2010+ Info as far as we know
12/5/07, 11:45 AM
#41
Member
Join Date: August 20, 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Siamese blocks feature solid casting between the cylinder bores, increasing the strength of the block. There are no coolant passages between them the bores.
12/5/07, 12:14 PM
#42
In response to your question Knight, what benny02GT said is on the money. The elimination of coolant passages between the cylinders themselves means that the bore can be larger for obvious reasons. The potential downside is that this changes cooling properties and can be a problem if the goal is a streetable engine. For example, Siamese bore Windsors are race only blocks completely unsuitable for production. However, there are production based siamese bore engines....GM's LS2 is an example as are some engines produced by Ferrari.
12/5/07, 06:01 PM
#43
I was aware of siamese bore engines as used by Ferraris and other exotics, but didn't realize that Olds did it nor that the LS2 was siamese. Which Olds engine was siamese bore?
12/5/07, 08:59 PM
#44
Member
Join Date: August 20, 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to your question Knight, what benny02GT said is on the money. The elimination of coolant passages between the cylinders themselves means that the bore can be larger for obvious reasons. The potential downside is that this changes cooling properties and can be a problem if the goal is a streetable engine. For example, Siamese bore Windsors are race only blocks completely unsuitable for production. However, there are production based siamese bore engines....GM's LS2 is an example as are some engines produced by Ferrari.
Gen 4 engines LS2,L92, LY6, etc, are siamese bore design where the Gen 3 (LS1) are conventional design, this means the Gen3 LS motors all circulate coolant around the cylinders, where on the Gen4 engines, coolant only flows around the perimeter of the bores.This is where the Gen4 engines are said to be stronger, due to more material around bores, for reinforcement of cylinders bores. This is the reason LS2,LS4,LS7 are designated as Gen4, due to the revision of the coolant system for the cylinder bores, which is derived from C5R 7.0 engine.
I guess GM has proved you can make a production block with a saimese bore design.
12/5/07, 09:29 PM
#45
I'd love to see a production 94mm Mod Motor. It ceratainly would breathe some new life into the Mod Motor, between the extra displacement and the improved breathing from the larger bore, I'd expect at least a 40 HP bump. But based on repeated disappointments from Ford, I'm not holding much hope.
I was aware of siamese bore engines as used by Ferraris and other exotics, but didn't realize that Olds did it nor that the LS2 was siamese. Which Olds engine was siamese bore?
I was aware of siamese bore engines as used by Ferraris and other exotics, but didn't realize that Olds did it nor that the LS2 was siamese. Which Olds engine was siamese bore?
12/5/07, 09:54 PM
#46
Hold on, definately don't qoute me. I apparently have my Olds engine data crossed and, after some checking, have discovered that the 30 unit production number is liekly much closer than 1500 and that these weren't production blocks. Well, at least the LS2 still stands to back up my hopes. 
12/6/07, 08:06 AM
#47
Needs to be more Astony
heck the increased bore is all the mod motors really need so if you do use that block along with ford gt heads, it should make some great power.
and thanks to all who answered my question.
and thanks to all who answered my question.
12/6/07, 08:58 AM
#48
If you took the 5.0L block mentioned in this thread, threw on the GT500's heads, and spec'd the rest of the engine out similar to say...the 03-04 Mach-1...I'd be willing to bet you'd be close to 400hp on a premium gas setup. And I'd also be willing to bet gas mileage would be similar to or better than what you could have gotten from that same Mach-1 all else being equal. Throw in a 6-speed manual tranny and you could have a high 12 second car that would probably beat the current GT in hwy mpg.
12/6/07, 09:09 AM
#49
Needs to be more Astony
and thats exactly what should be done to fend off the camaro and challenger.
being the Mustang GT is what? 600-700lbs lighter then the challenger, it would prob be faster despite the lack of 25-50hp.
being the Mustang GT is what? 600-700lbs lighter then the challenger, it would prob be faster despite the lack of 25-50hp.
12/6/07, 09:26 AM
#50
If you took the 5.0L block mentioned in this thread, threw on the GT500's heads, and spec'd the rest of the engine out similar to say...the 03-04 Mach-1...I'd be willing to bet you'd be close to 400hp on a premium gas setup. And I'd also be willing to bet gas mileage would be similar to or better than what you could have gotten from that same Mach-1 all else being equal. Throw in a 6-speed manual tranny and you could have a high 12 second car that would probably beat the current GT in hwy mpg.
I have a high 12 second Mach and I haven't touched my engine, tranny or gears!
The sticking point to getting to 400hp with the setup above I think would be the intake. I'd love for an aluminum version of the magnesium FR500 intake.
12/6/07, 10:16 AM
#52
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advantages would be in allowing wider bores in engines with tightly spaced bore centers, i.e., Mod motors, and perhaps a bit of strength, what with the bores reinforcing each other a bit.
Negatives might be degraded cooling by lack of coolent flow through the now blocked of passages and perhaps uneven cylinder bore heating and thus, thermal distortion. I imagine this might be why you generally don't see siamesed cylinders in production cars, certainly not those with hi performance goals. Short-lived, non-warrentied, non-EPA race motors can probably live with the disadvantages in search of greater displacement and power.
My guess if a 5.0 were ever to come to be, which I think unlikely despite the nostalgiac yearnings of many, is that it would be a destroked 5.4 block, perhaps in AL so it doesn't weigh a ton. Another possibility, hinted at by that Ford Mustang customer survey a few months ago, might be an AJ (Jaguar) motor, which apparently will be upsized to 5 liters. While that might be tempting as they are fine motors, that might be a bit of champagne costs for Joe Six Pack Mustang budgets (though maybe cheaper than developing some limited-run Mod based 5.0).
If anything, I think Ford, if they want a really hi-po smallish V8 ought to just really tune up the 4.6. Slap on some heads off the Ford GT with gaping intake and exhaust tracts, put in some crackling 11+:1 pistons (screw this 87 octane foolishness) and tune it like it ought to be tuned. 400+ hp ought to be a readily achievable goal (Audi and BMW are getting 420 plus out of a 4.2 and 4.0 motor respectively) and would make a perfect spiritual descendant to the screaming Boss 302. Sure, a Mod 4.6 wouldn't share the 302/5.0 displacement, but then, it shares nothing else other than a V8 configuration anyways. I'd rather have a screaming 4.6 that is doable than a 5.0 that isn't, just for poetic reasons.
If people want a tractorish torque monster, slap aforementioned GT heads on the 5.4 motor, tune it up a bit and voila, a perfect parts-shelf Mach I motor.
+ Some suspension mods.
12/6/07, 11:34 AM
#55
I Have No Life
Thread Starter
Saw that,
while he doesn't come out directly and say it...
How expensive is a CGI block compared to ALuminum?
and whats the weight difference/strength?
I'm guessing it'll be one of the 2 and not Iron alone.
while he doesn't come out directly and say it...
How expensive is a CGI block compared to ALuminum?
and whats the weight difference/strength?
I'm guessing it'll be one of the 2 and not Iron alone.
12/6/07, 11:38 AM
#56
Legacy TMS Member
I don't know about the cost or strength but from what I understand, CGI weight is comparable to AL.
12/6/07, 11:41 AM
#57
I Have No Life
Thread Starter
Yeah, obviously.
I'm suprised how much he actually comes out and says though sometimes.
I updated the original post and added a link to a CGI page
I'm suprised how much he actually comes out and says though sometimes.
I updated the original post and added a link to a CGI page
12/6/07, 12:40 PM
#58
Legacy TMS Member
I'd love to see a production 94mm Mod Motor. It ceratainly would breathe some new life into the Mod Motor, between the extra displacement and the improved breathing from the larger bore, I'd expect at least a 40 HP bump. But based on repeated disappointments from Ford, I'm not holding much hope.
I was aware of siamese bore engines as used by Ferraris and other exotics, but didn't realize that Olds did it nor that the LS2 was siamese. Which Olds engine was siamese bore?
I was aware of siamese bore engines as used by Ferraris and other exotics, but didn't realize that Olds did it nor that the LS2 was siamese. Which Olds engine was siamese bore?
The old SBC 400 was siamese bore as well, and it was my understanding that the current mod motor is siamese bore as well. Siamese bore engines aren't really a limitation on the street. IIRC irregularly shaped bores wher e aproblem on the first siamese bore engines, but that was solved by grinding the pistons to match the distortion in the bore when things were heated, cooling was also a problem if the deck didn't have steam holes in it. Now though I see drilled passages in the connected bores on some modern siamese bore engines.
12/6/07, 12:46 PM
#59
Legacy TMS Member
That's where the cylinder bores actually touch/merge with each other rather than being separated by a water passage.
Advantages would be in allowing wider bores in engines with tightly spaced bore centers, i.e., Mod motors, and perhaps a bit of strength, what with the bores reinforcing each other a bit.
Negatives might be degraded cooling by lack of coolent flow through the now blocked of passages and perhaps uneven cylinder bore heating and thus, thermal distortion. I imagine this might be why you generally don't see siamesed cylinders in production cars, certainly not those with hi performance goals. Short-lived, non-warrentied, non-EPA race motors can probably live with the disadvantages in search of greater displacement and power.
My guess if a 5.0 were ever to come to be, which I think unlikely despite the nostalgiac yearnings of many, is that it would be a destroked 5.4 block, perhaps in AL so it doesn't weigh a ton. Another possibility, hinted at by that Ford Mustang customer survey a few months ago, might be an AJ (Jaguar) motor, which apparently will be upsized to 5 liters. While that might be tempting as they are fine motors, that might be a bit of champagne costs for Joe Six Pack Mustang budgets (though maybe cheaper than developing some limited-run Mod based 5.0).
If anything, I think Ford, if they want a really hi-po smallish V8 ought to just really tune up the 4.6. Slap on some heads off the Ford GT with gaping intake and exhaust tracts, put in some crackling 11+:1 pistons (screw this 87 octane foolishness) and tune it like it ought to be tuned. 400+ hp ought to be a readily achievable goal (Audi and BMW are getting 420 plus out of a 4.2 and 4.0 motor respectively) and would make a perfect spiritual descendant to the screaming Boss 302. Sure, a Mod 4.6 wouldn't share the 302/5.0 displacement, but then, it shares nothing else other than a V8 configuration anyways. I'd rather have a screaming 4.6 that is doable than a 5.0 that isn't, just for poetic reasons.
If people want a tractorish torque monster, slap aforementioned GT heads on the 5.4 motor, tune it up a bit and voila, a perfect parts-shelf Mach I motor.
Advantages would be in allowing wider bores in engines with tightly spaced bore centers, i.e., Mod motors, and perhaps a bit of strength, what with the bores reinforcing each other a bit.
Negatives might be degraded cooling by lack of coolent flow through the now blocked of passages and perhaps uneven cylinder bore heating and thus, thermal distortion. I imagine this might be why you generally don't see siamesed cylinders in production cars, certainly not those with hi performance goals. Short-lived, non-warrentied, non-EPA race motors can probably live with the disadvantages in search of greater displacement and power.
My guess if a 5.0 were ever to come to be, which I think unlikely despite the nostalgiac yearnings of many, is that it would be a destroked 5.4 block, perhaps in AL so it doesn't weigh a ton. Another possibility, hinted at by that Ford Mustang customer survey a few months ago, might be an AJ (Jaguar) motor, which apparently will be upsized to 5 liters. While that might be tempting as they are fine motors, that might be a bit of champagne costs for Joe Six Pack Mustang budgets (though maybe cheaper than developing some limited-run Mod based 5.0).
If anything, I think Ford, if they want a really hi-po smallish V8 ought to just really tune up the 4.6. Slap on some heads off the Ford GT with gaping intake and exhaust tracts, put in some crackling 11+:1 pistons (screw this 87 octane foolishness) and tune it like it ought to be tuned. 400+ hp ought to be a readily achievable goal (Audi and BMW are getting 420 plus out of a 4.2 and 4.0 motor respectively) and would make a perfect spiritual descendant to the screaming Boss 302. Sure, a Mod 4.6 wouldn't share the 302/5.0 displacement, but then, it shares nothing else other than a V8 configuration anyways. I'd rather have a screaming 4.6 that is doable than a 5.0 that isn't, just for poetic reasons.
If people want a tractorish torque monster, slap aforementioned GT heads on the 5.4 motor, tune it up a bit and voila, a perfect parts-shelf Mach I motor.
Y'now I've read that the 3v heads were almost to big for a street application. In and of themselves the 3v heads can flow enough air to feed almost 500hp, but in the realm of street motors they are limited by the need to run very mild cam timing both for lengevity and emmissions as well as Ford's mandate for 87 octane compatibility. I've also read that the spark plugs in the 3v are very detonation prone and the cam phasers are really fragile when it comes to increased spring pressures.
12/6/07, 02:05 PM
#60
Needs to be more Astony