mercury Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Found me some purdy pictures of the 6.2L Edited February 3, 2009 by mercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I know two guys who built 5.4 4Vs with the exact same cylinder heads (ported Ford GTs flowing close to 400 cfm on a 3.572" bore, ported by the same guy, at the same time, side-by-side). One guy built his 5.4 with a standard .020" overbore and stock 4.165" stroke, the other built his engine with a 3.700" bore and a 3.78x" stroke. Both fitted with the same intake manifold (ported Sullivan single plane) and turning 8000+ rpm. The final result? The big bore/short stroke engine made 9 more rwhp (at a higher rpm) and 30 lb-ft less torque. I've personally seen comparison after comparison where this same situation has played out, the end result is almost always the same. Now ask those two friends what they think they could do with a 4.00" bore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifs66 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Found me some purdy pictures of the 6.2L Can anyone tell if the bellhousing bolt pattern is the same as the MOD engines? It looks like there are cross bolts on the mains too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Cam between the valves----interesting. Who else does that/did that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Now ask those two friends what they think they could do with a 4.00" bore. The 2 valves per cylinder or 4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Cam between the valves----interesting. Who else does that/did that? dumb question, but if the cam is between the valves, how the hell are the valves actuated? are there finger followers???? I'm lost....looks to me as if DOHC would be necessary...i'm obviously missing something....I'll stick with bad typing.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 dumb question, but if the cam is between the valves, how the hell are the valves actuated? are there finger followers???? I'm lost....looks to me as if DOHC would be necessary...i'm obviously missing something....I'll stick with bad typing.... Roller Rockers Deanh, think 1970s Japanese OHC engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Roller Rockers Deanh, think 1970s Japanese OHC engines. ahhhh, I had them on my 5.0, difference was I also had pushrods.....mental BLOCK! Edited February 4, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Can anyone tell if the bellhousing bolt pattern is the same as the MOD engines? It looks like there are cross bolts on the mains too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Roller Rockers Deanh, think 1970s Japanese OHC engines. Actually the Hurricane is more like the old Ford 1965 SOHC 427 Hemi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj2004 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Looking at the picture of the 6.2 above there are 3 lobes on the cam for the middle two cylinders. What is that for? Displacement on Demand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Looking at the picture of the 6.2 above there are 3 lobes on the cam for the middle two cylinders. What is that for? Displacement on Demand? From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_engine The initial versions of the Boss will have single overhead camshafts, two valves per cylinder, two spark plugs per cylinder and employ a form of cylinder deactivation for increased fuel economy and reduced emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Here's a pic of a 427 cammer head: Edited February 4, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Last I heard (admittedly 2 years ago) there were "issues" with the "variable displacement" control system and it was put on the back burner. Good to see those issues were worked out. BTW, wait til you see the combustion chamber. Those are 2 HUGE valves ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wouldn't necessarily cite wikipedia as an authority on what is still confidential information at Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) I wouldn't necessarily cite wikipedia as an authority on what is still confidential information at Ford. Normally I would agree with you, but that particular article has been there well over a year, maybe be even a lil shy of 18 months. And it has been pretty damn accurate on all of its info. For example, it stated that the BOSS would be SOHC w/ 2V per cylinder FROM THE START. So, whoever wrote it was definitely someone "in-the-know." Edited February 4, 2009 by OHV 16V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wouldn't necessarily cite wikipedia as an authority on what is still confidential information at Ford. Maybe BON can get there hands on some confidential Ford blueprints of the heads and post them here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wouldn't necessarily cite wikipedia as an authority on what is still confidential information at Ford. Yeah. You can't always trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia always has the must current information, but you can't trust the people who post the information. The article had a lot of information about a lot of versions of the engine. I doubt that they all make it to production. Ford needs this engine but I doubt that they can justify the 600 HP Version. If they do. I would think building a low volume multivalve head would be expensive. An EcoBoost might be a better way to go. The Boss 777 sound like a lot of fun. 7.0L, 700hp @ 7000 rpms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Last I heard (admittedly 2 years ago) there were "issues" with the "variable displacement" control system and it was put on the back burner. Good to see those issues were worked out. BTW, wait til you see the combustion chamber. Those are 2 HUGE valves ! The proof is in the photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Here's a pic of a 427 cammer head: thats almost a piece of art...awesome....check out the timing chain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Actually the Hurricane is more like the old Ford 1965 SOHC 427 Hemi. That's exactly what i was thinking. :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Boss back end: 427 Cammer cross section: 427 Cammer front end: Looks to me like the Boss has a stouter bottom end than the FE..... Probably won't have a 7' timing chain. Edited February 4, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Boss front end: That's actually the back of the engine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 That's actually the back of the engine... You're right, and I'm an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yeah. You can't always trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia always has the must current information, but you can't trust the people who post the information. The article had a lot of information about a lot of versions of the engine. I doubt that they all make it to production. Ford needs this engine but I doubt that they can justify the 600 HP Version. If they do. I would think building a low volume multivalve head would be expensive. An EcoBoost might be a better way to go. The Boss 777 sound like a lot of fun. 7.0L, 700hp @ 7000 rpms. The 600 HP one is boosted. 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.