bob

That was mainly due to packaging reasons till Ford could stretch the Exploder out to fit the mod motor, it was a very tight fit with the 5.0 in there. The SN95 Mustangs could have really used that motor. I suspect had it been used in the Mustang and tuned for it, the GTs would have had a good 240+ hp (even though GM would have been another 110 up on it since alot of those 300hp F-bods made 300hp at the wheels).

Eights

Thank all of you who contributed to the wealth of helpful info! I had meticulously typed an eloquent response but lost it when the software timed-out on me! You'll havta settle for this:

Like the two domestic rivals, Ford is having to carefully pick and choose when and where to fight--and is doing a much better job of it than either domestic rival. While the rivals should be creating new vehicle segments and bringing out class leaders in as yet untapped markets, they waste millions imitating the Mustang YET AGAIN! "Profit Through Imitation" should be inscribed on GM's tombstone, and "This gravesite's got a Hemi in it" should be inscribed on Chrysler's. But I digress...

The time when big sales might have resulted from the introduction of a modern new big block may have passed. Crude oil will probably never again be under $100/barrel after 2008. A CAFE average of 35 mpg for cars is now law for 2020. Dodge dropped the V10 from its trucks at least a year ago, and I'm sure it's totally history when the Viper gets discontinued in 2011--if not earlier. The Hemi is sweatin' too--earlier this month Chrysler shakers & movers said the Hemi will not be offered in any models other than those in which it is currently being offered. As those models are dropped, the Hemis are dropped with them. GM continues to apply duct tape over the baling wire over the Elmer's over the bubble gum that keeps its pushrodder V8s in production another year. And they've ceased all development on the OHC V8 designs that were to become the Slothstar replacement. Why make it better when you can still make it bigger?

In this scenario, will even a modern big block find a market that's sufficiently large to sustain the production line??? Thank God for trucks!

All that having been said, is the engine that Don Bowles and Jack Roush refer to as the "777" due out in trucks in 2010 (I had read speculative assurances that it would be in the 2009 F-150, but everyone is saying "No!" to that now)?

Will it debut as an SOHC two-valve with GDI right from the beginning? I'd prefer an SOHC three-valve myself, but I don't want to hope for too much! BTW, what's the best source of online info about the Bowles/Roush engine?

It is soooo ****ed tiresome having to "Edit/Save/Edit/Save/Edit/Save..." to avoid the effin' time-out! Not to mention annoying...

Greg "Eights" Ates

Boomer

FLEET AVERAGE...NOT per CAR

bob

I wouldn't slag on the LSx motors to much (even if folks heap to much praise on them as it is). It is very high tech peice in its own right. GM is right up there (IMO certianly in the top 2 or 3) when it comes to airflow technology even though they only employ a single bumpstick amd 16 valves. Thier 2v pushrod heads generally match and outpace Ford's multivalve modular efforts with as cast heads that can easily support well over 500 horsepower (as an example the 3v head can only muster about 500 hp in unported NA form). Or leveraged against DC's hemi heads, the GM castings meet and beat the hemi design even with the latters advantage of having a canted valve arrangement.

It would be a major coup on Ford's part if they could get Ken Sperry to jump ship, this guy could fart on the modeling software Ford uses to develop its cylinderheads and get another 50 cfm out of them on the same bore.

To get a glimpse of where GM is going with its production engines, just google the R07 race engine.

Kyle2k

Omg lol, i read this comment in the middle of Anatomy class and almost died laughing...needless to say I almost got kicked out, but yeah thats an awesome comment lol...However, you can talk about these cfm increases, but I still can't get over the fact that its a pushrod (sorry for you old timers out there). I'm not a purist muscle car guy though so...

Knight

Manufactures really need to start making produciton engines without cams. electronically controled valves that allow infinite varible lift and duration to get best opening for every engine situation.

Eights

Yeah, Boomer, I know--but a 35 mpg average is hard to make if any of your models struggle to average 30 mpg. It'll be challenging to get 5.0s to average 30 mpg unless cars get ****loads lighter by 2020...

Not that it can't be done--but can it be affordably done, and in a vehicle that's a pleasure to own?

Boomer

50,000 V8s out of 2 million vehicles that Ford sells a year is not a lot.
I understand that the new V8 will go in more than the mustang, and that each little bit does its part...but Mustang V8 sales alone do not tell the story, nor dictate the fate of engines.

Ford is concerned and they are putting measures in place.
Not knowing how efficient the new 5.0 is, the weight of the new car, the gearing and tranny etc...hearing what i hear, I'm not concerned in the slightest.

bob

At this point in the game, OHV engines are still very viable. If we transition to higher reving smaller displacement engines, you will probably see them go by the wayside

Kyle2k

I think higher revving small displacement engines are the way to go...one such example being on this site....check it out, I think it is very cool and hopefully a glimps (spelling?) into the future.

http://www.h1v8.com/page/page/1562068.htm

Topnotch

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...rove-says.aspx

On Ford's Windsor engine plant project:
“The best example of that is the 5-litre engine for the Ford plant in Windsor. We have an opportunity to win an engine in that facility."

Eights

Kyle2k: Forty years after the introduction of the Cosworth-Ford DFV 3.0-liter V8 Formula One engine, it seems a bit anticlimactic to re-invent that Cosworth-Ford engine using chain drive for the cams instead of the gear drive used four decades ago. The Hartley camshaft covers look like they'd be direct bolt-ons to the cylinder heads of the Cosworth-Ford V8, too.

It would make a hellacious motorcyle engine, I'll give it that!!! WooHoo!!

Greg "Eights" Ates

Eights

Topnotch: Good find! This is good news for the 5.0 V8! And cause for hope!

Boomer

Just as a bit of history...

Windsors Essex (IIRC) plant helped ramp the 4.6 3v up as well as Romeo Engine Plant.
I could see the same thing happening with the 5.0 even if they don't get it perm.

Kyle2k

Haha, and twenty years before I was born...besides the fact the forumula one engine probably cost about as much as 5 of these but w/e...

bob

Heh, that funny because the Hartley is two 'busa motors essentially sharing the same crank. First time I saw, it I was thinking, just needs 4 more cylinders and it would make a sweet 600hp V12, although if you read on it would be problematic to make it a 60 degree engine.

Indystang

Correct! every manufacturer will be selling lots of small cars to the masses by then as gas hits $4-$5 a gallon. That will average out sales and hopefully a V-8 Mustang will still be around and available to the average Joe.

GTJOHN

I can't reveal my source, but this comes from way-up the food chain at the Blue Oval.

New GDI V8 will be in the 2011MY Mustang. February 2010 was the date I was given. That must be Job1?

As of this moment, it is not 100% given that this new V8 will be produced in Canada.

Eights

bob: Whoa here, Bob! The "DFV" in "Cosworth-Ford DFV 3.0 Liter Formula One V8" stands for "Double Four Valve"--the V8 engine was two Ford of England inline four-cylinder Formula Two engines (apparently, known as the "Four Valve" because they were four-valves-per-cylinder) mated to a common engine block! Colin Chapman asked Ford of England to build a Formula One engine for his Lotus Formula One cars, using their outstanding 1.6 Liter Formula Two engines as a benchmark. Ford contacted racing honchos Costin and Duckworth to unite two of their Formula Two engines and the "Cosworth-Ford DFV 3.0 Liter Formula One V8" was the result! Naturally, when you unite two "Four Valve" engines on one engine block the result must be a "Double Four Valve", which is yet again what Hartley has done with his two Hayabusas on a common engine block, only forty years after Costin & Duckworth had already "been there, done that".

If given a choice of one or the other, I'd take the Cosworth over the Hartley because of the Cosworth's gear-driven cams. The twin-turbo versions that ruled Indy-style racing for years made godawful power, as if the naturally-aspirated versions weren't extreme enough!

Trivia quiz tie-breaker data: The naturally-aspirated version powered a closed coupe to victory at the 24 Hours of LeMans in 1975, I think it was, so it was adaptable as well!

Greg "Eights" Ates--No, I'm not two "Fours" combined on a common engine block...

bob

I know about the Cosworth name , and thanks for the DFV insight - I knew the DFV engine where monsters, I just didn't realize the DFV stood for Double Four Valve and the engine like the Hartley is two 4 cylinders sharing a common crank.

I like the Hartley's compact size and weight, and I think taken to to another level as a clean sheet design based on the 'busa's bore x stroke it'd make a killer 4.0 V12 which theoretically could produce in the neighborhood of 600 hp while only adding no more than 4-5 inches of length to the engine.

The possiblities, think about a Lotus Elise with a V12 that'd put down 600hp while only gaining a marginal amount of weight.

In comparison below, the Hartley V8 and the Zetec I4