6.2L 'Boss' Rumor and a Question...

[Hemiman]

Some of the block:

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2009 by Hemiman

[jpvbs]

Some of the block:

 

 

 

 

 

I noticed, cast right into the block in the valley in the middle picture above, it says, "THE BOSS IS BACK". I'd guess this won't be on the production blocks, but it would be cool if it did - even if you can't see it.

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpvbs

[White99GT]

With all of the mucking around Ford did with the Mod 3V heads, they could have redesigned

the existing 4V heads years ago to accept basic VCT and reaped a lot more benefit.

 

BIG +1, the 3V is a beast that should have never been, IMHO. Had Ford simply fitted existing 4V heads (03+ high volume U231 4V heads that came on the '03 Cobra/Marauder/Aviator/Mach 1) with iVCT, and cams/intake that were on par with the 3V's they would have been much further along in 2004. There's no reason a 5.4 4V like this wouldn't produce 350+ HP back in 2004.

 

There's obviously a reason why they didn't do that but it just seems strange now...

 

I remember the old 3V press releases, the bragging rights were:

1. power and torque improvement over the 2V

2. cylinder heads were more compact than the 2V

3. cylinder heads required less machining than the 2V head (much less the 4V)

 

I think the obvious reason the 3V came into being was because of cost. Good old Nasser-era mentality.

I also remember the original target HP for the 5.4 3V was 325 HP which they obviously fell well short of. I'm sure the 3V's joke of an intake/exhaust ratio had nothing to do with it.

[Deanh]

Deano: U are scaring me here was really hoping for a 5.0 in the f-150 guess all we can do is wait and see now. Happy New Year

5.0 is coming, but as you see I have a bet as to whether it will have DOHC and 4v per cyl, i dont see it, that makes it an overly expensive mill for Fords bread and butter, my guess is 2 or three, maybe 25-30 more HP than the 5.4 and slightly superior torque....so until then, unless info is leaked by someone with TRUE insider info, all is hearsay

[Deanh]

Improvement in power across the entire powerband, allowing a 5.0L engine to make power comparable to competitor's 5.7 engines with superior fuel economy. Sounds like win - win to me. 4V is coming to F150. :hyper:

 

Additional complexity doesn't come with a decrease in reliability.

Trucks= BOTTOM end torque....I dont see the need, and the extra $ customers will have to fork out for DOHC 4valve per cyl, and makes no sense having a 4v 5.0 and a 2 valve 6.2....bets on 99GT....and NO special edition, i'm talking the bread and potatoe model....and that coffees a GRANDE baby! lol.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Deanh

[White99GT]

5.0 is coming, but as you see I have a bet as to whether it will have DOHC and 4v per cyl, i dont see it, that makes it an overly expensive mill for Fords bread and butter, my guess is 2 or three, maybe 25-30 more HP than the 5.4 and slightly superior torque....so until then, unless info is leaked by someone with TRUE insider info, all is hearsay

 

Ford has installed 4Vs into trucks before, Lincoln Blackwood, Navigator, Aviator. The Aviator 4.6 4V long block was identical to an automatic Mach 1/Marauder's, just with a PS pump relocation and a dual runner intake manifold. Cylinder heads, cams, valve-springs, rotating assembly, block...all identical.

 

It doesn't make sense for Ford to put all that effort into making class leading 4V cylinder heads for the Coyote only to keep it to the relatively low volume Mustang GT. My bet, the F150's 5.0L will share cylinder heads with the Mustang GT, have possibly lower duration cams (maybe iVCT instead of TiVCT?), maybe a point less compression (increased piston dish), a variable length intake manifold, and everything else with be the same.

Edited December 30, 2009 by White99GT

[White99GT]

Trucks= BOTTOM end torque....I dont see the need, and the extra $ customers will have to fork out for DOHC 4valve per cyl, and makes no sense having a 4v 5.0 and a 2 valve 6.2....bets on 99GT....and NO special edition, i'm talking the bread and potatoe model....and that coffees a GRANDE baby! lol.

 

A TiVCT 4V will produce more bottom end torque than a VCT 3V ever thought of.

 

My non-VCT, non-variable runner 4.6 4V produced 280 rwtq (roughly 322 lb-ft at the flywheel) at roughly 2200 rpm. 4Vs produce superior low end torque, despite popular myth.

[jpd80]

BIG +1, the 3V is a beast that should have never been, IMHO. Had Ford simply fitted existing 4V heads (03+ high volume U231 4V heads that came on the '03 Cobra/Marauder/Aviator/Mach 1) with iVCT, and cams/intake that were on par with the 3V's they would have been much further along in 2004. There's no reason a 5.4 4V like this wouldn't produce 350+ HP back in 2004.

You can help me out with a date here - wan't the first 4V 4.6 in the early 1990s?

Ford have had a long time to get the MOD engine right but somehow lost their way.

I think they got stuck in the mind frame of 302 and 351 replacements - the 2Vs did that well

but when more was asked of the engine, I think Ford wanted to limit power to around 330 hp.

It almost seems like after their V8 FWD strategy fell to pieces they didn't know what to do....

 

I remember the old 3V press releases, the bragging rights were:

1. power and torque improvement over the 2V

2. cylinder heads were more compact than the 2V

3. cylinder heads required less machining than the 2V head (much less the 4V)

 

I think the obvious reason the 3V came into being was because of cost. Good old Nasser-era mentality.

I also remember the original target HP for the 5.4 3V was 325 HP which they obviously fell well short of. I'm sure the 3V's joke of an intake/exhaust ratio had nothing to do with it.

A 2V Hemi head like the new 6.2 Boss was all that was needed for trucks,

with the right canter, a 1.9" inlet and 1.6" exhaust are quite possible...

 

Maybe Ford felt they had to keep one foot in technology because of the smaller engine capacity,

GM and Chrysler took the easy large displacement route, something now about to bite them both..

 

Either way, the new 5.0 and and a companion 5.6 V8 or 6.2 V10 should have happened years ago.

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

The V-10 will not accept variable valve timing. Care to guess why?

[jpd80]

A TiVCT 4V will produce more bottom end torque than a VCT 3V ever thought of.

 

My non-VCT, non-variable runner 4.6 4V produced 280 rwtq (roughly 322 lb-ft at the flywheel) at roughly 2200 rpm. 4Vs produce superior low end torque, despite popular myth.

Without VCT, the current 5.4 4V Aussie engines produces roughly 320 lb ft at 2000

and goes on to make 390 to 410 lb ft at 4750 rpm depending on tune.

I can only imagine what TIVCT would do for the bottom end....

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpd80

[jpd80]

The V-10 will not accept variable valve timing. Care to guess why?

Balancer shaft drive. Ford persisted with long stroke and split the crank journals for even firing

but mucked up th engine's balance. The shorter stroke versions weren't prone to the problem.

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpd80

[White99GT]

You can help me out with a date here - wan't the first 4V 4.6 in the early 1990s?

Ford have had a long time to get the MOD engine right but somehow lost their way.

I think they got stuck in the mind frame of 302 and 351 replacements - the 2Vs did that well

but when more was asked of the engine, I think Ford wanted to limit power to around 330 hp.

It almost seems like after their V8 FWD strategy fell to pieces they didn't know what to do....

 

A 2V Hemi head like the new 6.2 Boss was all that was needed for trucks,

with the right canter, a 1.9" inlet and 1.6" exhaust are quite possible...

 

Maybe Ford felt they had to keep one foot in technology because of the smaller engine capacity,

GM and Chrysler took the easy large displacement route, something now about to bite them both..

 

Either way, the new 5.0 and and a companion 5.6 V8 or 6.2 V10 should have happened years ago.

 

The first 4V Mod showed up in the 1993 Lincoln Mark VIII. I think Ford just didn't want to make they investment they needed to in the engine, for whatever reason...probably because bean counters were at the top as opposed to engineers. Accountant types being content with "good enough" power, thank God those days seem to be over.

 

I love the fact that the Coyote shares bore spacing and deck height with the 4.6, as it finally gives a glimpse to the true capability of the platform. I really feel the Coyote vindicates the arguments I have been making on this board for 4 or 5 years now. I've been playing with Mod motors for 10 years now, I knew what they are capable of and could never understand why Ford didn't deliver more from the factory. They are impressive engines, despite what many say. For instance, Ford never seemed to match the right cam-set to the right cylinder head (on the 4Vs) for some reason. :shrug:

 

And regarding the 2V, why did Ford stick with inline valves for this tiny bore engine? Why couldn't they develop a proper valve arrangement (like a Hemi, polyhsperical or Twisted Wedge) that allowed for an increase in intake valve size? The exhaust valve size was never a problem for the 2V, the PI heads have a 86% I/E ratio, VERY exhaust biased and you can't go much bigger with the intake valve. Talk about an engine that loves an intake biased cam grind.

 

I have a feeling Mullaly era Ford would have attacked this engine family much more effectively.

 

And I would love to see a 5.6 Coyote!

[7Mary3]

Balancer shaft drive. Ford persisted with long stroke and split the crank journals to avoid

crank vibration related problems. The shorter stroke versions weren't prone to the problem.

 

Bingo! When I first saw the 2 valve V-10 in 1998, I thought it was short sighted (although probably cheap) that Ford stuck the balance shaft on the right head and drove it off the right cam. It would have been better in the oil pan or the valley driven off the crank. Things like this happen when you try to make a truck engine out of a front wheel drive car engine.

[jpd80]

Life is funny,

Ford develops the ultimate Mod motor as GM scraps the North Star 4.6 V8

Ford introduces the 6.2 Boss as GM ponders LS engine having VCT....

 

You can't help thinking someone has pants on backward....

[30 OTT 6]

And regarding the 2V, why did Ford stick with inline valves for this tiny bore engine? Why couldn't they develop a proper valve arrangement (like a Hemi, polyhsperical or Twisted Wedge) that allowed for an increase in intake valve size? The exhaust valve size was never a problem for the 2V, the PI heads have a 86% I/E ratio, VERY exhaust biased and you can't go much bigger with the intake valve. Talk about an engine that loves an intake biased cam grind.

 

I agree. The Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads for the Modular V8 are exactly what the SOHC engine needed from the beginning. In-line valves on a OHC engine are a cop-out. Dodge used poly-spherical 2-valve heads on their SOHC 4.7L V8.

 

I'm currently pondering the idea of the Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads for my Bullitt. Have you heard good/bad news about these heads on an otherwise stock 4.6L?

[White99GT]

I'm currently pondering the idea of the Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads for my Bullitt. Have you heard good/bad news about these heads on an otherwise stock 4.6L?

 

Yea, they are turning in good numbers. Big improvement over even ported PIs, with aftermarket cams (and supporting mods) they are doing 340-350 rwhp on the stock bottom end.

[7Mary3]

Life is funny,

Ford develops the ultimate Mod motor as GM scraps the North Star 4.6 V8

Ford introduces the 6.2 Boss as GM ponders LS engine having VCT....

 

You can't help thinking someone has pants on backward....

 

GM has had VCT on many LS engines for some years now, but soon it will be across the board. Very easy to do with one cam and all. Not sure the Northstar is going anywhere, though the design is a bit long in the tooth. GM is also reported to be working on a 7.0L truck V-8 with direct injection. No word on if it is an LS derivitive (my guess) or something new.

[White99GT]

GM is also reported to be working on a 7.0L truck V-8 with direct injection.

 

I'm sure that will happen with Big Brother's hand up their rear.

[jpd80]

GM has had VCT on many LS engines for some years now, but soon it will be across the board. Very easy to do with one cam and all. Not sure the Northstar is going anywhere, though the design is a bit long in the tooth. GM is also reported to be working on a 7.0L truck V-8 with direct injection. No word on if it is an LS derivitive (my guess) or something new.

Yes, GM has had basic VCT buried in their truck engines, I completely missed that....

North Star was definitely cancelled you won't find it listed anywhere on new models.

 

7.0 V8 with DI, no wonder GM cancelled the big block production line.

Could be the Camaro's new engine to take on the Mustang 5.0.......

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

7.0 V8 with DI, no wonder GM cancelled the big block production line.

Could be the Camaro's new engine to take on the Mustang 5.0.......

 

That's funny...Chevy needs an extra 2L to take on the 'Stang!

[jpd80]

That's funny...Chevy needs an extra 2L to take on the 'Stang!

and of course 500 lbs of extra weight too.

[7Mary3]

....

North Star was definitely cancelled you won't find it listed anywhere on new models.

.......

 

 

http://www.cadillac.com/dts/features-specs/

 

The Northstar is still around, Cadillac is just not reffering to it by that name anymore.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, you only have to look at where the northstar was offered...

 

Cadillac STS, canceled

Cadillac DTS, last iteration of that platform, dead car rolling

Cadillac XLR, also on its last legs

Buick Lucerne I believe had the Northstar as its premium engine option.

Cadillac SRX, redone as an equinox platform vehicle, no longer offered.

 

So, while it still may be in a few vehicles, those vehicles are all slated to EOL.

 

As for the 5.0L coyote in the F-150, I can't see any reason for Ford to not use the 5.0L in the same basic physical setup as it does currently in the 2011 mustang GT. Looking at the GT engines of the past 20 years, aside for some breathing and tuning modifications, it's been the same block and heads as the F-150 application of the same engine. The mustang stays cheap to make due to using a volume engine. This indicates to me that the 5.0L in the GT is in its "volume" form.

[jpd80]

http://www.cadillac.com/dts/features-specs/

 

The Northstar is still around, Cadillac is just not reffering to it by that name anymore.

 

Not for long:

 

GM cancels V8 program for Cadillac (01/03/2008)

General Motors has announced that it has canceled its plans to build a new advanced double overhead-cam V8 for its luxury cars. The cancellation leaves the future of V8-powered Cadillacs — other than the XLR sports car — up in the air.

 

The planned called for a $300 million investment in GM’s Tonawanda, New York engine plant where production of the new V8 engine was slated for 2009. GM Powertrain spokesman Tom Read announced today that the project is dead.

The new engine would have likely replaced the current Northstar V8 used in Cadillac vehicles.

The Northstar powerplant will cease production in 2010.

Instead, it is likely that GM will switch to higher-output V6 engines. The new direct-injection V6 used in the Cadillac CTS develops almost as much horsepower as a V8. “We’ve really seen the V6 become the predominant engine in sales on the (2008) STS because it’s so close in power to the V8,” Cadillac spokesman Kevin Smith told Automotive News.

Edited December 30, 2009 by jpd80

[Hemiman]

I noticed, cast right into the block in the valley in the middle picture above, it says, "THE BOSS IS BACK". I'd guess this won't be on the production blocks, but it would be cool if it did - even if you can't see it.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing!

 

The block pictured must be one of the Roush 777 blocks. At least that's my guess.