New Ford engine discussion thread.

[theoldwizard]

I'm just slightly bitter that Ford actually developed a V10 and then couldn't be bothered to do a performance version. I guess lugging around big trucks is better than no V10 at all, but only Ford would design an engine with such potential and then abandon it to trucks only.

Other than the old Crown Vic, what else could they have put a V10 into ?

 

What I want to know is why the E-Series only had the 2V version until recently.

[Sevensecondsuv]

My understanding is the 3 valve doesn't fit in the e series. The 2v V10 has been the only engine available in the E for the last few years. However the 6.2 is now available this year, but hasn't replaced the V10, instead making the V10 an optional engine. I haven't seen the power numbers but I imagine they had to derate the 6.2 to get it to slot in below the 2v V10's longtime rating of 310 hp.

 

As for what they could have used the V10 in, the crown vic would have been a great start. Supposedly Ford was evaluating a v12 built off the 4.6L modular architecture for the crown vic. This made no sense since they already had the V10. It would have fit on the mustang too. A performance F150 package would have been another potential application.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[Fgts]

Other than the old Crown Vic, what else could they have put a V10 into ?

 

What I want to know is why the E-Series only had the 2V version until recently.

Town Car (look under the hood of the final gen TC to know what I mean) what a missed opportunity (also Navigatior to come to think of it).

 

How come Ford never offered an upgrade 6.8 in TC and 5.4 in Grand Marques from the base 4.6 in those cars?.

[White99GT]

4V, DOHC IS very expensive. 3V is a reasonable compromise.

It must be a worthwhile expense, considering the entire industry seems to have gone (or are going) that way.

[silvrsvt]

How come Ford never offered an upgrade 6.8 in TC and 5.4 in Grand Marques from the base 4.6 in those cars?.

 

Both those cars where just motoring along with no major changes from 2004 till 2011. The market was dying around them (Greatest Generation was going into nursing homes etc then) and made no sense to invest in them.

[jpd80]

Town Car (look under the hood of the final gen TC to know what I mean) what a missed opportunity (also Navigatior to come to think of it).

 

How come Ford never offered an upgrade 6.8 in TC and 5.4 in Grand Marques from the base 4.6 in those cars?.

CAFE plus as others have said there was probably little call to do so when most were either Livery or fleet sales.

Most of Ford's RWD passenger vehicles have now ended save for Expedition and even there, Ecoboost is the only engine.

Edited September 5, 2017 by jpd80

[jpd80]

My understanding is the 3 valve doesn't fit in the e series. The 2v V10 has been the only engine available in the E for the last few years. However the 6.2 is now available this year, but hasn't replaced the V10, instead making the V10 an optional engine. I haven't seen the power numbers but I imagine they had to derate the 6.2 to get it to slot in below the 2v V10's longtime rating of 310 hp.

 

As for what they could have used the V10 in, the crown vic would have been a great start. Supposedly Ford was evaluating a v12 built off the 4.6L modular architecture for the crown vic. This made no sense since they already had the V10. It would have fit on the mustang too. A performance F150 package would have been another potential application.

6.8L V10 - 305 horsepower and 420 lb.-ft.

6.2L V8 - 331 horsepower and 356 lb.-ft.

 

It may have been the case that changing to the 3V was not needed and that they just avoided the cost of doing so.

 

With the advent of Ecoboost and the rise of FWD/AWD transmissions, there was just on need for V8s and V10s

in anything other than slow revving workhorses like trucks and vans.

 

 

Edit,

I also found this in regards 6.7 development:

 

http://www.trucktrend.com/cool-trucks/0910dp-ford-6-7l-powerstroke-diesel-engine/

 

Ford's First Diesel

Ford has been working on single-cylinder diesel engines in its labs since 2001 and has built diesel engines in Europe for years.

Ford partnered with the Austrian engineering firm AVL to conceptualize the 6.7L Power Stroke's design back in 2006. The first

prototype engines were running by 2007. While most engine programs take 36 to 48 months, the new Power Stoke was said

to be completed in 24 months.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by jpd80

[RPF]

Town Car (look under the hood of the final gen TC to know what I mean) what a missed opportunity (also Navigatior to come to think of it).

 

How come Ford never offered an upgrade 6.8 in TC and 5.4 in Grand Marques from the base 4.6 in those cars?.

 

 

The tall deck mods reportedly could not fit when installed from below (like they would be at an assembly plant).

[7Mary3]

This turned into a discussion about a soon-to-be-discontinued engine family!

 

I am partly to blame, stating that the outgoing engine family was not my favorite.

 

Here's to the success of whatever increased displacement Boss derivative Ford come up with.

[wildosvt]

 

 

The tall deck mods reportedly could not fit when installed from below (like they would be at an assembly plant).

 

 

Exactly. The AC under the hood would not allow for for a tall deck during assy.. The 4.6 DOHC barely fit. http://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2001/11/p111911_large-2003_mercury_marauder_sedan-engine.jpg

Edited September 9, 2017 by wildosvt

[jpd80]

 

 

Exactly. The AC under the hood would not allow for for a tall deck during assy.. The 4.6 DOHC barely fit. http://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/21/2001/11/p111911_large-2003_mercury_marauder_sedan-engine.jpg

I know that in the Aussie Falcons the 5.4 Boss had a scant 1/4" clearlace to the suspension towers.

At least the spark plugs are on top of the heads...

Edited September 12, 2017 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

So have you guys had a chance to see this video yet?

 

 

Thoughts?

[Bob Rosadini]

So have you guys had a chance to see this video yet?

 

 

Thoughts?

Impressive-but while a 150/Mustang owner will NOT beat the piss out of their vehicle, how do you relate this to a stock motor?

[Stray Kat]

I don't Bob, it's just a good illustration of how amazing these new engines are.

[Bob Rosadini]

I don't Bob, it's just a good illustration of how amazing these new engines are.

No argument there-it would be interesting to see however just what the upgraded components were. And I'm sure-regardless of just what the upgraded content is, in any case it is a tribute to its design-the best components will fail I would imagine if the basic structure is wrong.

[jpd80]

Perhaps that's the point, the basic block, heads and internals are more than adequate for regular duty in F150 and Mustang.

Good design and technology allows increases in efficiency that were once a dream, 400 lb ft from a 5.0 truck is impressive.

[blksn8k2]

I may have missed it but did they say what displacement this engine was...5.0 or 5.2? If it is the 5.2 then I assume it would have the PTWA cylinder bores and if they used a 2018 block then even the 5.0 should have them as well as opposed to sleeves. The Ford Performance website only states that the 5.2L Aluminator uses the GT350 block which is a spray bore block on the production cars.

 

That would be another testament to the strength and durability of the PTWA process.

[blksn8k2]

BTW, 400 lb-ft from a 2.7L truck engine is pretty damned impressive too, especially at a lower RPM than the 5.0L V8.

[akirby]

BTW, 400 lb-ft from a 2.7L truck engine is pretty damned impressive too, especially at a lower RPM than the 5.0L V8.

 

The low end torque from these ecoboost engines is simply amazing. My little 2.0LEB Fusion can chirp the tires from a standstill - it's faster off the line than most 300 HP sedans.

 

The downside is it runs out of steam around 5000 rpm.

[jpd80]

I guess that's the big pay off and compromise - you get more torque if you burn more fuel.

Edited September 19, 2017 by jpd80

[akirby]

I guess that's the big pay off and compromise - you get more torque if you burn more fuel.

 

 

You get more torque if you move more air through the engine. The more air you bring in (or more specifically, oxygen), the more fuel you need. Air is always the limiting factor, not fuel.

[351cid]

 

The low end torque from these ecoboost engines is simply amazing. My little 2.0LEB Fusion can chirp the tires from a standstill - it's faster off the line than most 300 HP sedans.

 

The downside is it runs out of steam around 5000 rpm.

Small turbo. It's putting out as much boost as it's capable of doing. This is the trade off of not having lag to deal with.

 

Keep in mind that the old 5.0L in the Fox body was done by 5K as well until you added exhaust, cam, and bigger injectors.

[White99GT]

Impressive-but while a 150/Mustang owner will NOT beat the piss out of their vehicle, how do you relate this to a stock motor?

It's essentially a stock engine with a stronger set of rods/pistons and billet oil pump gears.

 

They are surprisingly stock.

 

The Aluminators are very budget oriented from a hard part perspective.

[Sevensecondsuv]

So it's obvious that DOHC and ti-vct can allow a smaller displacement engine to make more power. That's cool. Ford's 5.0 coyote can go toe-to-toe with GM's 6.2 LS. Basically it takes roughly 25% more displacement to get the same numbers given an ohv valvetrain. This would be awesome if Ford was building a 6.2L coyote, but they're not; they're building a 5.0 coyote. So in the end, you get the same power whether you buy the GM or Ford. Two different ways to skin a cat basically.

 

With that said, exactly what benefit is Ford realizing from the smaller displacement, more complex engine? Empirical evidence says either engine will return approximately the same fuel economy in a given application. What about emissions? Is the coyote significantly better to the point of being worth the extra cost/unit? As for external dimensions, the GM offering is significantly smaller.

 

Don't get me wrong, the coyote is an awesome engine. It'd just be a whole lot more awesome if it wasn't displacement-hobbled. Instead of blowing the competition away with the dohc setup, Ford merely uses it to compensate for the displacement disadvantage. It seems that all this accomplishes is making Ford's production cost per vehicle higher....?

Edited September 20, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

 

 

You get more torque if you move more air through the engine. The more air you bring in (or more specifically, oxygen), the more fuel you need. Air is always the limiting factor, not fuel.

Sure, my point was that the extra power comes from being able to burn more fuel to produce the power,

the extra breathing and air to mix with it is essential.