Hurricane Cancelled according to Wards and BON
2/7/05, 04:40 PM
#21
Originally posted by RRRoamer@February 6, 2005, 8:56 PM
Time for the 'ol big block. But based on the mod motor design! Keep as much in common as possible, BUT move the bores at LEAST .2" (and .4" would be better!) apart to allow much bigger bores. Heck, as long as the stroke is in the current 5.4, they wouldn't even have to increase the deck height, just the bore spacing (block length, head length, crank length, total engine weight, etc.) to get MUCH larger displacements out of the engine and allow it co compete with the larger engines from the other companies.
For example, the heads on the BB would be the same basic design as the SB, but the valves would be seperated slightly to allow larger intake and exhaust valves and larger ports in the heads. But the design is fundamentally the same, so the work in one part is applicable to the other part. I don't know about you, but I would LOVE to see a large bore, short stroke 6.0L 24V mod motor sitting between the front tires of my Mustang!
Time for the 'ol big block. But based on the mod motor design! Keep as much in common as possible, BUT move the bores at LEAST .2" (and .4" would be better!) apart to allow much bigger bores. Heck, as long as the stroke is in the current 5.4, they wouldn't even have to increase the deck height, just the bore spacing (block length, head length, crank length, total engine weight, etc.) to get MUCH larger displacements out of the engine and allow it co compete with the larger engines from the other companies.
For example, the heads on the BB would be the same basic design as the SB, but the valves would be seperated slightly to allow larger intake and exhaust valves and larger ports in the heads. But the design is fundamentally the same, so the work in one part is applicable to the other part. I don't know about you, but I would LOVE to see a large bore, short stroke 6.0L 24V mod motor sitting between the front tires of my Mustang!
The problem is that most of the Mod Motor's production tooling fixed and cannot be changed to accomodate a larger bore engine. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to tool up new V8 production lines for an engine with larger bore spacing.
With that said, Ford is out to lunch. High HP is NOT going away re. the comments about variable displacement. Ford has the smallest displacement engines, the lowest HP and the WORST gas milage. Something doesn't add up. :bang:
2/7/05, 05:21 PM
#22
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I thought one of the reasons Ford went with the mod motor in the first place was to use modular tooling that could produce a wide range to products from the same tool set. If they can go with larger deck heights, why can't they go with longer block lengths? Of course, I have never SEEN the actual tooling either!
2/7/05, 08:12 PM
#24
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by V10@February 7, 2005, 6:43 PM
With that said, Ford is out to lunch. High HP is NOT going away re. the comments about variable displacement. Ford has the smallest displacement engines, the lowest HP and the WORST gas milage. Something doesn't add up. :bang:
With that said, Ford is out to lunch. High HP is NOT going away re. the comments about variable displacement. Ford has the smallest displacement engines, the lowest HP and the WORST gas milage. Something doesn't add up. :bang:
The block should be tight though with the smallish bore and the rings jacked up as high as they can go in the pistons the amount of crevice volume between the ring and the crown would be small
I wish Ford would could get The Sperry brothers working for them
2/8/05, 06:20 AM
#26
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by snkbtn99@February 8, 2005, 8:12 AM
What is Ford going to cancel next ?
SVT is questionable .....
New engine development is questionable ....
What is Ford going to cancel next ?
SVT is questionable .....
New engine development is questionable ....
Patience, and have faith. There are a lot a Autoshows left for vechicles, both production and concept, to be unveiled. This is just Feb. and these are just rumors.
2/8/05, 06:38 AM
#27
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MedVader@February 5, 2005, 6:37 PM
Found this link over on Z28.com to BON.
http://blueovalnews.com/2005/products/lane...cane04feb05.htm
Looks like the mod motor is IT for a LONG time. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily.
Found this link over on Z28.com to BON.
http://blueovalnews.com/2005/products/lane...cane04feb05.htm
Looks like the mod motor is IT for a LONG time. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily.
BON is always full of poo. They're just out to bash Ford and their products by using an alarmist nature to everything they post.
Basically they're almost never right.....
2/8/05, 06:51 AM
#28
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 00StangGT+February 8, 2005, 8:41 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(00StangGT @ February 8, 2005, 8:41 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MedVader@February 5, 2005, 6:37 PM
Found this link over on Z28.com to BON.
http://blueovalnews.com/2005/products/lane...cane04feb05.htm
Looks like the mod motor is IT for a LONG time. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily.
Found this link over on Z28.com to BON.
http://blueovalnews.com/2005/products/lane...cane04feb05.htm
Looks like the mod motor is IT for a LONG time. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily.
BON is always full of poo. They're just out to bash Ford and their products by using an alarmist nature to everything they post.
Basically they're almost never right.....
[/b][/quote]
....and notorious for printing old news as new news.
2/8/05, 04:27 PM
#29
Originally posted by RRRoamer@February 7, 2005, 6:24 PM
I thought one of the reasons Ford went with the mod motor in the first place was to use modular tooling that could produce a wide range to products from the same tool set. If they can go with larger deck heights, why can't they go with longer block lengths? Of course, I have never SEEN the actual tooling either!
I thought one of the reasons Ford went with the mod motor in the first place was to use modular tooling that could produce a wide range to products from the same tool set. If they can go with larger deck heights, why can't they go with longer block lengths? Of course, I have never SEEN the actual tooling either!
Changing the bore spacing is hard. You then have to change all the casting machinery and all the machinery that machines the blocks and heads. For example machinery is made to put all the valve guide holes in at the same time.
If the valves are farther apart the machinery they have is useless.
Ford's new engine plants use CNC equipment that could be re-programmed to move things around. But at this time only a few of Fords engine plants have flexible tooling.
2/8/05, 04:28 PM
#30
Originally posted by 00StangGT@February 8, 2005, 7:41 AM
BON is always full of poo. They're just out to bash Ford and their products by using an alarmist nature to everything they post.
Basically they're almost never right.....
BON is always full of poo. They're just out to bash Ford and their products by using an alarmist nature to everything they post.
Basically they're almost never right.....
Ward's is a respected auto industry trade publication.
Detroit News has also reported the demise of the Hurricane.
2/8/05, 05:37 PM
#31
GT Member
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 200mphcobra@February 6, 2005, 11:05 AM
Cylinder deactivation gives them efficiency; Ford still dosen't have it.
Cylinder deactivation gives them efficiency; Ford still dosen't have it.
That's because Ford uses a more sophisticated technology-- Variable Valve Timing, which you can only effectively execute with an overhead-cam valvetrain.
Chrysler's Multi-Displacement System (MDS) and GM's Displacement On Demand (DOD) use a set of sensors on the solenoids of a pushrod motor. In its current incarnations, this technology CANNOT be used on an overhead-cam valvetrain.
If anything, you can say that these cylinder-deactivation systems are a way for GM and Chrysler to cop out on having to invest in overhead-cam valvetrains with variable valve timing or cam phasing.
2/8/05, 05:49 PM
#32
GT Member
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by V10@February 7, 2005, 5:43 PM
With that said, Ford is out to lunch. High HP is NOT going away re. the comments about variable displacement. Ford has the smallest displacement engines, the lowest HP and the WORST gas milage. Something doesn't add up. :bang:
With that said, Ford is out to lunch. High HP is NOT going away re. the comments about variable displacement. Ford has the smallest displacement engines, the lowest HP and the WORST gas milage. Something doesn't add up. :bang:
Also, Ford's mileage estimates have to include those with a 4.10 final drive ratio, which not everyone offers. Dodge's Ram 1500 only goes up to 3.90, for reference...
Let the environmentalists bleat and moan. They won't affect my decision one bit.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post