Gee, I wonder if this article is right? Or if Steve Saleen was just gabbing?

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/c...on-09-mustang/

385 hp/390 tq for the GT in 09, that would put the GT about where it needs to be (assuming the 09 stang doesn't gain any more weight) if the F5 is in the 3800 to 3900 lbs range and 425 to 430 hp.

 

From FourCam

 

What is the configuration on the FRPP 5.0 L OHC crate motor - 4.6 L with increased stroke? Aluminium block?

Would an iron block 4.6 stroked to 5.0 with forged internals have sufficient durability (say with 400 hp at 5800 rpm)?

 

Apparently this new 5.0 block/engine will address all shortcomings with the 4.6 motor wrt bore/stroke

 

The FRPP features an increased bore, even with an iron block I beleive there is insuffcient material to prevent the bores from flexing.

I've been hearing that the production 5.0 will offer a sightly increased bore along with an increased stroke, but I don't know if the bore centers have changed.

Just changing the bore centers alone and allowing a much larger bore would take the mod motor for zero to hero, IIRC going from the small 3.550 to a 3.700 bore is good for nearly a 30 cfm gain in airflow alone.

Which btw, if your having heads ported and flowed is a good reason to ask if they are using a stock sized bore fixture on the flowbench. Using the nearly standard 4 inch bore would show sizable gains which wouldn't translate into real world air flow on the actual engine.

 

Enter "fanboi wizzing"
They certainly will bring tears to your eyes when you try to find or afford parts to rebuild them.
My friend dumped his M5 as soon as the warranty expired.
It's a Mustang, it's a truck, it's a Ford... follow the KISS principle (if you never work on your own car or plan on keeping it past the warranty period I guess it doesn't matter to you)
As soon as someone shows me a cammer that is as reliable as and produces more power than a pushrod engine (having the same weight - not displacement, built out of comparable materials, having equal R&D budgets) I'll quit being a "wizzing fanboi" and stand in line to buy mine.

BTW - Which design does Formula 1 use? Trick question - neither, they don't use cams. http://scarbsf1.com/valves.html

 

I guess you'd prefer a 2 stroke then.

 

 

Wow - those are quite the reasoning skills you have there. No, I actually want Ford to cut a whole in the floorboard so we can push like Fred Flintstone.

Since you can't make a two stroke that powerful that doesn't blow half of its fuel charge out of the exhaust that's a really asinine statement. Though if you can build one that would, you'd be a billionaire.

Using the same logic then I presume you would like a jet turbine in yours?

For an intelligent discussion on the topic (including several ex and current Ford engineers) that doesn't resort to middle school debate tactics see: http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums...ad.php?t=28611

There is a post in there somewhere, where an ex-Ford engineer mentions that the pushrod engines did better emissions wise than the Mod motors - that had to be embarassing and I wonder if that fact ever made past the first level of management.

Anyway, Ford messed up the Mod motors, and since I'm sure they are stubborn on the pushrod v. OHC issue, I hope they at least get this new (OHC) engine right.

 

Actually I remember reading about the idea for an electric car that used a turbine to charge the batteries very quickly.

Cool concept

 

I just read through all six pages of that link, One person mentioned improving emmissons on the 5.0 with the GT40p heads (I didn't follow all the links in the various posts), but nothing concrete except one Ford guy being pretty tight lipped because of job NDAs.

 

Sorry... I looked for it and can't find the specific post that I was talking about in there either.

I remember it clearly though, because I was actually being a Ford apologist by saying that one of the reasons they had to drop the Windsor motors was because of emissions - and then this guy corrected me and said that the Mod motors were actually a tad worse.

 

I bet that had something to do with the vavletrain, IIRC the 4v motors used a hella-hard valveguide and were a bit loose in the guide as well. I cant imagine probelms with the 3.550 bore, or maybe it was even fords A/F calibration????

 

Perry don’t get your panties in a wad. Think about what you posted that made me reply that way. You want a more powerful, lighter, more durable, less expensive engine. Show me a stock block 302 that can make more than 500 hp without splitting the mains. Maybe that has a something to do with it lightness. An all aluminum 4.6 3V is really not that heavy of an engine. Have you ever seen the cross bolted mains of a 4.6 teksid block? They have survived 1000 fwhp repeatedly. Or the factory steel crank. It is far far nicer than any 302 production crank. The cylinder head flow of a four valve 4.6 simply smokes any production 302 head.
Compare the hp/l output of the 2000 cobra r to the benchmark 2006 ls7 Chevy.
Ls7 72.14
Cbra r 71.29
The cobra r would have 4 ½ more hp with that ratio.
If the 5.4 had CNC ported heads, dry sump oiling, camming to redline to 7000 rpm, 1.5 more compression ratio, Ti con rods and 6 more years of development like the LS1 has, the 5.4 would be hands down far more powerful on a per liter basis I assure you.
Its always going to cost more to have 4 cams and double the valves. But you get more.

So what’s my point? Just be realistic. Yeah, Ford should have had the foresight to not compromise the engine to fit a front drive car that doesn’t even exist anymore. But everything mechanically about the engine is superior to the 302's & 351's of which I’ve had the pleasure of owning and racing. If you can believe all the info floating around out there about this new engine, it is going to be the best engine Ford ever produced. It appears its going to use the best of the Modular engines, and give us the bore size we need to put some valve area in those heads. Look up the Bowles/Roush drag car to see what its potential is.

PS, just for ****s and giggles, look up Evinrude E-Tech by Bombardier. It’s a direct injected 2 stroke, lighter, just as powerful, more efficient and cleaner than its 4 stroke competitors!

 

I agree with that.

Way back in the 1960s Ford & Shelby figured out that the 289 / 302 block could not run more than 380 HP in endurance racing (Cobra / GT-40) without the block or bearing caps failing.

In spite of the reverence the GT-40 had and still had today, the 289 CID GT-40s have an abysimal race finishing record mostly due to engine failures.

Ford had to result to using the 427 with its stout, cross bolted bottom end in order to win the LeMans 24 hour race.

Although small block GT-40s finally won LeMans in 1968 & 1969 (after the FIA outlawed the 427 GT-40s and Ferrari quit competing), the engines that won those races could hardly be called stock block 289 / 302 engines. They used specially made blocks, Dan Gurney heads and a bottom end girdle that Gurney also develped which replaced the main bearing caps with a huge, very expensive one piece girdle that had all the main bearing journals machined into it, simulating the FE's stong bottom end. The only resemblence those small block Fords had to the stock 289 / 302 engines was sharing their bore centers and basic dimensions.

 

Interesting. Saw some japanese V-6 engines (can't remember which brand) that had a 1 piece 4 bearing main cap, very nice. All my Ford racing experience has been drag racing. Had awsome 289's, moved up to a 351 Cleveland with a C6 that ran 10.7 @ 123 in a 70 Mach 1 @ 3200 lbs way back in 1978. They would split #5 or #8 cylinder if the tune was off. Drove back up the return road more than a couple of times with a bent conecting rod, blown out cylinder filling the oilpan with water, still chugging. I couldnt afford an Austrailian block so I went to 460's. Cheap, strong, powerful and under appreciated.

 

I hope we dont see that Jag motor ... TOO EXPENSIVE!

I sure do wish E85 would catch on ... cheaper, higher octane ... BRING BACK 12.5 - 1 COMPRESSION ... YES !!!

 

E85 is a bit cheaper per gallon due to government subsidies but yields ~ 25 to 30 % less BTUs per gallon when burned so fuel mileage goes down more than the unit price difference. So E85 is a very poor alternative right now from an economic standpoint - and that isn't even accounting for the effect that using corn for fuel ethanol has had on food prices

 

This issue has been so politicized in so many ways I'm amazed people still keep buying the hype. Ethanol could work out just fine as an alternative fuel but too many people with influence have a very large axe to grind here so what is, realitically, the only viable near future alternative to gasoline gets a bloody nose every time it gets so much as a mention.

 

It may be viable but not with current technology. They need to be able to produce from cellulosic material to be able to have a major impact on reducing petroleum use without using all the corn produced in the country plus some. Anyone with an E85-compatible vehicle who has done the math after trying it will tell you it cost them more - and with today's fuel prices that is seen as a significant burden by most people. That is how I was educated on the issue, by talking to someone who has experience with it, not listening to the political talking heads. In my opinion, natural gas is as viable or possibly more so for a short term alternative to gasoline.