Jump to content

New Ford engine discussion thread.


Recommended Posts

Granted, the supercharged version of the 3.8L was a little different animal but I had a 1989 Thunderbird SC that I bought new and kept until 2012. The car had around 86k miles on it by then and the engine never gave me an ounce of trouble. Believe me, it was not babied either.

I had an '89 SC, too, and put about 50K miles on it in two years--and mine certainly wasn't babied. Not counting the tank of bad gas or the time road trash holed the fuel line, the only mechanical problem I had with it was when the shifter retaining collar screws got loose and made it hard to shift--but tightening them fixed that.

 

Changing the spark plugs was a royal PITA, though. It took all dang day to do one side, and the factory plugs (which had ~75K on them at the time) still looked so good that I only changed them (and the other side's) because it had been such a PITA to get them out that I wasn't about to put them back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an '89 SC, too, and put about 50K miles on it in two years--and mine certainly wasn't babied. Not counting the tank of bad gas or the time road trash holed the fuel line, the only mechanical problem I had with it was when the shifter retaining collar screws got loose and made it hard to shift--but tightening them fixed that.

 

Changing the spark plugs was a royal PITA, though. It took all dang day to do one side, and the factory plugs (which had ~75K on them at the time) still looked so good that I only changed them (and the other side's) because it had been such a PITA to get them out that I wasn't about to put them back...

I had a 93 LX with a 5.0L. Changing those plugs was always a joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Made a bad engine even worse !

 

The Essex block was never intended to have an aluminum head. Consequently, there was insufficient clamping force to prevent the aluminum head from "walking" and ultimately causing head gasket leaks.

 

Put the AX4S or AX4N behind one of those engines and there were likely hundreds of customers with BOTH a blown engine AND a dead transmission !

(Regarding the blown engine statement. I had a friend who did MANY head gasket jobs on 3.8L/4.2L engine back then. He claimed that about 50% of them lost the main of rid bearing within 2 years, likely because they ran long enough on oil diluted with coolant.)

The second gen 3.5L EcoBoost block likely can not be enlargened. Remember, it is the basis for the 3.3L.

 

I wonder how long Ford will keep the old 3.5L/3.7L around. It has that pesky problem of leaking coolant onto the crankcase when the water pump starts to fail.

Please tell me how the Essex block was never intended to have aluminum heads. I don't think I've ever seen one with cast iron heads. How could planning be that far off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading how much drama Ford NA had with V6 engines, it's no wonder Australia kept developing the 4.0 I-6

The only thing against it was the length of the engine. I often wondered how the turbo six would have performed in F150

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious Ford needs something to replace the 6.8L. The other option is keep making the 6.8 but it's slowly getting less competitive and doesn't help Ford consolidate powertrain lines.

 

I just hope it's not a "we made the best thing we could while staying within the confines of the 6.2L block and production line" excuse for a new medium duty truck engine. 7.0L is a little light on displacement for a medium duty. It would, however, make an excellent gas 250/350 pickup truck engine and would also be most welcome in niche products such as a special edition Mustang and Navigator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, the supercharged version of the 3.8L was a little different animal but I had a 1989 Thunderbird SC that I bought new and kept until 2012. The car had around 86k miles on it by then and the engine never gave me an ounce of trouble. Believe me, it was not babied either.

I was working in Engine Engineering in those days, but not on that project. They had to keep the boost turned WAY DOWN to prevent blown head gaskets.

 

Somewhere around that time frame, one of the lesser know stock car racing organization was allowing V6 engines with a big weight advantage. Of course these weren't "stock" engines ! Ford brought back an old timer engine guy and told him to turn the 3.8L into a racing engine. The most notable thing he did was add an additional head bolt. They built 1 or 2 and ran them on the dyno. I don't know if one ever made it into a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen 7.xL and 7.3L thrown around in discussion of the new V8 as well. I don't think we know what the displacement will be for sure, and it's possible it could get a couple different displacements. A slightly smaller, higher-revving version for a GT500 and a larger, lower-spinning version for the trucks maybe? Personally, I don't think we'll see it in a Mustang though. It's just too heavy, and is it worth building an Al version for the car while everything else will be iron block for the trucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...