The 429 engine is being tested in a S197 Mustang chassis....unknown if blown or N/A.
Min hp is 590 and 500+ tq.(sounds blown to me)

The 302 is a de-tuned "Cammer" 380 hp.
This from a guy who works at Flat rock.


Can you get them in Grabber Blue?

 

That would be awesome!!!

 

Oh boy. This could be a tough decision for me. The thought of a new Boss (the car that inspired my love for Mustangs when i was 5), a Mustang with a V10, or a new Shelby GT500. :bang: :scratch: :usa:

 

i doubt a 429 will ever be put in a new mustang

 

I think we might have to call someone on this one. The largest modular motor that we have seen as been out of the 427 concept. This was a V10 built by splicing together 2 pieces of a 5.4L block and then boring out to 427ci. The same engine in a 390ci displacement is in the Cobra roadster concept and the GR-1 concept.

Now the motor that I have come to dream about is the one that was in the magazines sometime back. This is a V10 built by splicing together two 4.6L blocks. This one comes out right at 351ci. Now this one will make a great Boss 351. Put this in a modified version of the GT-R's body made more to resemble a 70 model and there you have it - dealer markups of 30K! (Sorry for the sarcasm)

I really don't think that the 302 mod motor will make it into a street car. The bores for the pistons require the sleeves to be very thin. This might lead to durability issues with this motor. Imagine having to buy a new block every time a sleeve gets scratched. However, as far as polution certification is concerned, I think that this will be a no brainer if they want that. They could probably hook up the stock polution gear for a 5.4L motor and have it work just fine.

In short, I wouldn't hold my breath for a 429 - I don't think the 302 mod motor will make it - and I am wishing for a V-10 351. Your mileage will vary.

 

I think no matter what we hope for....we're stuck with either the 4.6 or the 5.4, it will be just a question of how many valves and whether or not it gets boosted.

Since Ford is on a "business case" kick lately, there just isn't a business case for producing either a V-10 or the 5.0L Cammer for a what is essentially a niche product.

With that said....my case would be for a Boss 331....a n/a 5.4 Mustang with IRS making between 350 and 400 hp.

 

The business case for a "Boss" is that it brings people into look ,who end up buying. They usually end up buying something less than a "Boss". That is exactly what happened to our family in 1969. We ended up with a 351 convertible... I wish I had it back. I'm writing the checks now and if there is a Boss , I will get one.
BTW....a 3V V10 is a production piece that will fit(barely). .Why not?

 

429? now that would be a dream of mine but its gotta be a 428 when they make the mach 1
and notice the when not if

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the old mustangs, around the 69 70 era you could have gotten with a 429/427 dont remember the cubic inches. I believe they were called tunnelports, or tunnel jets. in them which was a v8, not a v10, why would you think they would put a v10 in one? just my thoughts. I believe nicknames for them were thunderjets. hhehehehe.

 

I'd be curious to know how they did that, since a fundamental flaw of the MOD engine family is that the chamber walls are too thin to recieve a broader bore. In fact, the 5.0 Cammer has to use a special flanged insert to achieve this, and it doesn't come cheap. The V10 version of the 5.4L V8 only comes out to 6.8L-- still short of 429 ci (approximately 7.0L)

Quote:

Originally posted by CrossBoss+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CrossBoss)</div><div class='quotemain'>Now the motor that I have come to dream about is the one that was in the magazines sometime back. This is a V10 built by splicing together two 4.6L blocks. This one comes out right at 351ci.[/b]

Actually, this was one of the original intentions of the MOD motor family-- to make a V6, V8, or V10 with minimal re-tooling. Simply lengthening the block and adding two cylinders makes a 5.8L V-10, featured on at least one SVT concept.

<!--QuoteBegin-CrossBoss@
I really don't think that the 302 mod motor will make it into a street car. The bores for the pistons require the sleeves to be very thin. This might lead to durability issues with this motor. Imagine having to buy a new block every time a sleeve gets scratched. However, as far as polution certification is concerned, I think that this will be a no brainer if they want that. They could probably hook up the stock polution gear for a 5.4L motor and have it work just fine.[/quote]

In this you are certainly correct.

<!--QuoteBegin-CrossBoss
In short, I wouldn't hold my breath for a 429 - I don't think the 302 mod motor will make it - and I am wishing for a V-10 351. Your mileage will vary.

Quoted post

[/quote]

You got it right. I think the best we can hope for is a DOHC version of the 4.6L MOD, hopefully sporting dual VVT and VVL. The 5.4L is nice, but its tall block adds weight, and its long stroke doesn't do much for the midrange or upper range power. Keep the V10 for the Mach 1. I'm sure Ford will have some fun trying to deal with the vibration issues characteristic of V10s...

 

More importantly, can you get it in Grabber Green?

 

Don't forget that beyond simply boring out the cylinders there is a bit of stroke left in the block too so you could build a 429ci V-10 and likely have some room to spare. But, considering the method for this usually involves turning down portions of the crank you are not going to see one from Ford anytime soon.

As for sleeving the block, you are correct that it requires a pretty thin sleeve and it is indeed expensive to have done to an engine block for folks like us. For Ford, pressing in a sleeve is pressing in a sleeve more or less, and one would likely cost little more than the other when done for standard mass production. (and before somebody mentions how expensive the Cammer is remember that this is not a production piece)

Generally, the sleeves used to turn a 4.6L into a 5.0L are made of a better grade material due to their thinner walls and this would likely constitute the only real price increase in the process. Also, you wouldn't have to buy a new block everytime you scratched a cylinder liner, you would simply have to have the motor resleeved exactly as you would now.

Finally, several manufacturers use liners that are as thin or thinner than these. Will Ford build this motor with the larger bore? I doubt it. Why? Ford has bigger fish to fry and there are cylinder deflection issues with the tall deck (5.4L V-8, 6.8L V-10) mod motors now even with the smaller production bore (This has a lot to do with the extremely long stroke) Although, the improved material generally found in the larger liners would likely improve the situation truth be told.

 

i am very carful about what ford likes to do with there motors.. i had a 96 sho and always had to worry about the dual overhead cam sprockets sliping and granading the motor but i would love to see a 429.

 

If all we ever got were a 351, you would hear no complaints from me.

 

You are wrong.

The 427 tunnel port was a race engine (NASCAR circa 1967-1969). The tunnel port heads were never sold on street cars, although you could buy them at the parts counter of your friendly Ford dealer. Street Mustangs in 1968 - 69 could be purchased with 428 CID engines that used the Cobra-Jet heads which were similar to the medium riser / LeMans heads. The 427 was limited availabilty in the Mustang for those years really only sold to racers and not for street cars. In 1970 the 429 replaced both the 427 & 428. The wedge 429s were called cobra jets while the very limited production "hemi" 429 was sold only in 1969-70 Boss 429 Mustangs so NASCAR would let Ford race it.

There were also 289/302 tunnel port heads developed and tested, but they were never raced, nor sold to customers. The Boss 302 replaced Ford's plans for 289/302 tunnel port heads.

The 428 and later 429 big block performance engines were called "Cobra Jets"

The reason why Ford would sell V10's is that going to more cylinders is about the only way Ford can get more displacement now that the Hurricane engine program has been canceled.

 

Those problematic SHO engines were designed and built by Yamaha, not Ford.

 

Those problematic SHO engines were designed and built by Yamaha, not Ford.
[/b][/quote]

That's not exactly true. Here's a quote from Detroit Free Press article regarding the cam failures:

The full text of the article can be found here:

http://www.v8sho.com/SHO/DetroitFreePressT...ostlydefect.htm

 

thanks mark for backing me up.....

 

No problem! We ex-SHO owners have to stick together!

 

[/quote]
As for sleeving the block, you are correct that it requires a pretty thin sleeve and it is indeed expensive to have done to an engine block for folks like us. For Ford, pressing in a sleeve is pressing in a sleeve more or less, and one would likely cost little more than the other when done for standard mass production. (and before somebody mentions how expensive the Cammer is remember that this is not a production piece)
[/quote]

There was a magazine artical a few months back where a 4.6 was bored out to 5 liters. It was really interesting because they completely bored out all of the sleeves and pressed in new sleeves every other cylinder. They then rebored the cylinders they missed. When they did this, they ground into the sleeves they had already installed! Then they installed sleeves into the bores they ground out the second time. This left a thin spot in 2 of the 4 sleeves in the bank. They did, however, get the engine to run and it ran fairly well as far as I can tell. I think, however, that the thin place in the sleeve would be a great location for the initiation and propogation of a crack. I'm sure that just from thermal cycling that after a while there would be a crack there. I wonder how that engine is doing now - if it is still running or has already bit the dust. It was said that the cammer has a flanged insert to deal with the sleeve issue. Could someone explain this to me? I can't see it. Does anyone here on the board have experience with the cammer? I think that the cammer is an interesting engine, but I'm not sure that one could really get that much more out of it than a 4V 4.6.