A New V8 from Ford?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: August 20, 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Kind of speculative, but a smaller, smoother more efficient V8 would be perfect for a future Mustang or even the current platform. Imagine a hi po version being a contemporary version of what the Boss 302 was back in its day while some hi po version of the bigger Boss engine family would fill the shoes of the 428 motor in the Mach I.
Bullitt Member
Joined: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Kind of speculative, but a smaller, smoother more efficient V8 would be perfect for a future Mustang or even the current platform. Imagine a hi po version being a contemporary version of what the Boss 302 was back in its day while some hi po version of the bigger Boss engine family would fill the shoes of the 428 motor in the Mach I.
But it wasn't. The only way such an engine would set the world on fire is to offer it in the Focus and other vehicles built on that chassis. If you recall, the naturally-aspirated crate 5.0 'Cammer that Ford dropped into a Focus two-door hatchback and dubbed it the "RS8" gave the little Focus performance equal to a Gallardo in a racetrack comparo. Its only shortcomings were (a) an inexplicably high price and (b) insufficient racetrack cooling using the dimunitive Focus radiator. One of the reasons the price was so high is that Ford started with the highest-performance version of the European Focus--around $30,000 US. Some custom parts had to be built because the 5.0 'Cammer was longitudinally mounted driving the rear wheels instead of transverse FWD. The Jag/T-Bird V8 woulda been an easier fit, I suppose, and probably woulda been somewhat lighter.
In the final analysis, bringing out a smaller-than-4.6-liters V8 in a Mustang won't have a tenth of the impact of bringing out a larger-than-5.4-liters V8 in a Mustang. The Mustang is the American affordable performance car--any technological advances that would make a "smaller" V8 more powerful would make a "larger" V8 waaaaayyyy more powerful. Which would you pay your hard-earned money to have? Yep, me too!
Greg "Eights" Ates
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
I love the ides of a small V8 engine family. In fact, I've often wondered why Ford, and other brands for that matter, don't design a small V8 lineup to take the place of their V6 engines given the advantages the V8 offers and the surprising lack of advantage in utilizing a V6 engine design.
Back when V6 engine designs were primarily 90-degree V8's with two cylinders lopped off the end the cost advantages were obvious and likely attractive. However, after those designs were replaced with more refined, stand alone 60-degree designs the cost-benefit analysis took an obvious blow and it is questionable wether or not a 60-degree V6 is significantly less expensive to develop and produce than a 90-degree V8 of similar size/displacement.
Some will point out that the extra two cylinders of the V8 bring a lot of extra parts besides simple pistons, and they'd be right. But the reality is that the V6 brings its own complexities, like the split throw crank, which is a far more complex design than what a 90-degree V8 employs meaning that development, tooling, and production costs are all elevated. This is but one part but when you consider that the crank is one of the most expensive components in a modern engine this is no small issue.
Another factor to consider is the reality that any 90-degree V8 is going to be inherently smoother than a 60-degree V6. Even more, as that V6 engines displacement increases the V8's advantage here grows. Just about any car company can build a supremely smooth running V8, of nearly any size with V8's of 5.0L or less being so easy to make buttery smooth the Chinese could likely do a world class job. When V6 engines start creeping significantly above the 3.0L mark NVH becomes an issue that costs money to keep in check (around 3.2L seems to be where these engines like to stay for decent NVH) no plainer way to say it. When displacement rises above 3.5L the amount of development, and therefore money, needed to keep things nice and smooth rises considerably. A V8 of 3.5L would trump anything you could muster with the same. Above 4.0L? Probably not worth the trouble unless you don't have a V8 engine or the V8 you do have wont fit.
Other advantages, like the obvious torque benefits the typical 90-degree V8 possesses and the reality that the V6 engine has never proven an overly fuel efficient design relative to other designs of similar displacement call into question the wisdom of continued reliance on the design by the auto industry.
Alas, the recently released second gen Duratec makes it unlikely we'll see the V6 replaced by a small V8, but it wont stop those of us who understand the potential benefits from wishing. And perhaps the small V8 in mentioned in this article will offer us just a bit of the better world we could see if such a wholesale switch were to occur.
Back when V6 engine designs were primarily 90-degree V8's with two cylinders lopped off the end the cost advantages were obvious and likely attractive. However, after those designs were replaced with more refined, stand alone 60-degree designs the cost-benefit analysis took an obvious blow and it is questionable wether or not a 60-degree V6 is significantly less expensive to develop and produce than a 90-degree V8 of similar size/displacement.
Some will point out that the extra two cylinders of the V8 bring a lot of extra parts besides simple pistons, and they'd be right. But the reality is that the V6 brings its own complexities, like the split throw crank, which is a far more complex design than what a 90-degree V8 employs meaning that development, tooling, and production costs are all elevated. This is but one part but when you consider that the crank is one of the most expensive components in a modern engine this is no small issue.
Another factor to consider is the reality that any 90-degree V8 is going to be inherently smoother than a 60-degree V6. Even more, as that V6 engines displacement increases the V8's advantage here grows. Just about any car company can build a supremely smooth running V8, of nearly any size with V8's of 5.0L or less being so easy to make buttery smooth the Chinese could likely do a world class job. When V6 engines start creeping significantly above the 3.0L mark NVH becomes an issue that costs money to keep in check (around 3.2L seems to be where these engines like to stay for decent NVH) no plainer way to say it. When displacement rises above 3.5L the amount of development, and therefore money, needed to keep things nice and smooth rises considerably. A V8 of 3.5L would trump anything you could muster with the same. Above 4.0L? Probably not worth the trouble unless you don't have a V8 engine or the V8 you do have wont fit.
Other advantages, like the obvious torque benefits the typical 90-degree V8 possesses and the reality that the V6 engine has never proven an overly fuel efficient design relative to other designs of similar displacement call into question the wisdom of continued reliance on the design by the auto industry.
Alas, the recently released second gen Duratec makes it unlikely we'll see the V6 replaced by a small V8, but it wont stop those of us who understand the potential benefits from wishing. And perhaps the small V8 in mentioned in this article will offer us just a bit of the better world we could see if such a wholesale switch were to occur.
Bullitt Member
Joined: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
I love the ides of a small V8 engine family. In fact, I've often wondered why Ford, and other brands for that matter, don't design a small V8 lineup to take the place of their V6 engines given the advantages the V8 offers and the surprising lack of advantage in utilizing a V6 engine design.
Back when V6 engine designs were primarily 90-degree V8's with two cylinders lopped off the end the cost advantages were obvious and likely attractive. However, after those designs were replaced with more refined, stand alone 60-degree designs the cost-benefit analysis took an obvious blow and it is questionable wether or not a 60-degree V6 is significantly less expensive to develop and produce than a 90-degree V8 of similar size/displacement.
Some will point out that the extra two cylinders of the V8 bring a lot of extra parts besides simple pistons, and they'd be right. But the reality is that the V6 brings its own complexities, like the split throw crank, which is a far more complex design than what a 90-degree V8 employs meaning that development, tooling, and production costs are all elevated. This is but one part but when you consider that the crank is one of the most expensive components in a modern engine this is no small issue.
Another factor to consider is the reality that any 90-degree V8 is going to be inherently smoother than a 60-degree V6. Even more, as that V6 engines displacement increases the V8's advantage here grows. Just about any car company can build a supremely smooth running V8, of nearly any size with V8's of 5.0L or less being so easy to make buttery smooth the Chinese could likely do a world class job. When V6 engines start creeping significantly above the 3.0L mark NVH becomes an issue that costs money to keep in check (around 3.2L seems to be where these engines like to stay for decent NVH) no plainer way to say it. When displacement rises above 3.5L the amount of development, and therefore money, needed to keep things nice and smooth rises considerably. A V8 of 3.5L would trump anything you could muster with the same. Above 4.0L? Probably not worth the trouble unless you don't have a V8 engine or the V8 you do have wont fit.
Other advantages, like the obvious torque benefits the typical 90-degree V8 possesses and the reality that the V6 engine has never proven an overly fuel efficient design relative to other designs of similar displacement call into question the wisdom of continued reliance on the design by the auto industry.
Alas, the recently released second gen Duratec makes it unlikely we'll see the V6 replaced by a small V8, but it wont stop those of us who understand the potential benefits from wishing. And perhaps the small V8 in mentioned in this article will offer us just a bit of the better world we could see if such a wholesale switch were to occur.
Back when V6 engine designs were primarily 90-degree V8's with two cylinders lopped off the end the cost advantages were obvious and likely attractive. However, after those designs were replaced with more refined, stand alone 60-degree designs the cost-benefit analysis took an obvious blow and it is questionable wether or not a 60-degree V6 is significantly less expensive to develop and produce than a 90-degree V8 of similar size/displacement.
Some will point out that the extra two cylinders of the V8 bring a lot of extra parts besides simple pistons, and they'd be right. But the reality is that the V6 brings its own complexities, like the split throw crank, which is a far more complex design than what a 90-degree V8 employs meaning that development, tooling, and production costs are all elevated. This is but one part but when you consider that the crank is one of the most expensive components in a modern engine this is no small issue.
Another factor to consider is the reality that any 90-degree V8 is going to be inherently smoother than a 60-degree V6. Even more, as that V6 engines displacement increases the V8's advantage here grows. Just about any car company can build a supremely smooth running V8, of nearly any size with V8's of 5.0L or less being so easy to make buttery smooth the Chinese could likely do a world class job. When V6 engines start creeping significantly above the 3.0L mark NVH becomes an issue that costs money to keep in check (around 3.2L seems to be where these engines like to stay for decent NVH) no plainer way to say it. When displacement rises above 3.5L the amount of development, and therefore money, needed to keep things nice and smooth rises considerably. A V8 of 3.5L would trump anything you could muster with the same. Above 4.0L? Probably not worth the trouble unless you don't have a V8 engine or the V8 you do have wont fit.
Other advantages, like the obvious torque benefits the typical 90-degree V8 possesses and the reality that the V6 engine has never proven an overly fuel efficient design relative to other designs of similar displacement call into question the wisdom of continued reliance on the design by the auto industry.
Alas, the recently released second gen Duratec makes it unlikely we'll see the V6 replaced by a small V8, but it wont stop those of us who understand the potential benefits from wishing. And perhaps the small V8 in mentioned in this article will offer us just a bit of the better world we could see if such a wholesale switch were to occur.
The V6 will win out in the small-engine category--not because it's better but because the cost of producing a small V8 of identical displacement will give the V6 sufficient price advantage to triumph. Whatever advantages a 3.5L V8 would have over a 3.5L V6 probably wouldn't sway many folks to fork over the additional bucks to get the V8. If folks pay more, they expect to get lots more. That's not always realistic, but that's the car biz...Didja ever hear of anyone yanking the 302 from their Boss 302 and dropping in a 3.0L Cosworth DFV V8? Me neither...
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
The V6 will win out in the small-engine category--not because it's better but because the cost of producing a small V8 of identical displacement will give the V6 sufficient price advantage to triumph.
I think a bias that isn't necessarily accurate has developed here in no small part because the V8 advertises all it's extra bits from the outset. The cost disadvantages to a V6 aren't nearly so obvious, but they exist. The difference in crank designs I mention above stands as but one example but is, in reality, huge since the difference in crank complexity itself is huge.
A split throw crank is an expensive proposition due to the complexity of the design...even worse that very split throw design inherently compromises strength meaning that you have to take an already complex crank and build it out of better stuff if you want strength comparable to a V8's cruciform design....making it even more expensive. For example, Ford's new Duratec is making use of forged cranks on a relatively large scale for good reason since, in anything resembling high power applications, they are a virtual necessity for a 60-degree V6 to prove reliable enough for production.
When you take into consideration the money needed to overcome the NVH issues mentioned above you have a situation where it is absolutely questionable wether or not a truly modern V6 is any cheaper to produce than a comparable size/displacement V8. To take this analysis even further you can add the possible cost benefits of small four cylinder engines sharing major components to the V8's list of advantages. And while some of this is possible with V6 engines as well as V8 designs, the V8 possesses an inherent advantage here too since parts as significant as cylinder heads, exhaust manifolds, etc can be shared between a 4-cylinder and a V8.
As time goes by, and engines become continually more refined, I think the V6 design loses a lot of what made it attractive in the first place. And I think you would be hard pressed to argue people wouldn't prefer a V8 over a similarly sized V6..particularly since the V8 is going to be inherently better in every dynamic respect not to mention superior in terms of torque production. Factor in the reality of similar or superior fuel economy and V8 prestige and the V6 wouldn't stand a chance.
I think the AJ motor is a fine piece, though perhaps a bit ahead of its time, coming out in the age of water-cheap gas and mega-horsepower mega-motors that tended to overshadow its more sublime qualities.
But now that gas is $3 a jug and rising into the foreseeable future, not to mention stringent new CAFE standards and belated efforts to keep the ice caps icy, the age of 500hp supercharged powerplants with coffee can pistons likely fading fast, well, the exquisite "little" AJ motor design may be somewhat precient. A "small block," "big block" mix of motors for a somewhat smaller, lighter, sleeker Mustang may well make much more sense looking forward than it has up to now.
A four'ish-liter advanced V8 can offer a great deal of power, just look at Audi's 420hp 4.2 screamer. Slap a puppy like that in a 200-300lb lighter Stang with a lightning fast dual-clutch type tranny and a shape that doesn't rip such a ragged gash in the atmosphere and wallet. Couple that go power with a chassis that can much better parry the speed generated by the engine bay and you could have an immensely fast and exciting Stang for tomorrow's world.
The reality is that the blunt instrument approach to performance -- ever bigger, more powerful motors in ever fatter cars -- may simply not be feasible any more. Hopefully the manufacturers will meet the challenge head on with innovative strategies and technologies rather than retreat into meek insipidness as they did in the seventies and early eighties.
But now that gas is $3 a jug and rising into the foreseeable future, not to mention stringent new CAFE standards and belated efforts to keep the ice caps icy, the age of 500hp supercharged powerplants with coffee can pistons likely fading fast, well, the exquisite "little" AJ motor design may be somewhat precient. A "small block," "big block" mix of motors for a somewhat smaller, lighter, sleeker Mustang may well make much more sense looking forward than it has up to now.
A four'ish-liter advanced V8 can offer a great deal of power, just look at Audi's 420hp 4.2 screamer. Slap a puppy like that in a 200-300lb lighter Stang with a lightning fast dual-clutch type tranny and a shape that doesn't rip such a ragged gash in the atmosphere and wallet. Couple that go power with a chassis that can much better parry the speed generated by the engine bay and you could have an immensely fast and exciting Stang for tomorrow's world.
The reality is that the blunt instrument approach to performance -- ever bigger, more powerful motors in ever fatter cars -- may simply not be feasible any more. Hopefully the manufacturers will meet the challenge head on with innovative strategies and technologies rather than retreat into meek insipidness as they did in the seventies and early eighties.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
I love the ides of a small V8 engine family. In fact, I've often wondered why Ford, and other brands for that matter, don't design a small V8 lineup to take the place of their V6 engines given the advantages the V8 offers and the surprising lack of advantage in utilizing a V6 engine design.
A V8 costs considerably more than a V6 to manufacture. For a DOHC engine 8 more valves, lifters, springs, 2 more pistons, rods, spark plugs, extra machining, etc.
On the efficiency end a V8 of the same displacement will always weigh more than a V6. And because the V8 is 90 degrees, it takes more width to fit it in and obviously it's longer.
Finally, friction losses will be higher in the V8 reducing fuel efficiency.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: March 11, 2004
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
In short it's a gem of an engine, the most refined engine Ford has ever sold in N. America. It is aweseomely smooth right to its 6,500 RPM red line.
The problems with the AJ-V8 are it's expensive to make, has a small bore size 86 mm, doesn't have a lot of low end torque and isn't all that fuel efficient.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: July 4, 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis Area
Shelby GT500 Member
Joined: July 21, 2004
Posts: 2,924
Likes: 1
From: New Jersey
You're not serious are you? Every test ever done on that car says the same thing: "Great engine strapped to a donkey of a suspension and chassis". Now, stick Ford's 5.4L SC engine onto a Saleen or Roush chassis and you'd have something. They did a bad job with the suspension etc on the GT500.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: July 4, 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis Area
Poor suspension setup is a totally different problem than a junk chassis. Just look at all the road racers tearing up the tracks with modified suspension setups. They are killing everyone with very minor if any chassis mods on the race cars. Suspension mods, yes. Chassis mods...not really. Chassis is good as is.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
The Saleen and Roush would have similar problems, the GT500 mill is just heavy.
By comparison the GT500 suspension uses springs which are 40% stiffer than the GT (and the upper strut mounts are 28% stiffer in compliance). yet the chassis dynamics of the regular GT are typically seen as better than the GT500.
By comparison the GT500 suspension uses springs which are 40% stiffer than the GT (and the upper strut mounts are 28% stiffer in compliance). yet the chassis dynamics of the regular GT are typically seen as better than the GT500.
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 26, 2007
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
I feel that Ford should just try to refine the current 4.6 and 5.4. Look at the amazing things GM has done with the 5.7, 6.0, 6.2 motors. Instead of designing a whole new motor Ford should put money into improving the current engines. For example look at what ford did to the 4.6 in the 99' swap it added 35HP and actually improved gas mileage......just and idea
Bullitt Member
Joined: May 28, 2004
Posts: 266
Likes: 1
From: Long Beach, Ca
You're not serious are you? Every test ever done on that car says the same thing: "Great engine strapped to a donkey of a suspension and chassis". Now, stick Ford's 5.4L SC engine onto a Saleen or Roush chassis and you'd have something. They did a bad job with the suspension etc on the GT500.
I Have No Life
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
It's funny how many people make fun of the live axle and have never taken it to the track with proper tires. Stellar is not a word used to describe it, but its not as bad as people put it out to be.
On roads, about 90% wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The chassis is amazing compared to the old one, and is still a great platform.
The engine for 2010... what do you think the 5.0 is?
It'll be all of the good learned from the 4.6/5.4 and improves appon the stuff that made them bad. It is not and I repeat NOT just a bumped 4.6 mod
On roads, about 90% wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The chassis is amazing compared to the old one, and is still a great platform.
The engine for 2010... what do you think the 5.0 is?
It'll be all of the good learned from the 4.6/5.4 and improves appon the stuff that made them bad. It is not and I repeat NOT just a bumped 4.6 mod