Base Engine for 09
4/23/06, 05:06 PM
#41
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1trickpony @ April 22, 2006, 5:50 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Ford should crank out 100,000+ D35 variants so there's plenty of volume.
[/b][/quote]
It's going to be a lot more than that. It is already standard in the 2007 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKZ and MKX. And while the rumors of the Milan and Fusion getting it haven't been verfied yet, it's a pretty safe bet the 500/Montego/Freestyle will be getting it. All three Fords together should be good for 250K-400K a year (last I checked Ford sold over 120,000 500's last year alone). And if it gets put into the Mustang, that's at least another 75K a year. It should be VERY cheap to produce, otherwise it wouldn't see such widespread use.
As far as putting it in a Mustang, I would be interested to see how they tune it (so far the Edge/MKX engines have a different tune than the MKZ, although it's miniscule).
Ford should crank out 100,000+ D35 variants so there's plenty of volume.
[/b][/quote]
It's going to be a lot more than that. It is already standard in the 2007 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKZ and MKX. And while the rumors of the Milan and Fusion getting it haven't been verfied yet, it's a pretty safe bet the 500/Montego/Freestyle will be getting it. All three Fords together should be good for 250K-400K a year (last I checked Ford sold over 120,000 500's last year alone). And if it gets put into the Mustang, that's at least another 75K a year. It should be VERY cheap to produce, otherwise it wouldn't see such widespread use.
As far as putting it in a Mustang, I would be interested to see how they tune it (so far the Edge/MKX engines have a different tune than the MKZ, although it's miniscule).
4/23/06, 07:30 PM
#43
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Moosetang @ April 23, 2006, 6:40 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
500/Monty will get it when they get their styling update.
[/b][/quote]
Which is in less than 6 months isn't it? To have it ready in the fall as a 2007 model?
500/Monty will get it when they get their styling update.
[/b][/quote]
Which is in less than 6 months isn't it? To have it ready in the fall as a 2007 model?
4/23/06, 08:26 PM
#44
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: McAllen, Texas
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make it a 3.5L. as i had said in another forum http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index....opic=38532&hl=
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Less displacement (3.5L vs 4.0L), more horsepower/torque.[/b][/quote] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Less displacement (3.5L vs 4.0L), more horsepower/torque.[/b][/quote] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
4/23/06, 09:38 PM
#45
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigred0383 @ April 24, 2006, 8:09 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
It's going to be a lot more than that. It is already standard in the 2007 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKZ and MKX. And while the rumors of the Milan and Fusion getting it haven't been verfied yet, it's a pretty safe bet the 500/Montego/Freestyle will be getting it. All three Fords together should be good for 250K-400K a year (last I checked Ford sold over 120,000 500's last year alone). And if it gets put into the Mustang, that's at least another 75K a year. It should be VERY cheap to produce, otherwise it wouldn't see such widespread use.
As far as putting it in a Mustang, I would be interested to see how they tune it (so far the Edge/MKX engines have a different tune than the MKZ, although it's miniscule).
[/b][/quote]
Not to mention Mazda's 2008 6 and CX-9 are suppose to use the engine. This could be another 75,000 a year.
It's going to be a lot more than that. It is already standard in the 2007 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKZ and MKX. And while the rumors of the Milan and Fusion getting it haven't been verfied yet, it's a pretty safe bet the 500/Montego/Freestyle will be getting it. All three Fords together should be good for 250K-400K a year (last I checked Ford sold over 120,000 500's last year alone). And if it gets put into the Mustang, that's at least another 75K a year. It should be VERY cheap to produce, otherwise it wouldn't see such widespread use.
As far as putting it in a Mustang, I would be interested to see how they tune it (so far the Edge/MKX engines have a different tune than the MKZ, although it's miniscule).
[/b][/quote]
Not to mention Mazda's 2008 6 and CX-9 are suppose to use the engine. This could be another 75,000 a year.
4/23/06, 10:58 PM
#46
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1trickpony @ April 23, 2006, 10:41 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Not to mention Mazda's 2008 6 and CX-9 are suppose to use the engine. This could be another 75,000 a year.
[/b][/quote]
Cool. I forgot that the CX-9 was getting it (I think the new CX-7 and CX-9 look great by the way) but I had no idea the new 6 was getting it too.
By the way, I love LS's! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
Not to mention Mazda's 2008 6 and CX-9 are suppose to use the engine. This could be another 75,000 a year.
[/b][/quote]
Cool. I forgot that the CX-9 was getting it (I think the new CX-7 and CX-9 look great by the way) but I had no idea the new 6 was getting it too.
By the way, I love LS's! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img]
4/24/06, 12:52 AM
#47
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read about the 2008 Mazda 6 at Edmunds yesterday. I know Edmunds make mistakes but this story passes the sanity check so I believe it.
I love my Lincoln. I can only have one car right now and I'm married so I went with an LS. I haven't been disappointed. Looking back, I probably should have bought an Explorer. I need the cargo room.
I love my Lincoln. I can only have one car right now and I'm married so I went with an LS. I haven't been disappointed. Looking back, I probably should have bought an Explorer. I need the cargo room.
4/27/06, 09:36 PM
#48
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V10 @ April 18, 2006, 3:47 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
But the core problem is when you increase the stroke but not the bore (as is the case from the 4.6 to 5.4) you still get only the same air flow. The larger displacement and longer stroke gives more TQ and at lower RPS (good) but HP gains are minimal and high RPM performance is weak (bad).
[/b][/quote]
Airflow velocity is incresed because the piston travels more, and pumps in more air. You get more velocity and volume with a stroker.
Frictional loss from increased sideloading are the drawbacks.
But the core problem is when you increase the stroke but not the bore (as is the case from the 4.6 to 5.4) you still get only the same air flow. The larger displacement and longer stroke gives more TQ and at lower RPS (good) but HP gains are minimal and high RPM performance is weak (bad).
[/b][/quote]
Airflow velocity is incresed because the piston travels more, and pumps in more air. You get more velocity and volume with a stroker.
Frictional loss from increased sideloading are the drawbacks.
5/1/06, 04:12 PM
#49
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ManEHawke @ April 27, 2006, 9:39 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Airflow velocity is incresed because the piston travels more, and pumps in more air. You get more velocity and volume with a stroker.
[/b][/quote]
This is not true because the valve size limits air flow. Larger bore with larger valves will flow more air.
Airflow velocity is incresed because the piston travels more, and pumps in more air. You get more velocity and volume with a stroker.
[/b][/quote]
This is not true because the valve size limits air flow. Larger bore with larger valves will flow more air.
5/1/06, 04:20 PM
#50
Cam Tease
Join Date: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh, nothing a turbocharger won't solve. Yeah a D40 wouldnt be as mechanically efficient as a D35, but it would be a heckuva lot better than the Cologne (and half the V6s on the market today) anyway. I'm thinking a tcharged D40 would put out around 400hp. Perfect for...something?
5/1/06, 04:40 PM
#51
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to break the news to you guys....IT'S GONNA BE A DIESEL!!!!
4.4 liter twin turbo w/465 ft.lbs. of torque...new 6 speed auto. and the car is gonna weigh 3,250. Call it the "Bio-Diesel Boss 289".
Ok...I'm dreaming. That was fun.
4.4 liter twin turbo w/465 ft.lbs. of torque...new 6 speed auto. and the car is gonna weigh 3,250. Call it the "Bio-Diesel Boss 289".
Ok...I'm dreaming. That was fun.
5/2/06, 09:07 PM
#54
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V10 @ May 1, 2006, 3:15 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
This is not true because the valve size limits air flow. Larger bore with larger valves will flow more air.
[/b][/quote]
The stroker increases piston speed for any given rpm, so you have more sucking power. You are also sucking more because of how much more the piston had to go down Vs. stock.
That's why they make power, you get more air, and are squeezing it into the same size combustion area.
This is not true because the valve size limits air flow. Larger bore with larger valves will flow more air.
[/b][/quote]
The stroker increases piston speed for any given rpm, so you have more sucking power. You are also sucking more because of how much more the piston had to go down Vs. stock.
That's why they make power, you get more air, and are squeezing it into the same size combustion area.
5/3/06, 05:45 PM
#56
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 16, 2004
Location: Greenfield In.
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote for the 3.5L. I think it is the same engine configuration that the IndyRacing League uses and we all know they get about 700 HP out of those engines. The 3.5 represents a lot more modern engineering than the 4.0L. I love displacement but they haven't really done much in the racing world at Ford with it.
5/3/06, 06:47 PM
#58
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ManEHawke @ May 2, 2006, 9:10 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
The stroker increases piston speed for any given rpm, so you have more sucking power. You are also sucking more because of how much more the piston had to go down Vs. stock.
That's why they make power, you get more air, and are squeezing it into the same size combustion area.
[/b][/quote]
You did not say at any given RPM in your prior post. But your statement is misleading because increasing the displacement of an engine will give more HP at the same RPM whether bore or stroke is increased.
You'll get more HP from a larger bore (than stroke) because you can have larger valves which will flow more air. That's why where the rules allow it, race engines have much larger bores than strokes. Shorter stroke also allows for higher RPM with the same piston travel again making more HP.
So to put it in other words, given the same displacement a larger bore engine will almost always be capable of more HP than a longer stroke engine.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Indystang @ May 3, 2006, 5:48 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I vote for the 3.5L. I think it is the same engine configuration that the IndyRacing League uses and we all know they get about 700 HP out of those engines. The 3.5 represents a lot more modern engineering than the 4.0L. I love displacement but they haven't really done much in the racing world at Ford with it.
[/b][/quote]
Indy Racing League uses V8 engines, not V6s.
Orignally they were 4.0L, reduced a few years later to 3.5L and once again reduced a couple years ago to 3.0L.
The stroker increases piston speed for any given rpm, so you have more sucking power. You are also sucking more because of how much more the piston had to go down Vs. stock.
That's why they make power, you get more air, and are squeezing it into the same size combustion area.
[/b][/quote]
You did not say at any given RPM in your prior post. But your statement is misleading because increasing the displacement of an engine will give more HP at the same RPM whether bore or stroke is increased.
You'll get more HP from a larger bore (than stroke) because you can have larger valves which will flow more air. That's why where the rules allow it, race engines have much larger bores than strokes. Shorter stroke also allows for higher RPM with the same piston travel again making more HP.
So to put it in other words, given the same displacement a larger bore engine will almost always be capable of more HP than a longer stroke engine.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Indystang @ May 3, 2006, 5:48 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I vote for the 3.5L. I think it is the same engine configuration that the IndyRacing League uses and we all know they get about 700 HP out of those engines. The 3.5 represents a lot more modern engineering than the 4.0L. I love displacement but they haven't really done much in the racing world at Ford with it.
[/b][/quote]
Indy Racing League uses V8 engines, not V6s.
Orignally they were 4.0L, reduced a few years later to 3.5L and once again reduced a couple years ago to 3.0L.
5/3/06, 08:58 PM
#59
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I wouldn't go with big bore short stroke beacuse of the rpm range. Those Indy car's are impressive, I think they are like ~200% volumetric efficient N/A, or some carzy # like that.
Strokers won't be efficient at high rpms due to all the friction & sideloading, but for a car that won't see past 6K a huge bore with short stroke would be weak.
Strokers won't be efficient at high rpms due to all the friction & sideloading, but for a car that won't see past 6K a huge bore with short stroke would be weak.