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

[RichardJensen]

Northstar was a lousy engine anyway.

 

Had the most bizarre bottom-end ever fitted to a mass market motor, and its upside changed not a whit from the early 90s to now. Thing hit the market with a then remarkable 275hp in '92 or so, and ends its life with give or take 300 hp. An improvement of less than 10% over the course of an eighteen year service life.

 

And don't worry about that bottom end, it'll fail like clockwork. Just make sure you set aside money to pay for it because you will be replacing it. Absolutely.

 

Of course GM is killing it. They've got a freaking V6 that's 20% smaller and makes MORE power than it makes.

Edited December 30, 2009 by RichardJensen

[theoldwizard]

GM has had VCT on many LS engines for some years now, but soon it will be across the board.

There is a big difference between VCT and Twin, Independent VCT !

 

I can not imagine any naturally aspirated engine without TiVCT coming close to the HP/liter of the new 5.0L !

[Deanh]

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.

ok, lets compare 50k LUXO barges that dont have payloads or any pretense to WORKING capabilities...

[Deanh]

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.

and your 4v enggine was in a limited production correct, that comes at a PRICE PREMIUM...theres a REASON its not going to happen in the MAINSTREAM trucks 99...and you underlined the point...4V=$....but go ahead, dream, when the truck is too expensive buyers go elsewhere....Ford is FULLY aware of that....the BREAD AND BUTTER base models and worktrucks will most definitely NOT have 4 valves per cylinder.....perhaps an XLT SPECIAL version or Lariats but that will be it

[morgande]

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.

 

I don't see the need for two engine families. Makes no sense what-so-ever. A short block does not determine torque curve. The intake manifold in conjunction with the cam profiles (and thereby the valve-train in the heads) determine WHERE the power is made.

 

For how cheap Ford is, it makes NO SENSE what so ever to have two completely different engine fams. $ of DOHC 4v heads and be controlled EASILY with econ of scale. Simple stuff here. Engineer a TRUCK intake manifold for the 4v heads, and develop a set of cams for low-end torque. You can keep the same heads, or you can modify the design for larger ports if needed.

 

This is the way the old DOHC 4v 5.4L engine worked on the Navigator and Blackwood. The intake manifold was very unique, and they milled a set of 4v heads that were different than the 4v used on the Terminator. They had much larger ports. Result, BOTTOM END TORQUE out a DOHC engine. Even better curve than the 3v that everyone says was sooooo much better because it cost less. Bottom line, cost can be controlled by econ of scale. Take the same short block, use the same heads (or close to same heads), and engineer a truck intake and this 5.0 will produce plenty of grunt for a Truck.

 

You do NOT need 2 engine fams. Especially given what is shown possible with this 5.0. I can't help but think that Ford really let dev slip on the Hurricane/Boss program, such that they felt the need look elsewhere on this 5.0 The #s speak for themselves.

[Deanh]

I don't see the need for two engine families. Makes no sense what-so-ever. A short block does not determine torque curve. The intake manifold in conjunction with the cam profiles (and thereby the valve-train in the heads) determine WHERE the power is made.

 

For how cheap Ford is, it makes NO SENSE what so ever to have two completely different engine fams. $ of DOHC 4v heads and be controlled EASILY with econ of scale. Simple stuff here. Engineer a TRUCK intake manifold for the 4v heads, and develop a set of cams for low-end torque. You can keep the same heads, or you can modify the design for larger ports if needed.

 

This is the way the old DOHC 4v 5.4L engine worked on the Navigator and Blackwood. The intake manifold was very unique, and they milled a set of 4v heads that were different than the 4v used on the Terminator. They had much larger ports. Result, BOTTOM END TORQUE out a DOHC engine. Even better curve than the 3v that everyone says was sooooo much better because it cost less. Bottom line, cost can be controlled by econ of scale. Take the same short block, use the same heads (or close to same heads), and engineer a truck intake and this 5.0 will produce plenty of grunt for a Truck.

 

You do NOT need 2 engine fams. Especially given what is shown possible with this 5.0. I can't help but think that Ford really let dev slip on the Hurricane/Boss program, such that they felt the need look elsewhere on this 5.0 The #s speak for themselves.

we shall see.....personally I think the 4v will remain in the mustang and be in limited F-series, dont get me wrong, I would LOVE to see it across the board, I just doubt it....whos going to buy a $27k single cab work truck? In that type of application its TOO much money and total overkill....remember the 4.6 BASE engine is going to be history as well, then what...the base engine is a technological tour de force...NO WAY....3.7? perhaps, eco V6? I have doubts there as well....my question is what will be the meat and potatoes? And it most definitely is NOT a 5.0 4 valve....

[Hemiman]

I don't see the need for two engine families. Makes no sense what-so-ever. A short block does not determine torque curve. The intake manifold in conjunction with the cam profiles (and thereby the valve-train in the heads) determine WHERE the power is made.

 

For how cheap Ford is, it makes NO SENSE what so ever to have two completely different engine fams. $ of DOHC 4v heads and be controlled EASILY with econ of scale. Simple stuff here. Engineer a TRUCK intake manifold for the 4v heads, and develop a set of cams for low-end torque. You can keep the same heads, or you can modify the design for larger ports if needed.

 

This is the way the old DOHC 4v 5.4L engine worked on the Navigator and Blackwood. The intake manifold was very unique, and they milled a set of 4v heads that were different than the 4v used on the Terminator. They had much larger ports. Result, BOTTOM END TORQUE out a DOHC engine. Even better curve than the 3v that everyone says was sooooo much better because it cost less. Bottom line, cost can be controlled by econ of scale. Take the same short block, use the same heads (or close to same heads), and engineer a truck intake and this 5.0 will produce plenty of grunt for a Truck.

 

You do NOT need 2 engine fams. Especially given what is shown possible with this 5.0. I can't help but think that Ford really let dev slip on the Hurricane/Boss program, such that they felt the need look elsewhere on this 5.0 The #s speak for themselves.

 

 

Agreed with your point on how to manipulate the torque curve of an engine. However, CID impacts the values under that curve, (torque & HP). Two engine families, car and truck, is really the only way to meet the requirements of both types.

[Deanh]

Agreed with your point on how to manipulate the torque curve of an engine. However, CID impacts the values under that curve, (torque & HP). Two engine families, car and truck, is really the only way to meet the requirements of both types.

nutshell...thankyou...also....aluminum block in a truck???????? once again $$$$$$$$

[Sizzler]

Agreed with your point on how to manipulate the torque curve of an engine. However, CID impacts the values under that curve, (torque & HP). Two engine families, car and truck, is really the only way to meet the requirements of both types.

 

Take the 6.2l engine family, add cylinder deactivation capability. There you have the CID changes and one engine family. Isn't the overall size of the 6.2l smaller than the 4.6l? Especially now that the cams are located farther out towards the edges of the head castings? The 4.6l was a big engine to begin with, now it's even bigger.

[Hemiman]

Take the 6.2l engine family, add cylinder deactivation capability. There you have the CID changes and one engine family. Isn't the overall size of the 6.2l smaller than the 4.6l? Especially now that the cams are located farther out towards the edges of the head castings? The 4.6l was a big engine to begin with, now it's even bigger.

 

 

I've never been a fan of pumping dead pistons.

[White99GT]

This is the way the old DOHC 4v 5.4L engine worked on the Navigator and Blackwood.

 

Although the Navigator heads were inferior to the Terminator heads in every way. The Navigator heads had larger intake ports (184cc vs 177cc), but the larger port actually hurts intake charge velocity and thus torque; the U231s outflow the Navigator heads significantly at every lift measurable. Just another example of how the the Navigator was far from an optimized package. Ford came a long way with their 4V tech between the 1999 and 2003 MYs. Notice Ford of Australia chose to use the 177cc U231s on their 5.4L Boss 290-315 for the improved torque characteristics needed to move the 4000 lb. Falcons.

 

and your 4v enggine was in a limited production correct, that comes at a PRICE PREMIUM...theres a REASON its not going to happen in the MAINSTREAM trucks 99...and you underlined the point...4V=$....but go ahead, dream, when the truck is too expensive buyers go elsewhere....Ford is FULLY aware of that....the BREAD AND BUTTER base models and worktrucks will most definitely NOT have 4 valves per cylinder.....perhaps an XLT SPECIAL version or Lariats but that will be it

 

Toyota and Nissan were somehow able to make the business case for DOHC 4V engines in their trucks, why can't Ford? The Navigators did make pretensions of work capability (towing).

 

And I think you are right, base models/work trucks will come standard with either a 4.6 2V or a 3.7 Cyclone (which is 4V), although I'm sure a 5.0 4V will be available at additional cost.

 

Agreed with your point on how to manipulate the torque curve of an engine. However, CID impacts the values under that curve, (torque & HP). Two engine families, car and truck, is really the only way to meet the requirements of both types.

 

I say we'll see the same basic engine in the F150, only de-tuned for superior torque characteristics and optimized for 87 octane (lower compression, possibly lower duration cams, and either a variable runner or long runner/variable plenum intake manifold). I wouldn't even be too surprised if the F150 5.0 shows up with the aluminum block.

[morgande]

Agreed with your point on how to manipulate the torque curve of an engine. However, CID impacts the values under that curve, (torque & HP). Two engine families, car and truck, is really the only way to meet the requirements of both types.

 

Can't you fix that with variations of the deck height of the block to thereby make multiple displacements? Isn't that how you get 5.4 vs 4.6 in the Mods? Even the V10 I think has the same deck height as the 5.4 (someone correct me if Im wrong though).

 

Even still, multiple decks but still same engine fam. My (limited) understanding is that the Hurricane and the Coyote are completely different family of engines. That's what I don't get. The Hurricane isn't new. Did they not intend this engine to have multiple decks for more than one displacement/size?. They didn't even do that with the Mod family, or the Windsor that it replaced. GM doesn't do that with the Vortec. Develop two completely different families of V8s? For a car company who has a rep for making product decisions based mostly on cost (not that it is a bad idea entirely or that they aren't the only one with bean counters who carry a lot of company clout). But still. Two engine fams entirely?

 

I just don't where it makes any sense, unless the Boss was sooooo behind that there wasn't even any plans for a smaller version of the same engine that would fit passenger cars. And even then, if there wasn't a plan to build a smaller Boss, then why not build the Stand to accommodate the Boss at some point? The Boss was around long before this current body style car (at least I thought). I dunno. Makes no sense to me, but I don't work for a car company so I guess maybe its not suppose to.

[Deanh]

I've never been a fan of pumping dead pistons.

a BIG +1.....

[Deanh]

Although the Navigator heads were inferior to the Terminator heads in every way. The Navigator heads had larger intake ports (184cc vs 177cc), but the larger port actually hurts intake charge velocity and thus torque; the U231s outflow the Navigator heads significantly at every lift measurable. Just another example of how the the Navigator was far from an optimized package. Ford came a long way with their 4V tech between the 1999 and 2003 MYs. Notice Ford of Australia chose to use the 177cc U231s on their 5.4L Boss 290-315 for the improved torque characteristics needed to move the 4000 lb. Falcons.

 

 

 

Toyota and Nissan were somehow able to make the business case for DOHC 4V engines in their trucks, why can't Ford? The Navigators did make pretensions of work capability (towing).

 

And I think you are right, base models/work trucks will come standard with either a 4.6 2V or a 3.7 Cyclone (which is 4V), although I'm sure a 5.0 4V will be available at additional cost.

 

 

 

I say we'll see the same basic engine in the F150, only de-tuned for superior torque characteristics and optimized for 87 octane (lower compression, possibly lower duration cams, and either a variable runner or long runner/variable plenum intake manifold). I wouldn't even be too surprised if the F150 5.0 shows up with the aluminum block.

and its a SMALL 5 of their sales...all about $ I think...it may happen, but what scares me is an F-150 can hit $50k PLUS NOW......

[RichardJensen]

You do NOT need 2 engine fams.

Right.

 

You're going to make a 5.0L engine the only gas engine available in the Super Duty.

 

You're going to replace the 4.6L, 5.4L and 6.8L engines with the 5.0L.

 

----

 

Fact is, if Ford could get a replacement for the 6.8L out of the 5.0L block, they'd do that.

 

But they can't and therefore won't.

 

You have no idea what sort of stresses truck use puts on the bottom end of an engine. It is, therefore, folly to assume that an engine that produces 390lb ft in Mustang tune will be capable of the same in F150 guise--or to assume that one could increase the stroke & deck height of the Coyote and deliver >400lb ft of torque without compromising the bottom end.

[morgande]

Although the Navigator heads were inferior to the Terminator heads in every way. The Navigator heads had larger intake ports (184cc vs 177cc), but the larger port actually hurts intake charge velocity and thus torque; the U231s outflow the Navigator heads significantly at every lift measurable. Just another example of how the the Navigator was far from an optimized package. Ford came a long way with their 4V tech between the 1999 and 2003 MYs. Notice Ford of Australia chose to use the 177cc U231s on their 5.4L Boss 290-315 for the improved torque characteristics needed to move the 4000 lb. Falcons.

 

 

I disagree. I've read more than one publication on the Mod motor, and my understanding is those navigator heads flow VERY VERY well. Well enough for them to be hot commodities in the Mod performance community. they flow better than the Terminators, and cost less than a set of ported 4v heads. Sullivan Performance markets an intake manifold especially made for these heads: http://www.sullivanperformance.com/YVS450/...d/intake5.4.htm

 

When people talk heads, they mostly talk CFM. Flow. I've never heard the argument that the Navigator heads have no torque. Never. And I sometimes frequent a lot of Mod performance boards, and I've never heard people claim "Don't get the Navi heads they don't have any torque". If anything, the biggest complaint was there was no intake manifold that would fit a car with the Stang. The Sullivan performance mainfold is new, and up to a few years ago, everyone turned to the 'normal' 4v heads because the intake didn't fit the 5.4L. So it was a mismatch, and the only way to use the normal 4V heads on the 5.4L was a custom made intake manifold. So people just stuck with the standard deck height Mod (4.6) and ran normal 4v heads or ported them.

[RichardJensen]

and its a SMALL 5 of their sales...all about $ I think...it may happen, but what scares me is an F-150 can hit $50k PLUS NOW......

4V Coyote is going into the F150. Ford is not going to design two sets of heads, SOHC & DOHC for a single V8. If you want to talk about $$, talk about the cost of engineering a separate set of heads strictly for the F150.

 

Or, if you'd so have it, the cost of engineering a separate set of heads for the Mustang.

[theoldwizard]

The Hurricane isn't new. Did they not intend this engine to have multiple decks for more than one displacement/size?. They didn't even do that with the Mod family...

True.

 

They found that the smaller version was not very efficient and the larger version was not necessary.

 

For a car company who has a rep for making product decisions based mostly on cost (not that it is a bad idea entirely or that they aren't the only one with bean counters who carry a lot of company clout). But still. Two engine fams entirely?

The 5.0L was a bit of a rush job, (especially compared to the Hurricane/Big Bore/Boss which came back from the dead twice), because the smaller BOSS was not working out. It is going into production in less than 3 years from start to finish. In order to keep costs down and to minimize time to production, the 5.0L uses much of the machining line that the Modular engine uses.

 

I'm still trying to get over why they did not go DAMB on the 5.0L. Eliminating the lifter and the rocker had to save money. The engine might have been taller, but not as wide. Unless this was another compromise to re-use existing tooling.

Edited December 30, 2009 by theoldwizard

[morgande]

Right.

 

You're going to make a 5.0L engine the only gas engine available in the Super Duty.

 

You're going to replace the 4.6L, 5.4L and 6.8L engines with the 5.0L.

 

Aren't all 3 of those the same family of engines. The "Modular" engine family? Same engine fam, 3 different engines.

[morgande]

True.

 

They found that the smaller version was not very efficient and the larger version was not necessary.

 

Does that make much sense to have so limited of usage engine design compared with the family of engines its replacing? Might as well keep the Mods and figure out how to use them.

 

The 5.0L was a bit of a rush job, (especially compared to the Hurricane/Big Bore/Boss which came back from the dead twice), because the smaller BOSS was not working out. It is going into production in less than 3 years from start to finish. In order to keep costs down and to minimize time to production, the 5.0L uses much of the machining line that the Modular engine uses.

 

This i read about earlier. All I can say is, Kudos to Ford. They do their best work under pressure. LOL

[Blue II]

I don't see the need for two engine families. Makes no sense what-so-ever. A short block does not determine torque curve. The intake manifold in conjunction with the cam profiles (and thereby the valve-train in the heads) determine WHERE the power is made.

 

For how cheap Ford is, it makes NO SENSE what so ever to have two completely different engine fams. $ of DOHC 4v heads and be controlled EASILY with econ of scale. Simple stuff here. Engineer a TRUCK intake manifold for the 4v heads, and develop a set of cams for low-end torque. You can keep the same heads, or you can modify the design for larger ports if needed.

 

This is the way the old DOHC 4v 5.4L engine worked on the Navigator and Blackwood. The intake manifold was very unique, and they milled a set of 4v heads that were different than the 4v used on the Terminator. They had much larger ports. Result, BOTTOM END TORQUE out a DOHC engine. Even better curve than the 3v that everyone says was sooooo much better because it cost less. Bottom line, cost can be controlled by econ of scale. Take the same short block, use the same heads (or close to same heads), and engineer a truck intake and this 5.0 will produce plenty of grunt for a Truck.

 

You do NOT need 2 engine fams. Especially given what is shown possible with this 5.0. I can't help but think that Ford really let dev slip on the Hurricane/Boss program, such that they felt the need look elsewhere on this 5.0 The #s speak for themselves.

 

You do and they will..... period. You cannot grow a Coyote to 7 liters.

[White99GT]

I disagree. I've read more than one publication on the Mod motor, and my understanding is those navigator heads flow VERY VERY well. Well enough for them to be hot commodities in the Mod performance community. they flow better than the Terminators, and cost less than a set of ported 4v heads. Sullivan Performance markets an intake manifold especially made for these heads: http://www.sullivanperformance.com/YVS450/...d/intake5.4.htm

 

There's nothing to disagree about, I have flow charts for both heads sitting right in front of me and there is no comparison whatsoever. Navigators were hot commodities before Ford came out with the U231s and especially the FGT/GT500 heads (Rs were unobtainium at the time). Nowadays, Navigator heads are considered obselete and little more valuable than paper weights.

 

When people talk heads, they mostly talk CFM. Flow. I've never heard the argument that the Navigator heads have no torque. Never. And I sometimes frequent a lot of Mod performance boards, and I've never heard people claim "Don't get the Navi heads they don't have any torque".

 

Navigators have less flow combined with larger volume, this results in a lazier port; the U231s have superior torque characteristics. I'm not talking out of my rear here, these are facts.

[Deanh]

4V Coyote is going into the F150. Ford is not going to design two sets of heads, SOHC & DOHC for a single V8. If you want to talk about $$, talk about the cost of engineering a separate set of heads strictly for the F150.

 

Or, if you'd so have it, the cost of engineering a separate set of heads for the Mustang.

if so, then that means LIMITED applications...which is basically what i have been saying.....

Edited December 30, 2009 by Deanh

[White99GT]

if so, then that means LIMITED applications...which is basically what i have been saying.....

 

I doubt it, the Coyote should be filling the shoes of the 4.6 and 5.4 3V. There should be a base engine below it, and a 6.2 above it (that will be in limited quantities).

[morgande]

4V Coyote is going into the F150. Ford is not going to design two sets of heads, SOHC & DOHC for a single V8. If you want to talk about $$, talk about the cost of engineering a separate set of heads strictly for the F150.

 

Or, if you'd so have it, the cost of engineering a separate set of heads for the Mustang.

 

I would imagine that a 4V was going into too. Though historically, Ford has made a habit of engineering multiple engines for multiple vehicles that were the same, only different. IE 4.6 Romeo or 4.6 Windsor, or 5.4 Romeo. And then talk about heads for those engines, and what matches what. Then DOHC for the 5.4, DOHC for the 4.6 (Romeo). Alum vs Iron. Then Cobra R family of heads that were different still. LOL