Piston NV

wait till the sales on the new 05 slow a bit (maybe 2-3 years) then to gain a "new" on the shelf buying crowd the 5.0 WILL return, I also remember 5.0 magazine doing an article awhile back about the new cars gaining the beloved Five-O in the future, and the Motorsport calalog having the "Cammer" doesn't shy away from this notion...wink wink

tangs3

Ford put the 5.0 cammer in the GTR, Ford designed the Cammer after the 4.6, sounds like they wished they stuck with the 5.0 configuration. After all is said and done you will see a 5.0 in a production mustang someday maybe not soon. Like someone else said when sales slow down the Boss will return, what a marketing plan.

CatmanJJ

I think it'd be cool to have a 5.0 Mustang, but realistically the engine would have nothing in common with the old 302 other then the name and the cubic inches.

matic

I'm not suggesting the cammer should go in, or any crate engine. I'm not suggesting any radical changes, or a 4v or a 2v instead of the 3v, I'm simply saying I would not bet against (nor would I bet for, though) seeing a 302ci displacement V8 in a Mustang in the next 6-8 years. Not as the standard, but as part of a special package that would be limited in number and highly unique. There would be no implied admission that dropping the displacement was a bad idea (it's already been proven many times over that it was in fact a great idea to move to the 4.6).

HairyCanary

I'm curious, how do you back up that statement?

Dave

matic

More cost effective, net increase in power over the years, more reliable, more usable across the fleet, etc etc. I guess I shouldn't say proven, I should say "it's a widely held opinion from what I've seen and read." heh.

SullyND

I thought I remember reading that "Cammer" is not street legal currently, no?

HairyCanary

I disagree, but that is just my opinion. I think there were politics at play in the decision to move to modular -- why else Ford made the decisions they did, I don't know. In 1995 there were many better choices available than E7TE truck heads, but I think Ford decided that they needed horsepower to stay low in order to permet the introduction of the 4.6L 2V without a reduction in advertised power. Even on the Cobra, they gave it semi-decent heads, and then put an extremely weak camshaft in it and a very soft tune (much softer than the GT even), probably because they needed to keep it from making more horsepower than the 4.6L 4V that was about to be introduced. I can't find any other good reason for what they did. They certainly didn't save money buy switching to the more complex modular engines.

Oh well. This is not a thread about pushrod engines, and it's a moot point. We have what we have, and we can look across at Chevrolet every time we want to see what Ford *could* have done with pushrod technology...

Back onto topic .

Dave

RedRaider

New all, just throwing some $0.02 in....why not a 351W? lol

jsaylor

I brought this issue up on BON a while back and it still intrigues me. There are several key points to this particular discussion still left unsaid however. So, I will point out a few.

The spray bore method was one avenue intially considered by Ford to increase the bore size in the modular engine family. This was abandoned pretty early on and I only know of one block that ever made it out of Ford like this. (Currently in a race car btw)

All aluminum block modular V-8's utilize sleeved cylinders from the factory, and Ford eventually decided on using a thin wall sleeve to get their "big bore" effectively punching out the block without actually modifying the block itself. While the 5.0L Cammer indeed utilizes a special "racing block", this has nothing to do with the larger sleeves/bore size employed by this motor. Again, the hole these sleeves are pressed into did not change from the 4.6L to the 5.0L sizes which means this can just as easily be done to a production block

You can send off your current aluminum block and have these larger diameter sleeves pressed in, although it will set you back a bit (think 1 to 2 grand) as removing the old sleeves and installing the new sleeves is a fairly complex process. Essentially, Ford could build a 5.0L version of the 4.6L 3-valve in the upcoming Mustang with the only differences being the pistons and the sleeves.

As for power, moving from the 90mm bore (4.6L) to the 94mm bore (5.0L) offers far more than a simple bump in cubes. The valves themselves are also unshrouded in a big way essentially allowing much improved airflow through an otherwise unchanged motor. This is most noticeable on a 4-valve motor, but has serious benefits on any motor. It sould seem logical that the 3-valve heads should benifit nearly as much as the 4-valve heads do given their large valve area.

The new 4.6L 3-valve is rated at 300hp, and would theoretically jump to 325hp with a bump to 5.0L assuming an identical hp/liter ratio. Take into consideration the huge improvements offered by unshrouding those valves and hp/liter would most likely go up significantly. It is of note that the motor should be far more efficient as well, even with a bump in displacement due once again to those unshrouded valves. A 325+hp, 5.0L, 3-valve motor that gets equal fuel economy to the 4.6L 3-valve is a no brainer. The real question is how much more would hp/efficiency improve over that?

The 5.4L V-8 would jump to 6.0L with this larger bore. While it might seem logical to leave it there consider that Ford could then de-stroke that motor to 5.5/5.6L and end up with a much better bore/stroke relationship than the 5.4L offers while gaining a bit of displacement! This would also allow for a shorter deck height solving a lot of the tall deck modular's size issues in cars. Unshrouded valves, better bore/stroke relationship, AND a shorter deck that solves a lot of the size issues the tall deck modulars currently have. Sounds even better than the 5.0L

So why doesn't Ford do it? Really, nobody outside of Ford seems to know. Ford did claim that the "big bore" modular experiments were intended to result in a production motor. I have a few ideas as to where this is going myself. But, I am simply speculating.

First, this could indeed be a future production option. The big bore is relatively new within Ford and production R&D may not be done yet. There has been some talk of potential "reliability" issues, but as the block itself (read" water passages, etc.) remains untouched I cannot imagine this is really an issue.

As I said earlier you could do this to the current 4.6L 3-valve motor with no change other than pistons and sleeves. As a matter of fact, other automakers build motors with thinner wall castings than the big bore modular...some seriously thinner. Porsche has to x-ray the cylinder walls on the new 3.8L block to make certain the water passages contain no cracks. The big-bore mod is nowhere near that close tolerance-wise.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier interchangability within the modular motor family is an obvious issue. You cannot punch an iron block modular out to the same 94mm bore that the big-bore modulars use. As the iron block is still in use this is still an issue. However, the iron-block is almost certainly going to die along with the 2-valve head which would lend itself to a change in bore size. If all modulars go to the 94mm bore interchangability is obviously no longer an issue.

Some have cited how expensive the 5.0L Cammer is as a reason for the big bore not coming to life. Well, the high cost of the 5.0L crate motor is due to a lot of things, the larger bore size is almost certainly not one of these. Without doubt, the Cammer's special block, intake setup, and valvetrain have a lot to do with this. None of those items sees duty in any Ford production vehicle whatsoever. Keep in mind that a 03/04 Cobra crate is not significantly less than the "Cammer" and the Snake motor has the benefit of production. The fact that there are no production 5.0L bloacks likely adds cost to the pistons as well, but if the engine were moved to production this obviously becomes a non-issue. Also, iron cylinder liners are only so expensive, so this is a ridiculous argument on it's face. This motor would cost almost as much, if not as much, if it were 4.6L.

If the new "Hurricane" engine family is indeed a modular motor replacement that would definately nip the big-bore mod motor in the bud. However, IMHO this motor is more likely a replacement for the V-10 mod and not the V-8 mod. I say this for several reasons, one of which is Bill Ford's serious dislike for the V-10. I would not be surprised to see the 6.2L variety of this motor be the smallest of a series of ne big block V-8's.

The Cammer is not currently emissions certified, (referring to the "street legal" comments) but neither would the current 4.6L mod motor be if Ford had not sought certification. There is no "magical" formula that makes a motor street legal and there is nothing to keep the mod motor from being "certified". If Ford decides to build a big bore modular for production they will certify it then.

Also, people seem to be assuming that the 5.0L Cammer crate motor would be the exact motor used if Ford decided to go the big-bore route. Why? Ford racing offers several motors that are decidedly not production spec, and this is merely another one of them. There is no doubt that normal production "big bores" would not use the Cammers intake, block, or valvetrain. More likely a big bore modular would be just that...a big bore version of the 3 valve motors coming in 05.

The 94mm bore in the modular offers a lot of performance potential, and I for one would love to see it.

VillianousBlak

I know nothing of this techno-banter, but I do know 5.7 > (5.0) or (4.6)

And the way I see it the legendary appeal of the 5.0 regardless of its origin is just that legendary. Moving back to a 5.0 would spur interest into all the street corner enthusiast who don't know anything about engines or cars, because it's teh 5.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!one. Not because its bettor or worse because its a legendary name.

I don't think Ford spent so much time and money on the new gen stangs only to use a cheap trick like a new 5.0 badge at whatever cost to attract badge ricers and the like.

I don't know how many rice stangs I've seen with GT5.0 R badges

Felix C.

It is not techno-banter. Anyone with a genuine interest in maximizing the power output of their engine needs to understand its capabilities and limitations. Design concept and evolution is important as well.

Legendary name? A common practice prior to SVO's program was to discard the 302W infavor of a 351W or 351C as the 302 engine was considered too small in displacement with poor flowing heads and smallish valves to generate sufficient horsepower to quickly move a 1960s/early 1970s era Ford pony car.

The 5.0L(a 302 Windsor) engine was made a hot rodding icon thanks to Ford SVO's program which provided tested horsepower increase packages. Previously one had to rely on magazines for ideal parts combinations since aftermarket components were made by different companies.(Edelbrock started with computer matched bolt-ons in the 1980s) Ford's large budget allowed for bolt-ons which were engineered to work together on the 5.0L and maximized power output. The aftermarket became interested, and created its own industry, once the vehicle began to actually perform thanks to Ford research. Incidently, this is a reason I am concerned about the 4.6L3V-no factory sponsored performance programs-It appears to be entirely up to the aftermarket on this engine. Recall who engineered the Mach 1 and supercharged Cobra engine? The 3V could use Big Brother for research.

Dan

Yep

Click Here

[/b][/quote]
Sorry, what I meant to write was:

The Cammer IS a crate engine. I definately knew that. The question mark was refering to his statement. Bad punctuation, sorry.

TomServo92

Sorry, what I meant to write was:

The Cammer IS a crate engine. I definately knew that. The question mark was refering to his statement. Bad punctuation, sorry. [/b][/quote]
You are forgiven! Go forth and burn rubber! :drive: