theoldwizard Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Is the 5.0 not considered a Modular? No. Different bore size, different bore spacing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) Yes, theoldwizard is all knowing. If he actually told us anything that he has worked on in the past year, he would probably get shit-canned. Not all knowing. I don't memorize all FE and HP numbers. Haven't worked there since Feb '07. Lots of friends who still work in engineering. There have been so many numbers quoted on the 3.5L EB I won't believe anything is see or hear anymore until it is on an official Ford document. Plus what I hear in the back channel is not as "optimistic" as what is being spread around in the press. Edited December 13, 2008 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 No. Different bore size, different bore spacing. Is the new 5.0 related to the 6.2 Boss or a completely different design? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 No. Different bore size, different bore spacing. Really?! I had no idea that the bore spacing was different. This is an all new engine then?! :hyper: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Is the new 5.0 related to the 6.2 Boss or a completely different design? Let me start by saying, I only have a few bits and piece of information on the 5.0L It was a skunk works project in 2006 so I didn't even know it existed back then. To answer your question, I believe it is closer in design to the old Modular than the new 6.2L, Other places here on Blue Oval have said there will be a 4V version to go head to head with the Camaro. Ford knows how to do multiple heads on the same block, so a 3V head is an obvious conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Thank you. I heard similar about the 5.0, it was tagged as an enlarged Mod with bigger pistons and increased bore spacings for extra bulkhead strength. I heard a 5.9 was also started but Ford went with the Boss 6.2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted December 14, 2008 Author Share Posted December 14, 2008 I would think that the concept behind the modular engines was to keep the bore spacing and a few other dimensions fixed so that you could share as many parts, and as much engineering between as many engines as posible. The problem is that a fixed bore spacing only helps you keep the crank and the cam shafts the same. In many cases, they had to be changed anyway. The modular engines were also designed for both FWD and RWD use. This resulted in an overly square and tall engine. Not the best packaging for RWD. The modular engines had the right idea, but was done in the wrong way. To me it makes sense to make a 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder and an 8 cylinder share the same pistons, valves, and bolts, but use completely different crank, cam and block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 Wait, so now the 5.0L isn't a Modular? First I've heard of this... I've heard of lightly increased main width, but assume this was achieved w/o an increase in actual bore spacing. Put it like this, I'll believe it when I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted December 14, 2008 Author Share Posted December 14, 2008 Wait, so now the 5.0L isn't a Modular? First I've heard of this... I've heard of lightly increased main width, but assume this was achieved w/o an increase in actual bore spacing. Put it like this, I'll believe it when I see it. If I understand correctly, the 3.5L V-6 is not a Modular V-6 engine, so if Ford wants a new V-8 they should use as many parts from the 3.5 instead of making another old Modular. Note that I said share parts, not share bore spacing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 If I understand correctly, the 3.5L V-6 is not a Modular V-6 engine, so if Ford wants a new V-8 they should use as many parts from the 3.5 instead of making another old Modular. Note that I said share parts, not share bore spacing. Wouldn't it be great if it were as easy as slapping 2 more cylinders on it... Unfortunately 720/8=90, which is not a multiple of 60. 6-cylinder engines allow for three opposing cylinder angles (60,120,180). 8-cylinder engines allow for only two opposing cylinder angles (90, & 180). Of course you could always have an unbalanced cycle, but that would sound and feel like a Harley. That said, the only parts that could be shared between a V6 and V8 are connecting rods, pistons, bearings, and moving valve-train parts (save the cams). It's not really worth it to even put forth the effort to try and share parts. The compromises far outweigh the benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted December 15, 2008 Author Share Posted December 15, 2008 Wouldn't it be great if it were as easy as slapping 2 more cylinders on it... Unfortunately 720/8=90, which is not a multiple of 60. 6-cylinder engines allow for three opposing cylinder angles (60,120,180). 8-cylinder engines allow for only two opposing cylinder angles (90, & 180). Of course you could always have an unbalanced cycle, but that would sound and feel like a Harley. That said, the only parts that could be shared between a V6 and V8 are connecting rods, pistons, bearings, and moving valve-train parts (save the cams). It's not really worth it to even put forth the effort to try and share parts. The compromises far outweigh the benefits. At one time, the easiest way to design a new V-8 would be to add 2 cylinders to a V-6 and then make what ever changes to make it work. Today with modern CAD you can design a new engine with an all new block and an all new crank, but use the same alloys and engineering. With the magic of Computers you could scale everything and end up using the same piston, valves, etc. but in a different configuration. One the other hand. If you need a slightly bigger or smaller engine then you end up with an all new engine. The secret is if you do something right with one engine, you copy for another engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 The secret is if you do something right with one engine, you copy for another engine. In theory, yes. But the new 5.0 already develops a higher specific output per liter than the D35. So in this particular case, the theory is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 ...Today with modern CAD you can design a new engine with an all new block and an all new crank, but use the same alloys and engineering. With the magic of Computers you could scale everything and end up using the same piston, valves, etc. but in a different configuration. One the other hand. If you need a slightly bigger or smaller engine then you end up with an all new engine. The secret is if you do something right with one engine, you copy for another engine. The reason why it is a "different engine" has to do with manufacturing. Specifically block and head machining. Unlike vehicle assembly lines, there are still several "hard points" in block machining. Over all block length and bore spacing are probably the 2 least flexible points . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 If I understand correctly, the 3.5L V-6 is not a Modular V-6 engine, so if Ford wants a new V-8 they should use as many parts from the 3.5 instead of making another old Modular. Note that I said share parts, not share bore spacing. What do you mean by Modular V-6? I'm sure the Cyclone as designed with production flexibility in mind, but it clearly shares nothing with the Modular (V8-V10) engine family. So if they don't share bore spacing, the blocks are totally different (60 deg vs 90 deg) what are they going to share? Basic valvetrain? Actually, I would be happy as school girl they did, as DAMBs are great for higher rpm operations. I might want to build a 10,000 rpm 5.0L 4V one day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 What do you mean by Modular V-6? I'm sure the Cyclone as designed with production flexibility in mind, but it clearly shares nothing with the Modular (V8-V10) engine family. So if they don't share bore spacing, the blocks are totally different (60 deg vs 90 deg) what are they going to share? Basic valvetrain? Actually, I would be happy as school girl they did, as DAMBs are great for higher rpm operations. I might want to build a 10,000 rpm 5.0L 4V one day... Modulars 4V's sound sweet over 9,000RPM :yup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted December 15, 2008 Author Share Posted December 15, 2008 What do you mean by Modular V-6? I'm sure the Cyclone as designed with production flexibility in mind, but it clearly shares nothing with the Modular (V8-V10) engine family. So if they don't share bore spacing, the blocks are totally different (60 deg vs 90 deg) what are they going to share? Basic valvetrain? Actually, I would be happy as school girl they did, as DAMBs are great for higher rpm operations. I might want to build a 10,000 rpm 5.0L 4V one day... I was under the impression that the Duratec 2.5L and 3.0L were Mod engines, but not necessarily sharing any parts with the V-8. Ford did produce a large number of different Duratec engines of different displacement, sharing some parts, but not other parts. Different engines between Ford, Mazda, and Jaguar, all related. I guess I am confusing Duratec family with Modular family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted December 15, 2008 Author Share Posted December 15, 2008 The reason why it is a "different engine" has to do with manufacturing. Specifically block and head machining. Unlike vehicle assembly lines, there are still several "hard points" in block machining. Over all block length and bore spacing are probably the 2 least flexible points . So Modular has more to do with manufacturing than Design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 So Modular has more to do with manufacturing than Design. Well, you could say it was "designed" for "modular" manufacturing. Same piston sized used in all engines. Same stroke (rod) used in the 5.4L and the 6.8l. As many common parts as possible. I know when the block machining line was being set up, they hoped that all engine (low deck height 4.6L, high deck 5.4L and V10 6.8L) could all be machined on the same line. This was absolutely breakthrough at that time. I don't know if it actually wound up that way. You need to talk to someone who works at Romeo today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Well, you could say it was "designed" for "modular" manufacturing. Same piston sized used in all engines. Same stroke (rod) used in the 5.4L and the 6.8l. As many common parts as possible. I know when the block machining line was being set up, they hoped that all engine (low deck height 4.6L, high deck 5.4L and V10 6.8L) could all be machined on the same line. This was absolutely breakthrough at that time. I don't know if it actually wound up that way. You need to talk to someone who works at Romeo today. I FULLY remember the propoganda we were force fed when the 4.6 mod was released and the venerable 5.0 was laid to rest...went something like this....."after EXTENSIVE research ford found the perfect dimensions (stroke and bore )for absolute efficient combustion and maximum efficiency, then we bolt them together in twos, we can make a 4 cyl, 6 cyl, 8 cyl and 10 cylinder for example...."...at least that was along the Rick Titus lines...BUT same guy filled us full of the "absolutemy overbuilt" UNBREAKABLE 6.0 crap as well........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray101988 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) I thought the F150 line up was supposed to be something like this? -base 3.5L v6 -TTDI 3.5L v6 (Ecoboost) 415hp 350lbs-ft -5.0L v8 around 400ish hp 400ish lbs-ft -6.2L v8 (only in the Raptor?) 425hp 425lbs-ft -4.4L v8 TD (some point in future) 350hp 515lbs-ft This is what the general thoughts were a few months ago when I was surfing a lot of Ford forums. Have things changed much? Edited December 30, 2008 by ray101988 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken F. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think they should offer the I-4 Eco Boost as well. It probably makes better power than the old 300c.i. I-6 and has the potential for exceptional fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I think they should offer the I-4 Eco Boost as well. It probably makes better power than the old 300c.i. I-6 and has the potential for exceptional fuel economy. ???????? At what RPM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 It won't touch the reliability of the 300 I-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muskieman Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 they need the eco boost next month..not next year.. The 6.2 will be released as a 2010 or 2011 as a svt F-150. It will also be used next year by Ford off road racing team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lax_one Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I thought the F150 line up was supposed to be something like this? -base 3.5L v6 -TTDI 3.5L v6 (Ecoboost) 415hp 350lbs-ft -5.0L v8 around 400ish hp 400ish lbs-ft -6.2L v8 (only in the Raptor?) 425hp 425lbs-ft -4.4L v8 TD (some point in future) 350hp 515lbs-ft This is what the general thoughts were a few months ago when I was surfing a lot of Ford forums. Have things changed much? Correct This is the engine line up for the F150 staring late 2010 model, for sure 2011 model according to Info from ME engineering group. The 3.5L will be built in Clevland and Lima, not sure were the 5.0L is to be built. I believe that Windsor is already retooling for the 5.0L that is to be in the 2010 Mustang. The 4.6L, and 5.4L engines will be phased out in 2011. The 6.8 demise is not so clear due to diesel costs. The 6.2 will only be used in special builds ie. Raptor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.