Jump to content

Another new V8 ?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, edselford said:

...carburators were cheap to make but caused allot of variability unit to unit. A few years later, ford started to work with electric port fuel injection based on the original Bendix patents!

With electronic fuel injection, flow rates could be matched cylinder to cylinder because every injector was individually flowed and calibrated!

edselford

 

Lets also not forget Ford's variable venturi carburetor efforts as well...

 

image.png.7d585bd93c6fe2dff41faf9c6140f1e8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I don’t know why I forgot to mention the 2700?  Might be my age!

This model utilized two main metering rods, one for each bore opening. The idea was to meter fuel across a constant delta pressure! From what I understand, there was a third metering rod used for cold start enrichment. Years later, I had a 1979 Ford LTD that had a 351W with one of these carburetors,

In subsequent years, It was also modified to compensate for altitude because engines needed a richer mixture at altitude but the fuel systems that were open loop went too rich at altitude!

edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Lets also not forget Ford's variable venturi carburetor efforts as well...

 

image.png.7d585bd93c6fe2dff41faf9c6140f1e8.png

Variable venturi sucked ass in the winter.  Mine would either freeze open, or freeze shut.  Those slides just didn't work well when the engine was cold.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Stray Kat said:

If I was a betting man I’d say the 6.8 is a shorter deck/stroke aluminum block version of the 7.3 Godzilla. I would also not be surprised if the cylinder head intake ports were repositioned to effectively lower the intake manifold in order to get this package under flat hoods in the Mustang. 

 

Thoughts?

 

I think the 7.3L's intake ports and manifold were configured to make room for direct injection, which will pretty much be a requirement to meet upcoming EPA/CARB/GHG regulations shortly.

 

I just had a thought, maybe the 6.8L is going to be a direct injection replacement for the 7.3L in the next generation Super Duty.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting thought! Direct injection versus port injection could pick up from 5 to 8% on hp and torque.

If we adjust for the 6.8 versus 7.3 on torque, we are at 442 lbs-ft. Going to direct injection, we are back to a 475lbs-ft kind of number for a direct injected 6.8 V8!

Again, Superduty would be a stable volume for the Ford Windsor/Essex Engine Plant!

edselford

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, edselford said:

No need to reduce deck height on 6.8!

At 9.65” the rod to stroke ratio would be around 1.68, somewhat better than the 7.3 at around 1.62

edselford

 

True, unless the plan includes using it in vehicles other than full-size trucks where packaging is not as much of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

 

True, unless the plan includes using it in vehicles other than full-size trucks where packaging is not as much of an issue.

 

Given the way the market is going over the next 10 years, the only real candidate for a V8 is the Mustang.

Pretty much everything else is hybrid or Electric motor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Given the way the market is going over the next 10 years, the only real candidate for a V8 is the Mustang.

Pretty much everything else is hybrid or Electric motor.

 

I thought the Mustang was going entirely electric by the end of the decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, edselford said:

This is a very interesting thought! Direct injection versus port injection could pick up from 5 to 8% on hp and torque.

If we adjust for the 6.8 versus 7.3 on torque, we are at 442 lbs-ft. Going to direct injection, we are back to a 475lbs-ft kind of number for a direct injected 6.8 V8!

Again, Superduty would be a stable volume for the Ford Windsor/Essex Engine Plant!

edselford

 

Sure, same power with better fuel economy and emissions.  I just don't see Ford needed another high performance V-8.  Would be nice, but is there a business case for one? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

Where'd you see that?     

 

https://www.racepagesdigital.com/godzilla-rising-your-next-blue-oval-racer-might-be-powered-by-a-7-3-liter-engine-and-the-man-who-championed-it-is-leading-the-charge/

 

Thanks to a race port job from Visner Engine Development, these factory cylinder head castings yielded nearly 400 cfm at .900-inch lift. That rivals some of the flow numbers Wolfe saw from his prior aftermarket race castings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 8:13 AM, Stray Kat said:

The gas and emissions crisis of the early 70’s destroyed the gestation of several legendary Ford V8’s such as the Boss 302,351 and 429.

 

It would be a sad sad thing if this new shift away from ICE killed yet another potentially epic Ford V8. 
 

If I was a betting man I’d say the 6.8 is a shorter deck/stroke aluminum block version of the 7.3 Godzilla. I would also not be surprised if the cylinder head intake ports were repositioned to effectively lower the intake manifold in order to get this package under flat hoods in the Mustang. 
 

It’s even possible that we don’t know about an even smaller version say 330”-345” to be coupled with the “Powerboost” driveline. 
 

That ☝️might be a cool engine line. You might see the 3.5 EB go away leaving EcoBoost to the 2.7/3.0 Nano and down applications. This might seem unlikely but it may surprise you because the 3.5 EB is really all by itself in design. As such it might be cheaper to reduce to the smaller EB line and the pushrod Godzilla family for the bigger jobs with no one off engine in between. 
 

Thoughts?

I wouldn’t be surprised is the 3.5eB goes away after the GT production run ends.  Replaced with either a 4.0L +/- V8 ecoboost or I6.  The 3.3L is also cyclone based, so that would need to go also.  Could Ford use a single inline architecture to cover I3, I4, and I6 replacing most everything in the lineup under 4.0L?  A 100mm bore spacing and they might be able to share with coyote also.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slemke said:

I wouldn’t be surprised is the 3.5eB goes away after the GT production run ends.  Replaced with either a 4.0L +/- V8 ecoboost or I6.  The 3.3L is also cyclone based, so that would need to go also.  Could Ford use a single inline architecture to cover I3, I4, and I6 replacing most everything in the lineup under 4.0L?  A 100mm bore spacing and they might be able to share with coyote also.

Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see inline engines come back but looking at how much investment 

Ford has made in the cyclone V6s, I just don’t see Ford trashing all of that before getting a return 

on things like Powerboost and the 3.3 Hybrid

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

On 4/11/2021 at 3:19 PM, twintornados said:

 

Lets also not forget Ford's variable venturi carburetor efforts as well...

 

image.png.7d585bd93c6fe2dff41faf9c6140f1e8.png

The old 2100/2150 was called "the worlds cheapest carburetor".  The VV (2700/7200) was called "the worlds most expensive carburetor".  They were manufactured in Rawsonville, MI.  Final calibration was done is "climate controlled" room.  Temperature and pressure were held to close tolerances.  When they worked, they worked well.  When they did not work the service manual said "replace; can not the rebuilt".

 

Segue - the 7200 was the electronic version.  It had a stepper motor that controlled the A/F ratio.  I actually wrote some of the software for the EEC-II/III that controlled that carburetor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 8:54 AM, edselford said:

This is a very interesting thought! Direct injection versus port injection could pick up from 5 to 8% on hp and torque.

Direct injection causes "particulate" emission.  Previously there was no standard on gasoline engines, but that may have ended.

 

Ford engines that run both PFI and DI only utilize DI for high load conditions.  The rest of the time, they are running on PFI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

Sure, same power with better fuel economy and emissions.  I just don't see Ford needed another high performance V-8.  Would be nice, but is there a business case for one? 

DI does not reduce emissions !  It actually increase particulate emissions.

 

Way back when Ford started building EcoBoost (turbo DI) engines in the US, they found out the fuel economy gains that Bosch (yes, this is a Bosch "invention") achieved were by running very lean under light cruising modes.  Lean combustion causes an increase in NOx.

 

Effect-of-air-fuel-ratio-on-gasoline-veh

 

Engineers at Ford discovered this after the deal was made with Bosch.  EcoBoost has been a HUGE MARKETING SUCCESS !  Don't kill the golden goose !!

 

Segue - After the success of the original 3.5L V6 in the US Taurus, Ford was ready to sign a deal with Bosch for an upcoming 4 cylinder engine (most of the component were built be Bosch).  Bosch does make good components, but they have never been know to be a low cost supplier.  During development of the 3.5L Bosch had cost Ford a huge amount of engineering money due to late/non-functional software deliveries.  Of course upper management never saw this until it was pointed out by the low level engineering management.  Ultimately, the new engine used components from various supplier and the Gen II 3.5L switched away from many Bosch components.  What really pissed off Bosch was they lost business selling component to FoE !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

https://www.racepagesdigital.com/godzilla-rising-your-next-blue-oval-racer-might-be-powered-by-a-7-3-liter-engine-and-the-man-who-championed-it-is-leading-the-charge/

 

Thanks to a race port job from Visner Engine Development, these factory cylinder head castings yielded nearly 400 cfm at .900-inch lift. That rivals some of the flow numbers Wolfe saw from his prior aftermarket race castings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the article writer taking liberties with flow numbers.

 

“There are kind of, if you will, three variants, maybe even four. What we’re doing is kind of like what would work with the fully stock motor with minimum modifications that would be attractive. Then there’s a ported stock head, which would be something that we take a stock head, knock guides out, CNC-port the intake and the exhaust, hopefully pick up 10- to 15-percent flow, put it back together with stock valves, different springs, a bigger hydraulic-roller camshaft that’d be kind of Stage Two,” Wolfe explained. “Stage Three would be the heads like I’ve got on the race car, but without the shaft-mounted rockers and with a set of stainless valves in them. That would be a further step up, something that flows in the 370-380cfm range. And then these titanium valve, shaft-mounted-rocker, all-out race motors that would be pretty pricey.”

 

The reality is 370-380 cfm for a max effort Godzilla head, and I'd imagine mid 200s on the exhaust side.  

Which isn't bad at all but it's also on a 4.22 inch bore diameter.

 

For comparison's sake let's take the 2005-2014 Ford GT casting (GT/GT500 cylinder head), Ron Robart @ Fox Lake has a port program for that head casting that flows 400/350 (yes, 350 cfm on the exhaust side), no welding, 39/34 mm valves (+2mm) .... @ 28" by .550 lift ...on a 3.552 inch bore plate.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are particulate emissions increased across the board or only on cold starts with DI???

Also, what are the advantages of DI on a gas engine, cooling effect in the cylinders thereby allowing higher compression and more ignition advance????

It seems like allot of added cost if ford uses DI for WOT?

edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theoldwizard1 said:

DI does not reduce emissions !  It actually increase particulate emissions.

 

 

 

Absolutely, but I think it would be more accurate to say that DI increases one particular type of emission, but is an enabling technology that can allow for reductions in other types of emissions.  I think the NOX situation is a bit more complicated.  DI allows for substantial increases in compression ratio, which ostensibly increases NOX, but through accurate fuel delivery afforded by DI NOX is mitigated to a large extent.  The Ecoboost situation was unique when it was introduced as boost increases NOX as does higher compression and lean mixtures, and all three factors are present in Ecoboost engines!  No way you could make an engine like that pass current regulations without DI and some pretty advanced engine management.

 

Nobody at Ford saw that NOX problem coming?  Any Smog Tech in California could have clued you in! 

 

Yes, Ecoboost was a Bosch invention.  Heard Bosch in India did most of the work on it.  Also heard a lot of Ford engineers felt a bit snubbed over the deal.

 

Ecoboost, Twin-I-Beam...........   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ESP08 said:

 

That's the article writer taking liberties with flow numbers.

 

“There are kind of, if you will, three variants, maybe even four. What we’re doing is kind of like what would work with the fully stock motor with minimum modifications that would be attractive. Then there’s a ported stock head, which would be something that we take a stock head, knock guides out, CNC-port the intake and the exhaust, hopefully pick up 10- to 15-percent flow, put it back together with stock valves, different springs, a bigger hydraulic-roller camshaft that’d be kind of Stage Two,” Wolfe explained. “Stage Three would be the heads like I’ve got on the race car, but without the shaft-mounted rockers and with a set of stainless valves in them. That would be a further step up, something that flows in the 370-380cfm range. And then these titanium valve, shaft-mounted-rocker, all-out race motors that would be pretty pricey.”

 

The reality is 370-380 cfm for a max effort Godzilla head, and I'd imagine mid 200s on the exhaust side.  

Which isn't bad at all but it's also on a 4.22 inch bore diameter.

 

For comparison's sake let's take the 2005-2014 Ford GT casting (GT/GT500 cylinder head), Ron Robart @ Fox Lake has a port program for that head casting that flows 400/350 (yes, 350 cfm on the exhaust side), no welding, 39/34 mm valves (+2mm) .... @ 28" by .550 lift ...on a 3.552 inch bore plate.  

 

 

You’re missing the point, those truck castings are just what we see today,

and if the 7.3 castings can go that far, who knows what Ford will have on the 6.8.

 

As I’ve said before, we don’t know whether the 6.8 is pushrod or OHC,

the capacity alone makes it a much bigger air pump than the 5.0,

what Ford puts on top of that makes or breaks the engine.

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, edselford said:

Are particulate emissions increased across the board or only on cold starts with DI???

Across the board.

 

6 hours ago, edselford said:

Also, what are the advantages of DI on a gas engine, cooling effect in the cylinders thereby allowing higher compression and more ignition advance????

It seems like allot of added cost if ford uses DI for WOT?

Most of that is hype.  During the Gen I phase of the EcoBost 3.5L, engineers proved they could achieve 90% of the power and fuel economy of GTDI with GTPFI.

 

Yes, it is a huge cost hit. but it sells vehicles ! 

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...