therealmrmustang Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Looks to me like the Boss has a stouter bottom end than the FE... That's for sure. I see 6 bolt mains like the 4V Modulars. 4 in tension, 2 in shear. Cool... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 The Boss 777 sound like a lot of fun. 7.0L, 700hp @ 7000 rpms. So... since we're on the subject of the Hurricane, does anyone know the specifics of this engine? I do know that it was N/A. Must have been very high compression and heavily cammed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 That's for sure. I see 6 bolt mains like the 4V Modulars. 4 in tension, 2 in shear. Cool... Did the FE have 4 bolt or 6 bolt mains? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Did the FE have 4 bolt or 6 bolt mains? All 427FE (and some late 406) had 4 bolt mains... 2 in tension, 2 in shear (cross-bolt main). All other FE were 2 bolt main. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The 600 HP one is boosted. Could be a detuned version of the 777. More displacement and more valves. Maybe the non-turbo was more like 500 hp. It is still a lot of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Could be a detuned version of the 777. More displacement and more valves. Maybe the non-turbo was more like 500 hp. It is still a lot of power. Not exactly. The 777 is a 7 liter Roush exersize. A boosted 6.2 was done to study if it could be a viable gas alternative to the Scorpion in a SD application. Any 6.2 should be dual plug as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 A boosted 6.2 was done to study if it could be a viable gas alternative to the Scorpion in a SD application. And the results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 And the results? My guess? A lot of test engineers had fun on the Michigan Proving Grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 My guess? A lot of test engineers had fun on the Michigan Proving Grounds. Those guys have all of the fun! Remember the short deck 5.7l V10 they put in a Mustang for testing? They were calling it a Boss 351... there is video of them just thrashing it! Sounded bitchin' too! That is one engine that should have made production... instead it made it into the Cobra and GR-1 concepts. It should've been put into the GT. Nothing like a 600hp, high winding V10! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I'm going to second the disappointment with the 5.7L V-10 not making it into production. I loved the concept and thought it would have been a blast in a production car. Also consider, If they went ahead and made a 3V VCT head setup for it? They already had the 3V head from the 6.8L, they had VCT from the V8, so, work out the differences for the V-10 application and then reuse the VCT tech on the 6.8L to improve its rather lack luster fuel economy and further boost its HP numbers. Could have killed many birds with one stone. That engine would have been freaking AWESOME in a final edition Marauder as well. The 6.8L V-10 swaps that are out there on the net are wild as it is. A factory 5.7L V-10 in a Panther with the Marauder treatment would have been more than enough to handle any Charger R/T and given the SRT/8 something to worry about as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 It was cheaper and easier to add superchargers to the 4.6/5.4 than create a whole line of V10 parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 I'm going to second the disappointment with the 5.7L V-10 not making it into production. I loved the concept and thought it would have been a blast in a production car. Also consider, If they went ahead and made a 3V VCT head setup for it? They already had the 3V head from the 6.8L, they had VCT from the V8, so, work out the differences for the V-10 application and then reuse the VCT tech on the 6.8L to improve its rather lack luster fuel economy and further boost its HP numbers. Could have killed many birds with one stone. That engine would have been freaking AWESOME in a final edition Marauder as well. The 6.8L V-10 swaps that are out there on the net are wild as it is. A factory 5.7L V-10 in a Panther with the Marauder treatment would have been more than enough to handle any Charger R/T and given the SRT/8 something to worry about as well. The mind reels!! You're absolutely correct. That short-deck V-10 would have been perfect in a Panther. A proper Marauder... what a concept! Oh well... We'll just have to see what the future holds with these new engines. I honestly can't wait to see pictures of the Coyote internals... valve actuation, head design, bottom end, etc. I'm sure Ford will have another winner on it's hands. For those anti-Mod people out there... I don't care what you say, it has served it's purpose well. My Bullitt will hold it's own with its lowly 2V, no question or doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 It was cheaper and easier to add superchargers to the 4.6/5.4 than create a whole line of V10 parts. Most of the parts were already there. I'm sure that casting up new blocks heads would be pricey. It's definitely cheaper to bolt on a supercharger and strengthen internals. I still think that they could have produced enough quantity to justify the cost... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) Most of the parts were already there. I'm sure that casting up new blocks heads would be pricey. It's definitely cheaper to bolt on a supercharger and strengthen internals. I still think that they could have produced enough quantity to justify the cost... which parts exist? You need new block, crank, heads manifold balancer shaft - engineering for these, the list goes on. A major problem with Ford was seeking funding for new work, that's why existing engines were used. Edited February 6, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 which parts exist?You need new block, crank, heads manifold balancer shaft - engineering for these, the list goes on. A major problem with Ford was seeking funding for new work, that's why existing engines were used. I forgot about the crank and intake... Rods, pistons, valvetrain components, timing components and cover, and most of the other extraneous parts should have been the same. Everything that I read was that is was basically a 'parts bin' engine. The core components that were new castings were modeled from existing parts... the heads were 10 cylinder versions of the heads used in the 2000 Cobra R. The block was a basically a 10 cylinder version of the Cobra 4.6. The crank was definitely a new design as this engine had a different firing order to offset the harmonics generated by it being a 10 cylinder engine. When you hear it run... it sounds like no other, in fact it sounds exotic. As the name implies, the design is modular. It's original inception was the ability to provide many configurations and share components. It's not like they had to design and engineer a completely new engine. Most, if not all, of the core design work had already been completed. Special casting of core components were needed as well as a custom billet steel crank... an added expense, no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifs66 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I forgot about the crank and intake... Rods, pistons, valvetrain components, timing components and cover, and most of the other extraneous parts should have been the same. Everything that I read was that is was basically a 'parts bin' engine. The core components that were new castings were modeled from existing parts... the heads were 10 cylinder versions of the heads used in the 2000 Cobra R. The block was a basically a 10 cylinder version of the Cobra 4.6. The crank was definitely a new design as this engine had a different firing order to offset the harmonics generated by it being a 10 cylinder engine. When you hear it run... it sounds like no other, in fact it sounds exotic. As the name implies, the design is modular. It's original inception was the ability to provide many configurations and share components. It's not like they had to design and engineer a completely new engine. Most, if not all, of the core design work had already been completed. Special casting of core components were needed as well as a custom billet steel crank... an added expense, no doubt. This may be a good time to introduce a question that has arisen related to the MOD engines. As I followed the introduction of the "new" mod engine throughout the early 90s, I always read that the name "MODULAR" came from the concept that the same basic engine could be built in many forms (V6, V8, V10). Somewhat like adding modules as building blocks. Now, some people on another forum maintain that this is not the underlying reason for the "modular" engine terminology. They claim it is called modular since it was manufactured in a configurable manufacturing facility. Can the people on this forum lay this issue to rest? Apparently the first description of the MOD on the WIKIPITIA (spelling ???) on-line dictionary promotes the idea that it is the type of factory that determined the MOD engine name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) This may be a good time to introduce a question that has arisen related to the MOD engines. As I followed the introduction of the "new" mod engine throughout the early 90s, I always read that the name "MODULAR" came from the concept that the same basic engine could be built in many forms (V6, V8, V10). Somewhat like adding modules as building blocks. Now, some people on another forum maintain that this is not the underlying reason for the "modular" engine terminology. They claim it is called modular since it was manufactured in a configurable manufacturing facility. Can the people on this forum lay this issue to rest? Apparently the first description of the MOD on the WIKIPITIA (spelling ???) on-line dictionary promotes the idea that it is the type of factory that determined the MOD engine name. straight from the sales staff, POST Rick Titus BS V8 modular propaganda training video. ( At least as i recall it....).....Ford has developed the PERFECT combustion chamber, afte analaysis they have concluded PERFECT cylinder dimensions both in bore and stroke for unequaled combustion and efficiency....(and this is hazy) ...cast in V sections of two cylinders, the enne can be configured as a 4 cyl, a 6 cyl , 8 10 or the like.....and bolted together for the utmost efficiency in any given configuration....at least thats how I remember the blurb....then again he also told us the 6.0 was a masterpiece that was going to re-write the books... Edited February 7, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) I forgot about the crank and intake... Rods, pistons, valvetrain components, timing components and cover, and most of the other extraneous parts should have been the same. Everything that I read was that is was basically a 'parts bin' engine. components were needed as well as a custom billet steel crank... an added expense, no doubt. Then why didn't Ford build it? It was obviously more than a parts bin engine and the cost not justified for the expected return. There was no business case for the engine, not when 4.6/5.4/6.8 Mods were considered adequate and the addition of a few superchargers to existing engines could be done under an existing budget. Edited February 7, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) This may be a good time to introduce a question that has arisen related to the MOD engines. As I followed the introduction of the "new" mod engine throughout the early 90s, I always read that the name "MODULAR" came from the concept that the same basic engine could be built in many forms (V6, V8, V10). Somewhat like adding modules as building blocks. Now, some people on another forum maintain that this is not the underlying reason for the "modular" engine terminology. They claim it is called modular since it was manufactured in a configurable manufacturing facility. Can the people on this forum lay this issue to rest? Apparently the first description of the MOD on the WIKIPITIA (spelling ???) on-line dictionary promotes the idea that it is the type of factory that determined the MOD engine name. Although Mods use common parts, most castings are relatively cheap to produce. The real cost is in purchasing machining equipment and the ability to reuse this equipment on different engines has a huge cost advantage. Processes like machining blocks for deck height, of common cylinder boring sizes, camshaft tunnel sizes cylinder head faces and valves pockets. The commonality of parts springs from common machining processes. It is believed that a 5.4 V8 engine line can be switched to 6.8 V10 operation in several hours. In order to build the unique 5.7 V10, you would need to do substantial changes to machining operations on the low deck 4.6 engine line - probably a real sore point with planning too. Edited February 7, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 Then why didn't Ford build it?It was obviously more than a parts bin engine and the cost not justified for the expected return. There was no business case for the engine, not when 4.6/5.4/6.8 Mods were considered adequate and the addition of a few superchargers to existing engines could be done under an existing budget. We know that Ford is overly conservative... always has been. You're right, the cost may not have justified the required or desired return. The bean counters hold the cards. If the desired return isn't within required margin of profit, it will not get the green light. I still think that ford should have continued with the original plan and developed the GR-1 and had it on-line when GT production ceased. The GR-1 could have been the perfect Corvette competitor, with the V-10 being comparable to the LS7 in the Z06. I know... I'm dreamin'. Hopefully we'll have a real sports car from Ford someday... with the current eco-political correctness, I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I know... I'm dreamin'. Hopefully we'll have a real sports car from Ford someday... with the current eco-political correctness, I doubt it. I wouldn't be so sure about that, we now have 5.0 and 6.2 in the pipe. Whenever there's an opportunity to downsize and boost, you'll find even more exciting options. Who's to say a S/C 6.2 isn't offered in the Super Duty as an alternative to the 7.4 liter diesel or an S/C 5.0 V8 offered as an alternative to the 6.2 or 4.4 liter V8 diesel. Those efficiency minded applications could easily turn into performance variations in lighter vehicles....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm dying to see the heads on the 5.0, it's the kind of motor I've been waiting for a long long time in the GT, I'm sure it will be a very popular engine for swaps into hot rods and other older Fords. I'm hoping it's a pretty light engine being all aluminum, would kick ass in a Fox!! Even better, a RWD conversion on my Focus with the 5.0 would make it the coolest sleeper ever, although the 295's out back might spoil the effect.. I heard 400/360 for the Mustang, and about 360/400 for the F-150 about a year ago, I'm glad to see my source seems to be pretty accurate.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm still just hoping someone at Ford doesn't decide that increasing displacement (and HP) in the Mustang GT somehow makes Ford look "irresponsible" and decides to can the whole project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm still just hoping someone at Ford doesn't decide that increasing displacement (and HP) in the Mustang GT somehow makes Ford look "irresponsible" and decides to can the whole project. The flip side to that is that the 5.0L will be replacing the 5.4L in the F-150, so it's a decrease in displacement in that case. I'm guessing they sell more 5.4L F-150s than 4.6L Mustangs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm still just hoping someone at Ford doesn't decide that increasing displacement (and HP) in the Mustang GT somehow makes Ford look "irresponsible" and decides to can the whole project. With the current era of eco-political correctness? Exactly... Someone needs to shine some light on these frauds. The evidence is there, and the ones that are so heavily pushing the issue (Al Gore, etc.) are the most irresponsible. Do as I say, not as I do. We know what's best for you and for the rest of the world... you just need to trust in us and let us take care of you. They will not even debate the issue... Their arrogance and condescension is sickening. I now turn over the podium... 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.