No 5.8L boss for Mustang
9/1/07, 09:12 PM
#221
Member
Join Date: September 1, 2007
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure but is seems the current crop of aluminum wheels seems ro be forged, which generally are lighter than htier cast brethern. Ford claim the front control arms are lighter than some aluminum units.
IMO, the biggest area to reduce weight in would be the body, I dunno what sort of steel Ford uses for the Mustang chassis, but if it is the same ol cheap stuff they used in the older mustangs then weight savings could be had there by using thinner but stronger steels, However, we are talking a body designed to cope with 500+ hp.
As for the 3v 4.6, I dont know how much bore you could safely put in the engine, but Ford dosen't seem to want to go more than the 3.55" bore they have now, It'd be nice if they could go with a 3.70" bore (as I understands it, the 3.70 bore works wonders with the 4v heads), that'd give it a nice 5.0 liter displacement with the 3.55" stroke. Obviously there is room to improve the 3v heads as seen by Fords on CNC porting program which is probably pretty mild, however personally, I say ditch the V8's and go with a V10 with an even shorter deck and and shorter stroke, 3.550 x 3.050 yields a nice 302 cubic inches and given the current 6250 rpm redline, such an engine could rev past 7,000 rpm and still keep similar piston speeds. peak horsepower on the V8 is achieved 500 rpm before redline, shift that to 6500 rom (if say you put the V10 redline at 7000, said engine could rev to 7200 rpm) and you pick up 40 horsepower. If you went with a premium fuel tune thats 360 horsepower, pump that up to a 7200 rpm redline and place peak power at 6800 rpm and its another 17 hp, ditch the IMRC plates and cast the 3v heads with a port conour similar to the CNC'd heads and a 400hp V10 becomes possible on premium fuel with a nice boost friendly compression ratio. go with DI and even higher static compression ratios and you could improve the fuel economy and power output as well, or just go with fuel economy improvements alone and leave it in the 400hp neighborhood.
Ehhh... but enough of this pipe dream, the Duke Nuke'em II V8 is coming out in two or three years anyway.
IMO, the biggest area to reduce weight in would be the body, I dunno what sort of steel Ford uses for the Mustang chassis, but if it is the same ol cheap stuff they used in the older mustangs then weight savings could be had there by using thinner but stronger steels, However, we are talking a body designed to cope with 500+ hp.
As for the 3v 4.6, I dont know how much bore you could safely put in the engine, but Ford dosen't seem to want to go more than the 3.55" bore they have now, It'd be nice if they could go with a 3.70" bore (as I understands it, the 3.70 bore works wonders with the 4v heads), that'd give it a nice 5.0 liter displacement with the 3.55" stroke. Obviously there is room to improve the 3v heads as seen by Fords on CNC porting program which is probably pretty mild, however personally, I say ditch the V8's and go with a V10 with an even shorter deck and and shorter stroke, 3.550 x 3.050 yields a nice 302 cubic inches and given the current 6250 rpm redline, such an engine could rev past 7,000 rpm and still keep similar piston speeds. peak horsepower on the V8 is achieved 500 rpm before redline, shift that to 6500 rom (if say you put the V10 redline at 7000, said engine could rev to 7200 rpm) and you pick up 40 horsepower. If you went with a premium fuel tune thats 360 horsepower, pump that up to a 7200 rpm redline and place peak power at 6800 rpm and its another 17 hp, ditch the IMRC plates and cast the 3v heads with a port conour similar to the CNC'd heads and a 400hp V10 becomes possible on premium fuel with a nice boost friendly compression ratio. go with DI and even higher static compression ratios and you could improve the fuel economy and power output as well, or just go with fuel economy improvements alone and leave it in the 400hp neighborhood.
Ehhh... but enough of this pipe dream, the Duke Nuke'em II V8 is coming out in two or three years anyway.
I agree there should be a 5.0 L / 302 CID variant of the current engine for the Boss Mustang. Both FRPP and Saleen make such an animal. In the case of Saleen (in their limited production Parnelli Jones edition) they increase the displacement with a longer stroke. I don't know about the FRPP 5.0 L, whether it is a longer stroke only. In both cases they are good for about 400 hp at the flywheel, so this would be plenty to be worthy of a Boss Mustang. I had read a while back that the rumored plan was to have a 5.0 for the Boss Mustang in '08 or '09 and then the 5.0 L (in a less highly tuned form) would be the standard engine in the Mustang GT with the new design in '10.
9/2/07, 09:02 AM
#222
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 21, 2004
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to read this whole thread, but 11 pages was just too much. I did get through enough to get the just of it though. Here`s my thoughts.
1) For the immediate future we don`t need a bigger/new engine for the GT. The 4.6 3v just needs to be refined. Let`s open it up with a slightly bigger bore and longer stroke. Top it off with the 4v head design that we already have. Then redesign the intake manifold for power gains. With a decent cam grind you are looking at a 50 rwhp improvement minimum. And that`s mostly with pre-existing parts.
2) Give a higher performance option available for a price. Based around a higher performance cam set, rear gear and suspension upgrades. All parts already available from the FRPP catalog. C`mon, not everyone will opt for it, but with the 4v heads a cam change would be a viable option. Combined with a package exclusive rear gear and the FRPP handling pack it would make for a different enough car to base SE`s around.
3) Let`s shed a little weight. I think 150 lbs. is realistic. The cost of using aluminum has come way down in the last 10 years. It`s time that Ford has caught up with the present. Combine some moderate suspension part replacement with lighter cast aluminum wheels and you are almost there.
Most of what I suggest is low dough. The parts already exist for the most part. The rest is improvements in material and manufacturing processes that Ford should have made 3 to 5 years ago.
Eric
1) For the immediate future we don`t need a bigger/new engine for the GT. The 4.6 3v just needs to be refined. Let`s open it up with a slightly bigger bore and longer stroke. Top it off with the 4v head design that we already have. Then redesign the intake manifold for power gains. With a decent cam grind you are looking at a 50 rwhp improvement minimum. And that`s mostly with pre-existing parts.
2) Give a higher performance option available for a price. Based around a higher performance cam set, rear gear and suspension upgrades. All parts already available from the FRPP catalog. C`mon, not everyone will opt for it, but with the 4v heads a cam change would be a viable option. Combined with a package exclusive rear gear and the FRPP handling pack it would make for a different enough car to base SE`s around.
3) Let`s shed a little weight. I think 150 lbs. is realistic. The cost of using aluminum has come way down in the last 10 years. It`s time that Ford has caught up with the present. Combine some moderate suspension part replacement with lighter cast aluminum wheels and you are almost there.
Most of what I suggest is low dough. The parts already exist for the most part. The rest is improvements in material and manufacturing processes that Ford should have made 3 to 5 years ago.
Eric
I'm not sure how much more refining they can get out of the 4.6 they've been refining it for 20 plus years. Boring and stroking it would be good but I think an aluminum block 5.4 3v is a better short term answer. They can use it in the truck too, which would keep costs down.
The whole reason for coming out with the boss engine program is to address all the short comings we currently have. I would rather see them put all of their resources into that program and give us a first rate engine in a year or two.
9/2/07, 06:40 PM
#223
Legacy TMS Member
, also IIRC, it was added around the trans tunnel (or the bulk of it). Somebody posted a dealer guide here and it has the GT curb weight listed in the guide, the 3356 was pulled straight from the guide. I post on a GM site as well and I always like to "share" this info with GM guys (like the 3v 4.6 is about 20 pounds lighter than a comparable LSx). Those guys are always quick to tell you how crappy the mod motor is, how crappy and how dated and crappy the current mustang chassis and body is while adding in how much pure awesome the F4 camaros are and how awesome and mighty the LSx engines are (nevermind that they now have nearly a 100 cubic inch advantage).I would dearly love for Ford to put out a 400hp 4.6 or 5.0 all aluminum mod motor just to shut those guys up (then I imagine the conversation would change to "yeah it puts out 400hp and is 20 lbs lighter than the LS3, but look how BIG it is!", to which I would counter "does size matter when the chassis is engineered for it?" and they would counter "its still bigger than an LSx motor so it still sucks").
--->edit<---
Y'know after checking out the V8 in the H3, it's 5.3 liters and puts out 300hp and 325 ft/lbs. and is the closest comparable motor GM has to the 3v 4.6 (its kinda funny that the 3v 4.6 gets compared to the LS1, LS2 and LS3 motors
)
9/4/07, 11:18 AM
#224
Needs to be more Astony
9/4/07, 12:54 PM
#225
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, even at 32lbs each, that is pretty light!
9/4/07, 08:06 PM
#226
Legacy TMS Member
From Ford, let me dig up the page info from FRPP (page 67 btw)
Did you know…
That an aluminum 4.6L block weighs approximately
85 lbs. while the iron versions weigh approximately 155 lbs.
Did you know…
The new 3-valve 4.6L engine in the 2005-07
Mustang weighs only 420 lbs. dressed.
Did you know…
5.4L blocks received more material in 2002 for
Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) control. Pre-2002
blocks weighed 185 lbs., later blocks weigh 200 lbs.
Did you know…
You can easily distinguish Romeo vs. Windsor
4.6 liter iron blocks by the main caps. Windsor blocks
have dowels to locate the main caps while Romeo
blocks use jack screws to locate the main caps.
Did you know…
All 5.4L iron blocks are made with the Windsor
main cap style, even those that go into engines
coming out of Romeo engine plant.Did you know…
The new 3-valve 4.6L engine in the 2005-07
Mustang weighs only 420 lbs. dressed.
Did you know…
5.4L blocks received more material in 2002 for
Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) control. Pre-2002
blocks weighed 185 lbs., later blocks weigh 200 lbs.
Did you know…
You can easily distinguish Romeo vs. Windsor
4.6 liter iron blocks by the main caps. Windsor blocks
have dowels to locate the main caps while Romeo
blocks use jack screws to locate the main caps.
Did you know…
All 5.4L iron blocks are made with the Windsor
main cap style, even those that go into engines
the LS engines weigh 440 or 445 lbs dressed.
9/5/07, 07:54 AM
#227
Needs to be more Astony
pretty interesting. I knew it was light but i didn't know it was that light.
I always wanted to swap the 3v into a 99GT. Would make a 99gt about 3100lbs. and 300hp or 330hp with cai and tune. just over 9lbs per hp...not bad at all
I always wanted to swap the 3v into a 99GT. Would make a 99gt about 3100lbs. and 300hp or 330hp with cai and tune. just over 9lbs per hp...not bad at all
9/5/07, 01:53 PM
#228
V6 Member
Join Date: January 13, 2006
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was considering a 3 valve swap on my engine myself.
9/5/07, 09:12 PM
#229
Legacy TMS Member
Are people doing 3v swaps now? I guess its just a matter of locking out the cams and matching up the bits and pieces. It's a shame Ford didn't have the 3v back when the 4.6 made its debut in the Mustang, or even the PI motor, the mod motors might have garnered a bit more respect. Speaking of which GM = 300hp-325 ft/lbs with 5.3 liters vs. Ford = 300 hp-320 ft/lbs with 4.6 liters. Interstingly GM's 5.3 is making the same HP/Liter as the PI engines.
9/7/07, 09:39 AM
#230
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 21, 2004
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are people doing 3v swaps now? I guess its just a matter of locking out the cams and matching up the bits and pieces. It's a shame Ford didn't have the 3v back when the 4.6 made its debut in the Mustang, or even the PI motor, the mod motors might have garnered a bit more respect. Speaking of which GM = 300hp-325 ft/lbs with 5.3 liters vs. Ford = 300 hp-320 ft/lbs with 4.6 liters. Interstingly GM's 5.3 is making the same HP/Liter as the PI engines.
9/7/07, 11:15 PM
#231
Legacy TMS Member
Lol, actually my point was Ford's 3v 4.6 is prqctically neck and neck with GM's 2v 5.3. LSophiles are quick to point out that the Mod motors are completely unremarkable in thier power and size and love to compare the 4.6 with the 6.2, 6.3 and 7.0 liter engines GM produces, ignoring the closest LS in GM's line up to the Mod motor. However you are right as GM aptly shows, there is no replacement for displacement.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MRGTX
2012-2013 BOSS 302
12
8/7/15 08:29 AM