6.8L V-10 Dropped For 2014???

[BB390fe]

The Super Duty V-8's were their own deal. Somewhat similar to the MEL V-8's (430, 462) but much larger and no parts interchangeability.

Ah... you are referring to the 'FT' series of engines - 361, 391.... pretty hefty internals dimensionally related to the FE series (picture a super buff FE). They came with forged cranks, - to fit one to a 390 you had to have the balancer shaft milled down (cant remember the specs... sorry getting old.)

[SoonerLS]

IIRC, the 429-460 family is a later design, and considered to be stronger, with wider bore spacing.

Yep, the 429/460s were in the 385 engine family; basically, they combined the best features of the 335 (Cleveland) and 90-Degree (Windsor) small blocks into a big block. I loves me some FEs, but those were seriously heavy mills; the 385s would be a better bet for reintroduction, methinks, particularly since the last 460s were EFI, giving Ford a better starting point.

[Edstock]

Ah... you are referring to the 'FT' series of engines - 361, 391.... pretty hefty internals dimensionally related to the FE series (picture a super buff FE). They came with forged cranks, - to fit one to a 390 you had to have the balancer shaft milled down (cant remember the specs... sorry getting old.)

 

Um, I believe he was referring to the 401-477-534 CID family, but I could be mistaken.

[30 OTT 6]

Yep, the 429/460s were in the 385 engine family; basically, they combined the best features of the 335 (Cleveland) and 90-Degree (Windsor) small blocks into a big block. I loves me some FEs, but those were seriously heavy mills; the 385s would be a better bet for reintroduction, methinks, particularly since the last 460s were EFI, giving Ford a better starting point.

 

The FE's are heavier because of the "Y" block, deep skirt design. The Mod motors and the Boss have the same block design, bullitproof. I doubt Ford would go back to putting tin around the main bearings.

[7Mary3]

Ah... you are referring to the 'FT' series of engines - 361, 391.... pretty hefty internals dimensionally related to the FE series (picture a super buff FE). They came with forged cranks, - to fit one to a 390 you had to have the balancer shaft milled down (cant remember the specs... sorry getting old.)

 

Ah, no. The FT's were indeed 'truck' versions of the venerable FE's, Longer cranks, different heads and intake manifolds, roller timing chains and better bearings. They came in 330, 361, 389, and 391 displacements. The Super Duty's were the very large heavy truck only gas engines that came out in 1958. The SD's came in 401, 477, and 534 displacements, and were completely different than any other Ford V-8, though they did use the same 'plank head' design that the MEL's used. Rule of thumb at the time was an SD came in 850 and larger series trucks, FT's came in 500 to 800 series trucks.

[lfeg]

Yes, the FTs were introduced to replace the MD and HD Y blocks. (both Ford and Lincoln). There were a few casting differences between them and the FEs. The SDs (401, 477, 534) were built as true HD truck engines. Low RPM, governed, ability to handle much heat.

 

For the light end of class 6, the V10 does a good job. I do not see the 6.2 V8 being used for medium service, even if it was enlarged. For the service, overly large valves and more highly stressed components will not do. Gas (including natural gas) engines for medium and up service tend to have very conservative BMEPs. This leads to generous displacements and tends to rule out forced induction (turbos and superchargers). Endurance , durability, and low total cost of operation are the keys. For a future spark ignition engine fueled by CNG or LNG, a displacement range of about 8.5 to 11 liters seems about right. Straight 6 or V8, Ford has some great foundations to build on. For a 6, the concept of the rotating assembly of the 300 six is dead on. With a modern block and head design, an HD I6 is doable. For a V8, the concept of the rotating assembly of the old SD V8s is it. But, with volumes in class 6, 7, and baby 8, I do not see it happening. It makes more sense to buy engines from a dedicated engine maker. The big question that I see is who will the maker(s) be?

[Bob Rosadini]

Yes, the FTs were introduced to replace the MD and HD Y blocks. (both Ford and Lincoln). There were a few casting differences between them and the FEs. The SDs (401, 477, 534) were built as true HD truck engines. Low RPM, governed, ability to handle much heat.

 

For the light end of class 6, the V10 does a good job. I do not see the 6.2 V8 being used for medium service, even if it was enlarged. For the service, overly large valves and more highly stressed components will not do. Gas (including natural gas) engines for medium and up service tend to have very conservative BMEPs. This leads to generous displacements and tends to rule out forced induction (turbos and superchargers). Endurance , durability, and low total cost of operation are the keys. For a future spark ignition engine fueled by CNG or LNG, a displacement range of about 8.5 to 11 liters seems about right. Straight 6 or V8, Ford has some great foundations to build on. For a 6, the concept of the rotating assembly of the 300 six is dead on. With a modern block and head design, an HD I6 is doable. For a V8, the concept of the rotating assembly of the old SD V8s is it. But, with volumes in class 6, 7, and baby 8, I do not see it happening. It makes more sense to buy engines from a dedicated engine maker. The big question that I see is who will the maker(s) be?

Interesting-if the Super Duty COULD be resurrected, I would not worry about the volume. Assuming natural gas continues to have the price edge, there would be many conversions from diesel-both in truck use as well as industrial engine use. As for your comment on the 300 six, was it not a modern block- a thin wall casting? No doubt about its durability. ANY IDEA ON HOW MANY CUBIC INCHES YOU COULD GET OUT OF IT?

[lfeg]

Interesting-if the Super Duty COULD be resurrected, I would not worry about the volume. Assuming natural gas continues to have the price edge, there would be many conversions from diesel-both in truck use as well as industrial engine use. As for your comment on the 300 six, was it not a modern block- a thin wall casting? No doubt about its durability. ANY IDEA ON HOW MANY CUBIC INCHES YOU COULD GET OUT OF IT?

I doubt that the 300 block (4.9 liter) would be able to go much larger. But the design of the rotating assembly (crank, rods, basic piston design, bearings, cam drive, and cam) could be scaled up for a new block that would be suitable for 8.5 to 10 liter displacement. The medium truck version of the 300 may not have been a fireball on acceleration, but it would move the load reliably day after day. An updated design for a NG engine based on the 300 could provide good power and operating economy. Design costs would be reasonable, but setting up machining and assembly lines, and tooling it all up would be a significant expense for a limited market.

[theoldwizard]

... the concept of the rotating assembly of the 300 six is dead on.

Just before the 4.9L died, there was a skunk works project that did a cross flow, aluminum head. I don't recall if it was ONC or still push rod. It may have made a couple of dyno runs, but that was as far as it got.

[lfeg]

Just before the 4.9L died, there was a skunk works project that did a cross flow, aluminum head. I don't recall if it was ONC or still push rod. It may have made a couple of dyno runs, but that was as far as it got.

Years back there was a drag racing team that ran the 300. They made a custom head by furnace brazing sections of heads from a 351C and machining to fit the 300. It was as close as they could get to crossflow. That thing put out gobs of Hp for its size back then.

 

Just resurecting an old engine design will not make the grade today. But using well proven, effective concepts combined with new tech does work.

[twintornados]

Didn't Australia have a cross flow head on their I6? I vaguely remember back in the 70's a local open wheel modified racer was kicking ass on the local tracks and the track officials could not understand how he was getting so much power from his I6....until they finally noticed "that trick Aussie cross flow head" he was running....

 

ADD ON: Never mind...the cross flow head was on their "small block" inline six...not the "big block" 300 c.i. motor...

Edited May 24, 2013 by twintornados