CrossBoss

I have read elswere that HTT said in an interview that he thought a Boss 302 would be a good fit between a GT and Shelby. Absolutely, I agree. It would be great to get a new Boss 302. The debate I would like to start, however, is an interesting one.

The engine is likely to be a version of the cammer, which is a pretty cool engine. But what would we like to see? Do we think it would be better to get the cammer or would we like to see a pushrod version of the 302 with "Cleveland" style heads?

I would love to see a modern aluminum, fuel injected version of the old pushrod engine. Shoot, they could even build the fuel injection unit to look just like the old "crossboss" intake manifold and inline 4bbl carbs. That would be just too sweet. It should provide enough horsepower to get you where you want to go in time. It should be also much lighter and smaller than the current OHC engines.

It would be cool for the Boss 302 to have the ultimate suspension to handle road racing conditions (many less tradeoffs in the NVH area to get the handling performance). I hear that HTT is a former chassis engineer for a Ford racing team. If the higher ups turn him loose, I bet he could help get some great things done with the car.

I am a "middle" school Mustang fan (I'm 40) but what do you new schoolers and old schoolers think?

Fordracing200

Cammer is not emissons legal, theirfore you will never see it in its current form in a production automobile.

MustangFanatic

True the Cammer isn't emissions legal and the Small Block pushrod motor is dead, Ford has made it clear they won't be going back to that architecture.

Just a guess on my part, but Ford might offer a Boss 350 (or similiar) number associated with the HP output of the engine. I know it is possible to push the 4.6L to 289 cubes but I don't think it will support 302. As much as I'd like to see that offered, I don't think we will see a 5.0L in a production Mustang anytime soon.

V10

Forget about your pushrod engine, all the tooling for making Windsors and Clevelands is long gone. It is not economically feasable to re-tool for a limited production engine.

Besides emissions, the Cammer does not meet Ford's new vehicle durability requirements (150K miles) due to it's VERY thin cylinder liners.

If there really will be a 302 or a 5.0L, it's more likely that Ford would make a mid deck height version of the Mod motor block, in between the 4.6 and the 5.4 which would give them a 302 or 5.0 stroker.

Slight possibility that the bore would be bumped from 90.2mm to 92mm which is reportedly the largest bore that will meet the durability requirements (Cammer is 94 mm).

Rampant

Why not use a 5.4 and call it the Boss 330?

Or, you could use BMW naming conventions on the 4.6 and call it the Boss 460.

I say let the old technology remain where it should -- in the old cars. I don't care if it says Boss 302 or something else, it isn't going to make me feel any better about the car -- just how it drives.

Also, don't expect anything in the suspension category besides springs and dampers. If the GT500 didn't get anything special, no other car will (at least for now).

rhumb

There doesn't seem to be any inherent reason why a production version of the "Cammer" 5.0 couldn't be developed and produced. It basically IS just another Mod motor varient without anything too esoteric or exotic. Of course elements would change, including the intake, exhaust and ECU programming, and it probably wouldn't make quite the HP as the crate motor but certainly more than the 3V 4.6.

I would be happy with a highly tuned 4V 4.6 as that might be more readily developed and produced and ought to be able to make an easy 350-375hp, which would be plenty for a more balance performance package Boss 302 (in the spirit of the original Boss 302 that, in its day, had a smallish, highly tuned V8).

bar

whatever they decide, I hope they make significant changes to the "variant" to make the jump from a standard GT, but not continue on up to the GT500 model, in terms of price and performance, a worthwhile move.

Meaning, keep the price in the middle of the ballpark ($30-34K?), add enough of a HP bump, handling difference, and whatever appearance difference to justify it, and I'll be there.

Oh, and hurry it up already! I don't want to have to wait until MY08, although it appears that may be the case.

V10

If I was the head bannana in charge of FoMoCo, there is no way in the world I'd let the company produce, sell and warranty an engine that had only 0.23" between cylinder walls.

AFBLUE

I agree. I think Ford will exactly do that to capitalize on the "Boss 302" and "LX 5.0" name recognition.

MustangFanatic

Let's hope they do, I missed out on the original Boss 302 (I wasn't born yet) but I'd love to have a chance at a new version. I'll take mine in Vista Blue

bob

or just destroke a 5.4 (3.552 x 4.165) vs. 3.552 x 3.810 for a 302

then again they could add 2 cylinders with a 3.552" bore and punch the stroke out to 4.330 and bring back the big daddy Boss 429

V10

Knowing how Ford works (anything to save a buck), that's what they will probably do, just de-stroke the 5.4. Besides not needing a new block casting or machining set up they could use the same 5.4 intake manifold. That would not be the best way to do it because the connecting rods will be longer than on a lower deck height block.


But if Ford did something like that, it would make it easy for us back yard mechanics to turn it back into a 5.4. All we'd need is the 5.4 crank, rods and possibly pistons.

The low volume of a SE Mustang (10,000 units a year) certainly would not justify spending much money on developing a 5.0 engine. Makes me wonder if Ford is going to come out with a 5.0 for use in the F-150 to keep the F-150 competitive in the pickup wars. If Ford does something like that, it could benefit us Mustang folks.

conv_stang

how about destroking the 5.4?? could they do that to get 5 liters?? i would love to see a stripped LX version w/ the 3V motor. maybe like a drag pack.but a boss 281 or 330 wouldnt be bad. or why not just goto BOSS??? like BULLITT?? just call it the BOSS MUSTANG?

Thunder Road

5.4 l according to my conversion is 327.8

Boss 328 sounds good.

The 281 can be stroked to 300 cubic inches. A number of forged stroker kits out there for 16-1900.

V10

Using Ford's official bore and stroke for the 5.4 (90.2mm x 105.66mm) it works out to 329.81 CID. In various information I have seen the 5.4L referred to as having 329, 330 and 331 CID.

Yes you can stroke a low deck 4.6L block, but when you stroke it the side loading on the cylinder walls greatly increases. This additional side loading increases engine friction losses and shortens the engine life due to greater ring and cylinder wall wear. A stoked 4.6 would most likely not meet Ford's new car durability requirements, remember they have to put a 3 year warranty on it.

This is why to do a 5.0L with the same 90.2mm bore you really want a block with taller deck heights and longer connecting rods.

future9er24

hmm.. a destroked 5.4 sounds REALLY cool. and even better for the backard mechanics, as was aforementioned

just outta curiosity, whats the weight diff between a 4.6/5.4??



and for the record, i still want to see the Boss 351 from the V10 concept 'stang (the one that was formelery the '00 R test mule) wonder how much it'd be to put that sucka into production

rhumb

While I would be happy with a highly tuned 4V 4.6, which, while smaller than the 5.4 or a 5.0, would certainly match the character of the original Boss 302, which had the smallish (for its day) 302 block but with the monster valve/port Cleveland 4bbl heads, making for quite a high-rpm screamer.

Remember, the focus of the Boss 302 wasn't so much on the engine and straight line performance alone, but rather, on a much more balanced performance package that also emphasized handling dynamics as much as acceleration. Thus, to maintain that same character in a modern Boss, I would prefer the smaller, lighter Mod short block with some hi-flow 4V heads and aggressive cam over a bigger but heavier tall block design. Not that the weight of a 5.4 would be THAT much more, but as a matter of engine character...

A naturally aspirated 5.4 motor would, I think, be a better match for a Mach I or even a Bullitt edition, with more emphasis on a bigger, torquier, lower rpm character.

MustangFanatic

Agreed, when Ford produces a Boss, it should include a high revving power plant with a redline of at least 7,000. Whichever engine choice upholds the original theme of the Boss, I'm in support of regardless of whether it is a 4.6L, 5.0L or other size yet to be determined.

A naturally aspirated 5.4L would be better suited to a Mach I model focused on the street/strip crowd.

bob

Well a 5.4 based 5.0 would have a nice R/S ratio if you used the stock 5.4 rod length (6.657) for a 1.74:1 R/S ratio, but you'd have to add .335 to the piston to make up for it, or just split the difference and put half in the rod and half in the piston giving it a 6.825" rod on a 3.810 stroke for an 1.79:1 rod ratio or just add it all to the rod, giving the engine a 1.83:1 R/S which is getting close to that 1.9-2.0 R/S ratio people seem to like.

IMO a nice high octane engine is better suited to a long rod combo anyway since the fuel burns slower and the longer you can keep that piston at dwell, the better it can take advantage of the high octane fuel. It would also help in the cylinderhead department, since long rod engines are a bit more forgiving when it comes to a small port size and volume.

bob

The mod motors are ill suited to high RPM duty, with thier long strokes and narrow bearing journals, despite having multivalve overhead cam cylinderheads. To get around the delimma you'd need to start using stronger components so you could make them lighter or utilizie comparitively exotic materials and processes to manufacture the engine (eg; titanium or high strength steel connecting rods, the former because of thier light weight, the latter because you could make a lighter rod with the same strength)

Were I to make a Boss 302, I'd raid as much from the corperate bin as possible. As V10 suggested, with just a change in the rods and crank to get the nostalgia displacement I needed. And keep the redline at or around 6.5 to7k, but not exceeding it.

Modular "Boss 302" 4v DOHC tall deck (5.4) premium fuel all aluminum V8
Bore: 3.552
Stroke: 3.810
Displacement: 302.030 (or 4.947 liters for you metric types)

I'm not a big fan of the 4v DOHC heads as I think the 3v heads are really nice (well the ludite in me likes K.I.S.S engineering anyways) , but realisitically longevity and durability might be a problem if you have to jack the cam lift up to support the airflow needed for a 375 to 400 hp/tq engine on a 3v head. 4v heads could get away with milder cams and make the same power.