford's Secret New 7-Liter

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news:1191804612.969246.274980 @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

Big-displacement pushrod motor with semi-hemispherical heads? Gee, I wonder what that sounds like? ;)

Sounds like a real guzzler.

:-)

If this plays out like we're all hoping, The Detroit 3 will need to begin developing/promoting some new racing series.

A drag program featuring: Hemi 7-liter Mustang LS7 7-liter Camaro Hemi 6.1-liter SRT Challenger

A road racing series (Trans Am?) featuring:

5-liter Shelby GT Mustang 5-liter Z/28 Camaro 5.7-liter T/A Challenger

Patrick

Okay, being that Ford is tight lipped, here's the scoop........ It will cost more than the average enthusiast can ever afford (like the "302" that they've had in the SVO catalog), replacement parts will be out of sight and short lived, (like the Boss 429/AR parts that SVO *BRIEFLY* sold and promply shut down) will be too complicated for the average Joe to ever work on. (like the 96-99 V8 32 valved SHO Taurus)

Whenever something like this comes up, I think of the Ford GT. But, hey, that's normal for Ford. I'm interested!!

Sex.

Umm, a flathead Ford with Ardun heads? A Boss 429? I give up. What?

And to WindsorFox's comment about mileage, don't forget that the cam- in-block design is far more amenable to gas-saving cylinder deactivation than an ohc.

180 Out

Hope it actually happens. Ford needs a GOOD gas truck engine. Can't figure why Ford axed the 460. The V10 was a sad replacement at best. The 5.4L is a sad replacement for the indestructible 351W. Someone needs to explain to me why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke and a low red line. What's the advantage?

In 04 when I was truck hunting, Ford was the truck I wanted. It had everything EXCEPT an engine. So after lots of thinking I bought a Dodge Diesel. Ford had the best suspension, driveline and I liked the cab better. But Dodge had the engine, so like my 92 W250, I'll have a shit truck with a bullet proof driveline to live with for the next 20 years. The 92's body is literally falling apart, but it runs like new. Reminds me of those Mercedes powered Iveco trucks. People would pray the engine would die so they could junk them:)

Al

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news:1191808865.698044.100030@

50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

developing/testing

currently

I freakin' LOVE it! :)

They junk themselves, what the hell does it matter if the engine out lives the crappy chassis by 4 times? That's kinda silly... Dodge trucks suck, they always have, and it seems they always will, stuffing an old forklift engine in them can't change that.

What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past

250K with no problems at all.

The 5.4L is a

On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, "Big Al" wrote: Someone needs to explain to me

Absolutely none. I saw some figures that said it costs Ford $700 more PER VEHICLE to build a 4.6/5.4 engine than what it costs GM to build a small block Chevy. Then figure out how much it costs to replace the timing chain as compared to a SBC and the "advantages" of these motors really starts to drop off.

Google this: "ford v10 problems"

Al

And what does this prove?

"toyota v6 problems" - 1,210,000 hits "toyota v8 problems" - 1,200,000 hits "dodge v8 problems" - 972,000 hits "chevrolet v8 problems" - 882,000 hits "ford v10 problems" - 234,000 hits

If Google hits is a measure of "goodness" it seems the Ford V10 wins.

Ed

LMFAO!!!

I've got both a 95 Caprice police package 5.7 and a 2005 Crown Vic police package 4.6. Both have more or less the same overall acceleration capability but the SBC in the Caprice has some real GRUNT that gets you where you live. No big surprise there but what was a surprise to me was that when I was driving the Caprice I regularly got

24 mpg on the highway and the Crown Vic has never done better then 22. Both suck around town but I've never measured that accurately. It just seems strange that the old fashioned SBC, push rod, low revving, stump pulling larger engine gets better gas mileage then the modern OHC 4.6. Sometimes reality just doesn't work out the way theory says it should. And teh 5.7 is a whole lot easier to work on.

Boy, he sure got you on that one LOL

You need to get your Ford looked after. My Mother owned two Grand Marquis with the 4l.6L V-8. I've drove them both on trips and both got better than 26 mpg - loaded with four people and luggage. I've had Ford modular motors in several other vehicles - and they never needed any repairs (one with over 150K miles) except for one coil pack - so why would I care that the Chevrolet was "easy to work on." Not needing work at all beats easy to work on every time.

Ed

Ed,

Thought you would actually READ about the problems. My bad...

Explain how the V10 is better than the 460 it replaced, which was what I was talking about. Is it all the extra parts? The spark plugs that blow out of the heads, the extra power they don't have, or do they cost a lot less to build? Could they be a lot easier to work on?

Al

Well to start with the V-10 gets 2~4 miles per gallon better fuel mileage than the 460 in the same applications across the board. The spark plug "blowing out" was a very short lived issue that was eliminated years ago. The 2005 and up 3 valve V-10 run circles around the 460 for both power and fuel mileage. The V-10's are virtually trouble free, over 100,000 miles of oil change only service, with no incessant exhaust manifold leaks, like almost every single

460 suffers from.

The 460 rocks, I still have a 460 truck, I was pissed when they discontinued it for the new 6.8L V-10 but even I now have to admit that the V-10 is an improvement over the venerable 460.