New Ford 7.0 L....?

[7Mary3]

Obviously not a turbo - but a supercharged 7.0L? Considering a supercharged 5.0 can easily hit 700 hp I can't imagine what this would be.....

 

I was thinking the 'N/A' in the title denoted a naturally aspirated 7.0L. Sounds a lot like an answer to the 7.0L Camaro Z/28.

 

If it is going to be a pushrod OHV engine, I see another advantage: Mods. and the Boss engines already have somewhat ridiculous external dimensions (larger than the old Lima's in many instances), a pushrod V-8 has the potential to be much smaller. More of a factor with tall deck heights as well.

Edited April 10, 2017 by 7Mary3

[White99GT]

 

I was thinking the 'N/A' in the title denoted a naturally aspirated 7.0L. Sounds a lot like an answer to the 7.0L Camaro Z/28.

 

If it is going to be a pushrod OHV engine, I see another advantage: Mods. and the Boss engines already have somewhat ridiculous external dimensions (larger than the old Lima's in many instances), a pushrod V-8 has the potential to be much smaller. More of a factor with tall deck heights as well.

External dimensions would be the ONLY advantage with going backwards with pushrod architecture.

 

A 6.2 4V would demolish a 7.0 "cam-in-block" engine. Mercedes has a 6.2 4V engine that barely spins more RPM than an LS7...Except it makes an extra 120 HP.

 

We've pretty much already seen this comparison with the GT350R and the LS7 Z28, I really hope Ford isn't so stupid as to have forgotten their own lessons.

[RichardJensen]

External dimensions would be the ONLY advantage with going backwards with pushrod architecture.

 

I doubt Ford even has the institutional knowledge left to clean-sheet a warranteed/heavy duty pushrod engine.

[jpd80]

Just looking at the torque curves for the 6.8 and 6.2.

Up to about 3,000 rpm the 6.8 has around 100 lb ft more torque than the 6.2,

I think that's where the the 6.2 failed to meet the Medium Duty Durability test.

 

It's highly likely that the new 7.0 V8 with proper heard porting and VCT would

improve on the 6.8's low end torque and work even better in F650 but I'm

hoping that Ford is also looking at Super Duty as well for this new engine.

So much potential to lift sales across the board.

 

and if Ford ever does something about the overly large (sewer pipe) intake ports

on the 6.2 heads, it might in fact find a ton of lost torque......

Edited April 11, 2017 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

If it is going to be a pushrod OHV engine, ...

They had that debate once and choose OHC. Hopefully the "new kids on the block" won't wast time debating it again.

 

The real question is, how many valves ?

[theoldwizard]

Just looking at the torque curves for the 6.8 and 6.2.

Up to about 3,000 rpm the 6.8 has around 100 lb ft more torque than the 6.2,

I think that's where the the 6.2 failed to meet the Medium Duty Durability test.

I posted a note elsewhere, that they now offer the 6.2L in the E350/450 cutaway chassis.

It requires a higher axle ratio than the 6.8L clearly to make up for the lack of low end torque. I wonder what the fuel economy difference is.

 

It's highly likely that the new 7.0 V8 with proper heard porting and VCT would

improve on the 6.8's low end torque and work even better in F650 but I'm

hoping that Ford is also looking at Super Duty as well for this new engine.

So much potential to lift sales across the board.

 

and if Ford ever does something about the overly large (sewer pipe) intake ports

on the 6.2 heads, it might in fact find a ton of lost torque......

Amen on the "sewer pipe" comment. The rumor was, back when the 6.2L was being designed, the "bean counters" would not allow the additional cost of 3V or 4V so they made the valves as big as possible. Of course that meant placing the spark plug in a sub-optimal location and then adding a second plug.

 

If there IS going to be a 7.0L, I would hope it starts life as a 3 valve. Then we can dream about a 4V DOHC !!

[30 OTT 6]

I'm not surprised to see a supercharged Coyote over a turbocharged unit. Packaging that setup is so much simpler.

 

I am surprised about the pushrod valve train because OHC has been Ford's "thing". If this mystery engine is a new design FoMoCo sure pissed away a lot of money on the 'Boss'.

 

I've got nothing against pushrod motors. The LS and LT1, and Hemi are great engines. If the new Ford V8 does go with a pushrod valvetrain hopefully the heads have Cleveland style canted valves and combustion chamber, not a wedge.

[7Mary3]

External dimensions would be the ONLY advantage with going backwards with pushrod architecture.

 

A 6.2 4V would demolish a 7.0 "cam-in-block" engine. Mercedes has a 6.2 4V engine that barely spins more RPM than an LS7...Except it makes an extra 120 HP.

 

We've pretty much already seen this comparison with the GT350R and the LS7 Z28, I really hope Ford isn't so stupid as to have forgotten their own lessons.

 

A comparison of muscle car engines in this case is somewhat of an 'apples to oranges' comparison. In the case of a gasoline truck engine, cost is a big factor, along with durability and ease of service. Since low end torque is generally preferable to high end horsepower, the advantage of OHC design is somewhat negated, and 4 valve heads are nearly completely unnecessary. Not saying a 4 valve OHC design couldn't be made to work in a medium duty truck application, just that it's advantages would not provide a good cost benefit to the user.

Edited April 11, 2017 by 7Mary3

[jpd80]

Without some form of cylinder deactivation, I suspect that any large capacity V8s are going to be

extremely limited supply in cars and SUVs thanks to their deleterious effect on CAFE fleet calculations.

 

A Super Duty or Medium Duty application of the 7.0 is entirely justified as a valid way of increasing

the gasoline sales side of the business, something that's been allowed to recede in the past few

years in favor of charging customers more for an efficient diesel.

 

Another alternative would be offering the Land Rover 4.4V8 diesel in F150 and F250 as a way of improving

fuel economy of vehicles that maybe do a lot more towing up around 12,000 lbs . But then again, it would

probably come with a hefty premium from Ford....

Edited April 11, 2017 by jpd80

[351cid]

 

A comparison of muscle car engines in this case is somewhat of an 'apples to oranges' comparison. In the case of a gasoline truck engine, cost is a big factor, along with durability and ease of service. Since low end torque is generally preferable to high end horsepower, the advantage of OHC design is somewhat negated, and 4 valve heads are nearly completely unnecessary. Not saying a 4 valve OHC design couldn't be made to work in a medium duty truck application, just that it's advantages would not provide a good cost benefit to the user.

Just going to mention that all big diesel engines are multi-valve.

 

3406 CAT has been around forever. Before that was the 1693. It had twin over head cams and 24 valves...tons of torque for its day.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

A comparison of muscle car engines in this case is somewhat of an 'apples to oranges' comparison. In the case of a gasoline truck engine, cost is a big factor, along with durability and ease of service. Since low end torque is generally preferable to high end horsepower, the advantage of OHC design is somewhat negated, and 4 valve heads are nearly completely unnecessary. Not saying a 4 valve OHC design couldn't be made to work in a medium duty truck application, just that it's advantages would not provide a good cost benefit to the user.

No argument about your point, I guess the real issue is, what are the respective economics of associated with each option. Not even thinking of the 534 but does any production capability exist to resurrect the 460? As many have suggested in the past, what would this block do with updated fuel system/computer control??

 

Assuming that capability does not exist, as others have pointed out, the decision was made a long time ago that the future was in OHC technology. I just hope whatever the final product is, it can be suitable for high end class 7 and even 8-be it gasoline, LNG,CNG, propane.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The big advantage to ohc vs ohv is that with DOHC you can run separate cams on intake and exhaust with independently varied timing between intake/exhaust. A SOHC design doesn't really offer much of a benefit over an equivalent OHV design.

 

It can also be claimed that OHC theoretically allows a better port shape/angle/profile, but it's obvious to me that this isn't really holding the Hemi and LS engines back.

 

Reduced valvetrain mass is another benefit of ohc, but again, this doesn't seem to be holding the Hemi or LS back. It's also not as important in a truck application with a 5500 rpm redline.

 

I think it boils down to what applications Ford has planned for this new 7.0L. If they foresee any passenger vehicle applications, OHC makes sense as it allows the option of DOHC and all the benefits that come with it. However if it is only for trucks, an OHV pushrod design may make sense since cost, weight/packaging, and ease of serviceability are more important than hp/displacement and a 7000 rpm redline.

 

But then again, there be practicality considerations as Richard alluded to. Ford may simply not have the design expertise for a pushrod motor at this point. There's also the matter of parts and machining/assembly equipment since Ford doesn't currently build any pushrod engines. For these reasons it may actually be cheaper for Ford to just stick with the OHC design.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

The right sized engine porting for intended use is more critcal in heavy duty engine applicatons,

it's like the 6.2 was developed for a completely different application with big inlet ports and then made to work in a truck..

Even a nice 3V head with smaller ports and charge motion valves would have seen the 6.2 with way more low end torque..

[7Mary3]

Just going to mention that all big diesel engines are multi-valve.

 

3406 CAT has been around forever. Before that was the 1693. It had twin over head cams and 24 valves...tons of torque for its day.

 

Very true, but that's why I said gasoline. Gas vs. diesel is REAL apples to oranges in this regard. The 3406 was 14.6L, even turning at 1500 r.p.m. that's a lot of air flow.

[Fordman4246]

If Ford needed some expertise help on pushrod v/8's , theirs a guy in North Carolina named Doug Yates that could help out.

[ZanatWork]

I saw a rumor regarding the 7.0 being in the next GT-500, but I saw it over someone else's shoulder, and don't remember the source.

I kinda doubt it, but it did make me wonder....

[Bob Rosadini]

Well pushrods vs OHC?? I believe I've thrown this out before but how far are we from complete electronic valve actuation? No more cam shafts period. When I think of the diesel fuel injection cycles that are varying the spray pattern as needed, how far out is an electronically activated valve system??

[jasonj80]

From what's been told to me years ago, and theoldwizard could elaborate more. The 6.2L design was to also include 5.8 and 7.0 in the early design. When Ford saw what was coming in late '06 the program was officially put on hold. Some powertrain engineers still did some work but was more of just rogue engineers tinkering. Come 2009 The Raptor was in planning and it needed more power than the 5.4L could muster and the heavy pickups were going to start to have to post fuel economy stickers in a few years so they needed something with better mileage and that's how the just the 6.2L got out of the penalty box, the other 2 versions were dead. Ecoboost was going to be the company's new direction.

[akirby]

Well pushrods vs OHC?? I believe I've thrown this out before but how far are we from complete electronic valve actuation? No more cam shafts period. When I think of the diesel fuel injection cycles that are varying the spray pattern as needed, how far out is an electronically activated valve system??

About to be in production in China. Did you miss the discussion a few weeks ago?

[Bob Rosadini]

About to be in production in China. Did you miss the discussion a few weeks ago?

Senile--I'll go back

[Bob Rosadini]

About to be in production in China. Did you miss the discussion a few weeks ago?

Not on this thread-went back to beginning-remember where?

[Bob Rosadini]

Not on this thread-went back to beginning-remember where?

Just did a google search

http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/auto/systems/valve-timing.html

[jpd80]

From what's been told to me years ago, and theoldwizard could elaborate more. The 6.2L design was to also include 5.8 and 7.0 in the early design. When Ford saw what was coming in late '06 the program was officially put on hold. Some powertrain engineers still did some work but was more of just rogue engineers tinkering. Come 2009 The Raptor was in planning and it needed more power than the 5.4L could muster and the heavy pickups were going to start to have to post fuel economy stickers in a few years so they needed something with better mileage and that's how the just the 6.2L got out of the penalty box, the other 2 versions were dead. Ecoboost was going to be the company's new direction.

Yes, i remember an insider posting the proposed bore and stroke for the 5.8 and the 777 program (7 liters, 700 hp 7,000 rpm.

was part of Racing research.......

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by jpd80

[akirby]

Not on this thread-went back to beginning-remember where?

 

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/62992-camless-engine-production-ready/

[Fgts]

 

It couldn't be accommodated on an ordinary assembly line, and it would have been more hassle to accommodate at the Shelby specialty shop than the various turbocharged V8s they went with.

 

And, FWIW, they did put a V10 under the hood of a Mustang at least once:

 

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2004/112_0308_ford_mustang_boss_350_v_10/

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-0401-1999-ford-mustang-gt/

It was awful imo the v10 and 5.4 and 3.5-3.7 didn't see any Panther cars either.