Ford Revives "Hurricane" V8 To Battle Hemi by 2008

[NickF1011]

Well that's a good response. I don't like the outcome of the road test, so I'll just accuse the drivers of being incompetent or of making a stupid comparison in the first place.

 

When Car & Driver is running 13-second 1/4 miles in a 500 horsepower car, yes, they are incompitent.

 

My 97 Cobra runs that with 180 less horsepower...and surprisingly enough, almost as much weight.

[silvrsvt]

C&D Review of the 2005 Mustang GT:

 

Standing 1/4-mile: 13.8 sec @ 102 mph

 

Something is seriously wrong with the way they drove that GT500 if they can get 13.8 out of a run of the mill Mustang GT

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Look at where the Corvette bested the GT500 in C&Ds tests. Look at the raw numbers. The GT500 didn't hook up well at launch for them whereas the better weight balance and likely better tire combination for the corvette allowed a great launch. It could be related to the surface of their test track not being a good match for the gt500, or, it could be that they didn't bother trying to get better launches out of the gt500 and just floored it and held on.

 

It seems obvious to me that anyone that cares about performance will likely upgrade the rear meat on the GT500 if they care about launch performance. I know it comes with a fairly substantial pair of tires back there, but, it could use better and I believe that they are out there.

 

But, I will say this. Ford's decision to go with the iron block DOHC 5.4L in the GT500 was done out of an abundance of caution for the purposes of reliability and mod friendliness. I still feel very strongly that Ford could have just as easily started with the all aluminum 5.4L 3V, put on a milder blower setup or even done a turbo setup, and, properly tuned, it would have easily made 450+ hp on pump gas safely with the proper internal upgrades. It would have weighed over 100 lbs lighter than the motor that they have now, and, with the VCT, it would have likely been more efficient and had just as broad of a torque curve if not broader than the DOHC engine does. It would have brought the front-rear weight balance back closer to 50-50, making the car a better handler and launcher. All in all, I think a better package. The problem would have been that peak HP number. They wanted 500 reliable HP and they sold out on balance and launchability to get it.

 

Is it still a great car? Yes, of course it is. It just could have been better, easily better.

[ZanatWork]

And now, it's time for "REALITIES OF THE MUSTANG'S WEIGHT!"

 

Do I wish it weighed less? Sure. But here's a fun little task for y'all:

 

Find a current production coupe with a V8 that weighs much less than the Mustang GT. Then, find one with comparable power to the GT500 that weighs considerably less.

 

Rules: no 2-seaters. This is apples-to-apples, so the contenders must seat 4 while having 2 doors and a V8.

 

 

I already know how this ends.

[NickF1011]

I already know how this ends.

 

Finally. Some common sense. There's only so light you can make a car these days. Would all the whiners about weight rather the D2C be as flimsy as the Fox chassis? Because it would be if it weighed less. The only other option is using more exotic materials to reduce weight, which would raise the cost. Would all the whiners about weight be willing to pay more for the Mustang? Probably not.

 

With all of the doodads and structural strength in a modern car chassis, the days of 3000 lb V8 sport coupes is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG gone, and will never be seen again.

 

Thankfully, engine, suspension, and brake technology has kept up with the pace of increasing weight.

[one2gamble]

Finally. Some common sense. There's only so light you can make a car these days. Would all the whiners about weight rather the D2C be as flimsy as the Fox chassis? Because it would be if it weighed less. The only other option is using more exotic materials to reduce weight, which would raise the cost. Would all the whiners about weight be willing to pay more for the Mustang? Probably not.

 

With all of the doodads and structural strength in a modern car chassis, the days of 3000 lb V8 sport coupes is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG gone, and will never be seen again.

 

Thankfully, engine, suspension, and brake technology has kept up with the pace of increasing weight.

 

except the car could have been designed with weight in mind from the start. The standard GT comes in about 200lbs more than it should. Also if they used the AL block they could have shaved 100lbs off its weight

[ZanatWork]

except the car could have been designed with weight in mind from the start. The standard GT comes in about 200lbs more than it should. Also if they used the AL block they could have shaved 100lbs off its weight

 

 

Again, if it "should" have been so much lighter, how come no other car company's equivalent model is? Aluminum would hurt the price considerably, as would use of other weight-savers such as carbon fiber.

 

The Mustang has always been an inexpensive "hand me downs" car. First it was a Falcom derivative, then a Pinto relative, a Fairmont-in-wolf's-clothing, and the latest version is apparently borrowing from the LS as well as the C1 Focus, if I can believe all I've read. The Corvette is a dedicated chassis and drivetrain car-designed to be a bargain Porsche hunter.

 

Even the Shelby is capitalizing more on the name and appearance than outright performance. Sure, it's fast as hell, but the car has limitations that Corvettes don't-and that's always been the case.

 

The GT500 will sell out, put some gorgeous Mustangs on the road, and make Ford some money. It's all good.

[White99GT]

But, I will say this. Ford's decision to go with the iron block DOHC 5.4L in the GT500 was done out of an abundance of caution for the purposes of reliability and mod friendliness. I still feel very strongly that Ford could have just as easily started with the all aluminum 5.4L 3V, put on a milder blower setup or even done a turbo setup, and, properly tuned, it would have easily made 450+ hp on pump gas safely with the proper internal upgrades.

 

Ford went with the iron block to save money. Ford already has a beast of an aluminum 5.4 block they designed for the Ford GT. Coming from people who have worked with them they are insanely stout, like they can handle a couple thousand horsepower in stock form stout. It requires minimal machining to work with a standard starter and wet sump, many aftermarket engine builders modify the GT block for use in Lightnings and Mustangs, if these guys can do it FoMoCo certainly could have.

 

The GT500 should have had the aluminum Ford GT block, bean counters win again.

[RichardJensen]

The GT500 should have had the aluminum Ford GT block, bean counters win again.

Lousy bean counters and their insistence on profits. Sheesh. Will it ever end? When will the making of high performance vehicles qualify as a non-profit pursuit, like feeding the poor? Or running an F1 team?

[one2gamble]

Again, if it "should" have been so much lighter, how come no other car company's equivalent model is?

 

show me another company that has an equivalent model at this time

[NickF1011]

show me another company that has an equivalent model at this time

 

Well, one thing to consider: The Dodge Challenger concept weighed in at nearly 4100 lbs....and that includes the fancy carbon fiber body panels that will never see the light of day on the production version. The production version is going to make the Mustang look like an absolute lightweight.

 

My understanding is that the Camaro is predicted to weigh somewhere in the 3800 lb range as well.

[wildosvt]

Well, one thing to consider: The Dodge Challenger concept weighed in at nearly 4100 lbs....and that includes the fancy carbon fiber body panels that will never see the light of day on the production version. The production version is going to make the Mustang look like an absolute lightweight.

 

My understanding is that the Camaro is predicted to weigh somewhere in the 3800 lb range as well.

 

 

Right on about the Camaro. GM guys are on their knee's praying that its @ or under "3300lbs"

 

If the Shelby is considerd "Porky" what would that make the CHallenger? A Hippo?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

In response to the weight postings from earlier, I am more focused on weight balance in the car, getting it close to the 50/50 split (well 52/48) that a lot of us like to see. While I think that the use of the Aluminum GT block would have been excessive, I still think that the Aluminum 3V 5.4L block should be safe out to the 450-500 HP mark with the appropriate power adders and internals. and, given that the block is mass production, it should have been reasonably affordable to use it. Heck, it would probably be cheaper than the existing block that they currently use and the extra budget that was left over could be used elsewhere in the car to reduce weight there.

[ZanatWork]

show me another company that has an equivalent model at this time

 

 

Well, that partially makes my point for me: it's overweight compared to what?

 

The Mustang GT that passes upcoming crash regs weighed in at about 100 lbs. more than the last Camaro that DIDN'T meet the regs.

 

The BMW 6-series weighs in almost identically with the Mustang...and the M6 is heavier than the GT500. This, despite use of lightweight materials and costs miles above the Mustang's.

[igor]

for those that think that Hemi truck is a necessity - check thius out:

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/news/report-s...2006-186188.php

 

RAM SRT 10 cancelled after 2006 MY

 

Igor

[White99GT]

. While I think that the use of the Aluminum GT block would have been excessive, I still think that the Aluminum 3V 5.4L block should be safe out to the 450-500 HP mark with the appropriate power adders and internals. and, given that the block is mass production, it should have been reasonably affordable to use it. Heck, it would probably be cheaper than the existing block that they currently use and the extra budget that was left over could be used elsewhere in the car to reduce weight there.

 

Is there a 3V 5.4L aluminum block in production? As far as I am aware the 5.4Ls are all iron blocks, with the exception of the GT.

 

IMO, they should have put the GT-block into the GT500 and raised the price accordingly, what is that block going to add to the bottom line, $500? When you're already dropping $41,000+ what difference is $500, or even $600 or $700 going to make, is it a deal breaker? Ford is catching a decent amount of flak over the overall weight of the GT500 and the car's nose heaviness, the aluminum block would have helped to alleviate both issues.

[RichardJensen]

Is there a 3V 5.4L aluminum block in production? As far as I am aware the 5.4Ls are all iron blocks, with the exception of the GT.

 

IMO, they should have put the GT-block into the GT500 and raised the price accordingly, what is that block going to add to the bottom line, $500? When you're already dropping $41,000+ what difference is $500, or even $600 or $700 going to make, is it a deal breaker? Ford is catching a decent amount of flak over the overall weight of the GT500 and the car's nose heaviness, the aluminum block would have helped to alleviate both issues.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that casting only 5,000-10,000 aluminum blocks a year would add substantially more than $500 to the cost of the GT500.

Edited July 11, 2006 by RichardJensen

[classicford]

Also keep in mind that Ford considered all of the racing and performance applications the S197 was going to be used for once in production. The chassis is considerably stronger than any previous one, and the S197 doesn't need the subframe connectors, torque box reinforcements, etc, that the Fox and SN95 chassis need when they're put in high-horsepower applications. It's not like all of that extra weight is there for nothing.

 

The interior and engine bay are also larger than the SN95's were. You can't take the heads off of a Modular engine in an SN95 Mustang without pulling the engine first...

 

The GT aluminum block would cost much more than $500 per car, trust me.

 

 

 

BTW, if you haven't realized this yet, Ford gets critized for everything they do and everything they don't do. Nothing's going to change just because Ford builds a car with "Shelby" on the decklid.

[White99GT]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that casting only 5,000-10,000 aluminum blocks a year would add substantially more than $500 to the cost of the GT500.

 

How much then? You can get your hands on a new GT block for ~$2,000, I have a heard time believing Ford has anywhere near that much into casting the block. Maybe they do? They went to all of the trouble of engineering a block for the GT, why not use it in something else?

[Edstock]

Just wondering . . .

 

would Ford possibly be re-doing the mods with Compacted Graphite Iron casting tech?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The CGI change would be enough to warrant a completely new engine family.

 

I was under the impression that the 5.4L 3v in the F-150 was all aluminum. Heads and block. If I am wrong, I appologize for all of my previous posts saying it should have been used.

[Sizzler]

Lets take a step back.

 

First: What is the primary advantage of an OHC valve train?

 

...

 

However, the advantage of greater valve area remains. With the Mods, this is compromised because of how narrow the bore of the cylinder is.

 

If you acknowledge that better breathing is not acheived by an OHC design, at least not as implemented in the Mods, does any advantage remain?

 

Yes.

 

OHC designs with current technology allow variable cam phasing. While this was not--initially--an advantage enjoyed by OHC engines, it is one that exists at present.

 

Now, who benefits from the ability to advance and retard the cam?

 

The aftermarket tuner, or the manufacturer?

 

Obviously, the manufacturer.

 

The mod is far easier to manage than outgoing OHV designs, from an OEM standpoint. For instance, Ford has been able to produce a smoother torque curve on the 5.4L, with a better emissions profile and better NVH characteristics than the Hemi and the Vortec engines.

 

Why?

 

Because it's an OHC design with variable valve timing technology. Further, the narrow bore and long stroke make emissions management easier. All other things being equal, a narrow bore provides a more complete burn.

 

In the 1960's there was a handy-dandy little sprocket you could buy called a vari-cam. You put it on your (in-block) cam and viola`!, variable cam timing.

 

There's nothing magical about variable cam timing and OHC valvetrains.

 

Also, Ford experimented with engines that had TWO cams in the block, each cam responsible for activating one set of valves each, intake and exhaust. So, variable cam timing could be applied to intake and exhaust valves separately. Again, this isn't rocket science.

 

Finally, Ford produced a set of pentroof heads with 4 valves per chamber for the SBF (Windsor) that bolted right on, and were activated not by overhead cams, but by forked rockers moved by pushrods. Incredible air flow and torque characteristics. Again, not rocket science.

 

 

Anyone know what the modular engine in the GT500 weighs, fully dressed. The weight of a (much) smaller FE with flywheel (aluminum), all accessories including alternator, but no fluids, aluminum block and head is 482 pounds. It was dynoed (engine) at 682 HP. NA.

 

Varicam for those who've never heard of VCT pre-over-engineered days:

[30 OTT 6]

The CGI change would be enough to warrant a completely new engine family.

 

New tooling is required but why would it be any differant then going from cast iron to aluminum?

[Edstock]

No cylinder liner required.