with all this talk of the new engine coming out for the f150 and superduties with around 400+hp and 420+ftlbs that is suppose to be better than the hemi, has anyone heard if this will replace our 4.6l in the gt, i can only hope so. What i have read the 6.2 is suppose to be a evolutionary mod motor with a larger bore that what we currently have and is supposed to be able to have a possiblity to be bored out to 7.0l and detuned to a 5.8l, Personally i would love to see a 5.8l sohc in a gt stang, 5.8 dohc in special edition models, and 6.2 dohc supercharged in the cobras. If only ford will get something right for once and stop underdogging the competition. For once i would like to see ford at the top of hp and torque ratings for the stang vs the new camaro and challenger and also one more thing to the xmas list for the 09 is a 6sp for god's sake!
Ford's new 6.2 in a stang?
- Thread starter Stangdriver13
- Start date
Wolvrin704
Member
The 6.2 is being made for the F150 and Mustang, its called the BOSS motor. Look for it to come out around 2009 or 2010 to compete with the new Camaro.
ohc design on a V8 with a larger bore should work pretty well for Ford. screw the 6.2L. i want the 7.0L.
geoffsgt
Member
How will that work with the new emissions/fuel economy standards that come out every couple of years now? Everyone else has displacement on demand and stuff like that... has Ford been developing anything similar for these new bigger engines?
hotmustang331
Active Member
I want a more powerful Mustang as much as anybody, but I fail to see how a truck engine design will really help. A truck has plenty of room for tall engines, and increasing frontal area and gaining a hundred pounds or so as a trade-off for more towing power is not a bad trade. In a sports car, increasing weight and frontal area is a bad, bad trade.
The heads on our cars are already quite bulky. I like the high-revving nature of my SOHC V8, and want more of it. But what my engine needs more than stroke is bore. And more bore means bigger heads just to cover the piston. And bigger heads, needing to fit cams over valves, will only add more weight on top, which isn't really where it ought to be to improve handling.
I certainly don't want a big-ass truck engine in my car if that means a taller hood and wider body. That just adds frontal area, which kills acceleration as speeds climb, not to mention decreasing cornering speeds. I'd be happier if physical size didn't change dramaticaly but returned more power. As demonstrated for years in the Cammer 5.0 crate engine.
I sure as hell don't want a lower-revving truck design simply for big numbers. I'd rather sacrifice torque on the lower end for more torque on the upper end, making more power as a result. Give me peak torque of 300 ft-lbs. at 6000 rpms and a redline near 7500, and I'll see more power, pull harder for longer, and be faster over any course. Keep the stroke short so the rotating mass is smaller and revs are easier on the engine, and I could really give a damn about displacement. We already know Ford can get 300 ft-lbs. out of 4.6 liters. *Just* improve the flow, increase bore if neccessary, and don't increase the height of the engine. (I realize that's a tall order.) Get those 300 ft-lbs. at a higher rpm. Carry it longer if possible. If stroke needs to decrease to keep the width of the engine within a reasonable width, great. If bore increases but displacement decreases, while power improves, I'll call that a win all around. Powerband rules, displacement is for people who "don't race." :/ (Put up or shut up.)
Assuming one can decrease stroke, increase bore, keep the width at the top of the heads the same, and not lose torque or power or increase engine weight, one has laid the groundwork for improving power. It doesn't matter if displacement has changed if performance hasn't degraded. If one can only add power by increasing weight, height, and width, you lose real-world performance, since the car has to increase frontal area to accomodate the engine, and weight never helps performance. I'd rather lose objective power numbers than objective performance.
It seems to me the key strength of the OHC design lies in high rpm operation. A short stroke is beneficial to high rpm operation. We already know Ford has figured out how to get twin-cam perfomance out of a single cam. They can match the old N/A DOHC Cobra numbers with a SOHC design. Can they then decrease stroke, lighten the engine (and car as a whole) and match those numbers? Because if the answer is yes, they can improve the performance of the car.
The key strength of the OHV design is a compact engine, which results in a lighter car with a lower frontal area without sacrificing power. Ford already parted ways with Chevy, going with OHC designs over OHV. Chevy has demonstrated with authority that the OHV design is not a dead end. Can Ford make the same statement with the OHC design? I know they can, but without a flagship like the Corvette, is there money to be made with such a statement?
I'd say it's high time a car bearing Mustang heritage stepped up to to the Corvette plate. Drop the Cammer 5.0 in a smaller, more aerodynamic Mustang, call it a Boss, design it to weigh less than 3200 lbs., and feel free to offer it for $40-50K. Use the same platform to house a less powerful or heavier powerplant in the same chassis as a Cobra Jet. Interchange the designations to suit taste, if you will.
Offer a V6, and a base V8 with a GT mechanical and trim package similar to what separates the V6 and GT other than engine today. Keep the Boss and Cobra/Cobra Jet versions distinct by materials/weight and cost. Use thinner glass in the top versions, or more composite panels, or whatever. You can make a more expensive car by dropping weight without having to add power, if real-world performance is superior. 200 pounds wins races, and we all know people who spend thousands just to win by a fender.
Hell, just add the price of a loud free-flowing titanium exhaust and ultra-light alloy wheels, and you'd get many people signing on just to swap in heavier stainless versions, a la Corvette. Move the front axle as far forward under the engine as possible, and the handling will improve without a longer hood, even if it adds 25-50 lbs. to the weight. I can't help but think moving a mass of weight like the steering assembly and front wheels forward wouldn't improve safety as well. (I'm a living believer in the safety of the 99-04 chassis, BTW.) And what corporate board member can rationally argue against "safety imrpovements"
.
Give me a Mercury version, preferably called the "Cougar," to trade on brand recognition, allowing me to buy a Mustang that rides nicer, quieter, more "grown up," without having to sacrifice performance. It ought to cost more than a GT, close to a Boss/Cobra/Cobra Jet, so the people buying the Cougar can spend their money without feeling like they are getting a raw deal on resale. And a very real consideration - so the people seeing a Cougar on the street know the owner has the resources to buy one, and passed on the cheaper Mustang for a reason. It's not about being shallow, it's about the very real fact that money takes work and dedication. Nobody wants to spend their hard-earned money and have everyone assume they make minimum wage. Add value to the brand by making it speak for the owner. MAKE people choose between a Cobra\Boss\Cobra Jet and a Mercury Cougar. Don't make the Cougar a V6 with leather. Don't offer a Cougar without a V8 - it's not cost effective, and dilutes the brand. Don't remove the incentive to buy the Cougar, even if it seems sales would jump immediately if a cheap optipon existed. It's all about preservation of the brand's value. Keep the brand value intact, cash in on it without risking devalueing it, and you have a cash cow good for decades. The more cash you harvest, the more you have to spend to sell the car. The recent V6 FWD Cougar has plenty of fans, since the car had long been gone as a GT luxury powerhouse. But offer it with a 300 hp V8 and nav, leather interior, radically different gauge package than the current Mustang, perhaps auto-leveling shocks or Corvette-like driver-selectable shock modes - sport, touring, luxury, so the buyer is definitely getting something they don't get from a Mustang. You don't have to worry that you are competing against your own brand. Make sure the passenger doesn't have to be told they aren't in a Mustang. You are selling a car nobody else is - a V8 RWD GT coupe for under $50K. Lincoln sells family cars, Mercury doesn't have to.
Of course, all this costs money. Ford has many priorities competing for attention right now. I'm not thinking quality is really a problem, and I drive a four-year old car. I can see how a board member sees ever-more powerful limited edition Mustangs as sapping resources that could otherwise be used to improve the profitability of a bigger-selling car. The Focus was recently the best selling car in the world. I can certainly understand the man or woman who wants to regain that title, even if it comes at the expense of another Ford model. I just hope the crew running the show in Detroit remember why we buy their cars and wish we had their job. Projects they greenlight today sell cars ten and twenty years from now.
The heads on our cars are already quite bulky. I like the high-revving nature of my SOHC V8, and want more of it. But what my engine needs more than stroke is bore. And more bore means bigger heads just to cover the piston. And bigger heads, needing to fit cams over valves, will only add more weight on top, which isn't really where it ought to be to improve handling.
I certainly don't want a big-ass truck engine in my car if that means a taller hood and wider body. That just adds frontal area, which kills acceleration as speeds climb, not to mention decreasing cornering speeds. I'd be happier if physical size didn't change dramaticaly but returned more power. As demonstrated for years in the Cammer 5.0 crate engine.
I sure as hell don't want a lower-revving truck design simply for big numbers. I'd rather sacrifice torque on the lower end for more torque on the upper end, making more power as a result. Give me peak torque of 300 ft-lbs. at 6000 rpms and a redline near 7500, and I'll see more power, pull harder for longer, and be faster over any course. Keep the stroke short so the rotating mass is smaller and revs are easier on the engine, and I could really give a damn about displacement. We already know Ford can get 300 ft-lbs. out of 4.6 liters. *Just* improve the flow, increase bore if neccessary, and don't increase the height of the engine. (I realize that's a tall order.) Get those 300 ft-lbs. at a higher rpm. Carry it longer if possible. If stroke needs to decrease to keep the width of the engine within a reasonable width, great. If bore increases but displacement decreases, while power improves, I'll call that a win all around. Powerband rules, displacement is for people who "don't race." :/ (Put up or shut up.)
Assuming one can decrease stroke, increase bore, keep the width at the top of the heads the same, and not lose torque or power or increase engine weight, one has laid the groundwork for improving power. It doesn't matter if displacement has changed if performance hasn't degraded. If one can only add power by increasing weight, height, and width, you lose real-world performance, since the car has to increase frontal area to accomodate the engine, and weight never helps performance. I'd rather lose objective power numbers than objective performance.
It seems to me the key strength of the OHC design lies in high rpm operation. A short stroke is beneficial to high rpm operation. We already know Ford has figured out how to get twin-cam perfomance out of a single cam. They can match the old N/A DOHC Cobra numbers with a SOHC design. Can they then decrease stroke, lighten the engine (and car as a whole) and match those numbers? Because if the answer is yes, they can improve the performance of the car.
The key strength of the OHV design is a compact engine, which results in a lighter car with a lower frontal area without sacrificing power. Ford already parted ways with Chevy, going with OHC designs over OHV. Chevy has demonstrated with authority that the OHV design is not a dead end. Can Ford make the same statement with the OHC design? I know they can, but without a flagship like the Corvette, is there money to be made with such a statement?
I'd say it's high time a car bearing Mustang heritage stepped up to to the Corvette plate. Drop the Cammer 5.0 in a smaller, more aerodynamic Mustang, call it a Boss, design it to weigh less than 3200 lbs., and feel free to offer it for $40-50K. Use the same platform to house a less powerful or heavier powerplant in the same chassis as a Cobra Jet. Interchange the designations to suit taste, if you will.
Offer a V6, and a base V8 with a GT mechanical and trim package similar to what separates the V6 and GT other than engine today. Keep the Boss and Cobra/Cobra Jet versions distinct by materials/weight and cost. Use thinner glass in the top versions, or more composite panels, or whatever. You can make a more expensive car by dropping weight without having to add power, if real-world performance is superior. 200 pounds wins races, and we all know people who spend thousands just to win by a fender.
Hell, just add the price of a loud free-flowing titanium exhaust and ultra-light alloy wheels, and you'd get many people signing on just to swap in heavier stainless versions, a la Corvette. Move the front axle as far forward under the engine as possible, and the handling will improve without a longer hood, even if it adds 25-50 lbs. to the weight. I can't help but think moving a mass of weight like the steering assembly and front wheels forward wouldn't improve safety as well. (I'm a living believer in the safety of the 99-04 chassis, BTW.) And what corporate board member can rationally argue against "safety imrpovements"
.Give me a Mercury version, preferably called the "Cougar," to trade on brand recognition, allowing me to buy a Mustang that rides nicer, quieter, more "grown up," without having to sacrifice performance. It ought to cost more than a GT, close to a Boss/Cobra/Cobra Jet, so the people buying the Cougar can spend their money without feeling like they are getting a raw deal on resale. And a very real consideration - so the people seeing a Cougar on the street know the owner has the resources to buy one, and passed on the cheaper Mustang for a reason. It's not about being shallow, it's about the very real fact that money takes work and dedication. Nobody wants to spend their hard-earned money and have everyone assume they make minimum wage. Add value to the brand by making it speak for the owner. MAKE people choose between a Cobra\Boss\Cobra Jet and a Mercury Cougar. Don't make the Cougar a V6 with leather. Don't offer a Cougar without a V8 - it's not cost effective, and dilutes the brand. Don't remove the incentive to buy the Cougar, even if it seems sales would jump immediately if a cheap optipon existed. It's all about preservation of the brand's value. Keep the brand value intact, cash in on it without risking devalueing it, and you have a cash cow good for decades. The more cash you harvest, the more you have to spend to sell the car. The recent V6 FWD Cougar has plenty of fans, since the car had long been gone as a GT luxury powerhouse. But offer it with a 300 hp V8 and nav, leather interior, radically different gauge package than the current Mustang, perhaps auto-leveling shocks or Corvette-like driver-selectable shock modes - sport, touring, luxury, so the buyer is definitely getting something they don't get from a Mustang. You don't have to worry that you are competing against your own brand. Make sure the passenger doesn't have to be told they aren't in a Mustang. You are selling a car nobody else is - a V8 RWD GT coupe for under $50K. Lincoln sells family cars, Mercury doesn't have to.
Of course, all this costs money. Ford has many priorities competing for attention right now. I'm not thinking quality is really a problem, and I drive a four-year old car. I can see how a board member sees ever-more powerful limited edition Mustangs as sapping resources that could otherwise be used to improve the profitability of a bigger-selling car. The Focus was recently the best selling car in the world. I can certainly understand the man or woman who wants to regain that title, even if it comes at the expense of another Ford model. I just hope the crew running the show in Detroit remember why we buy their cars and wish we had their job. Projects they greenlight today sell cars ten and twenty years from now.
SRT Handz
I tripped & fell down and cut myself & got blood
they better be making these blocks in aluminum if they are going in the mustang. The 07 cobra weights 2 TON!!!....These better be lighter.....
The 5.8 would be the same bore as the 6.2 but a smaller stroke, similiar to how the 4.6 and 5.4 are set up now. Therefore the 5.8 wouldn't be a truck engine and that is whay i said i would want to see the 5.8 in the gt not the 6.2. I agree with you on the weight of the heads but from what i have gathered or heard is that the heads are suppose to be aluminum and the a iron block to start with a aluminum block in later years. The current 4.6 mod motors have a bore of 3.543" and the 6.2 and 5.8 are suppose to get a bore of 4.015" that is half inch more of bore. In other words the bore center line is 4.53" in the BOSS and 3.94" in the current mod motors. For a 5.8l in the new motor, the stoke would be 3.48" so not to bad imo and at least we are getting more bore instead having more stroke. Perfect for a high revving engine, and would be could possibly have a 7.5k readline in a dohc apps.
IMO they should continue with the modulars. a 4V 5.4L can make 350hp just as well as a 5.7L LS motor can, Ford just needs to commit and do some research on how other companies can make power on smaller motors (ie 250+hp with 3.5L V6 motors, etc)
Ford has found the Modular loves boost. Go in that direction and grow on it Ford! Chevy has won the naturally aspirated modern muscle game, but they cant to boost like a 03/04 Cobra 4.6L or GT500 5.4L can. IMO start making every GT come factory supercharged, but detune it and lower the boost and keep it around 350hp (however with the Challenger / Camaro on the horizon, sub 400hp would be preferred), however we all know its a pulley swap and tune away from 50+whp gains. and hell ford, take after Mopar/SRT and offer staged upgrades that DONT void your warranty if the upgrades are dealer-installed. stage1 = boltons+tune. Stage2 = boltons+pulley+tune, Stage3 = Ported Blower+pulley (upper/lower combo)+Tune. IMO Factory Warrantied staged upgrades would be great for those who want a cheap modded car, and want to keep their warranty intact, this is where Mopar failed many SRT owners, you buy the staged upgrades sold by Mopar yet you get the TPS CEL and take it in for a simple 3$ fix (they extend the harness, big whoop) and they void the warranty because the car is modded, which means it was abused and caused the CEL.
Ford has found the Modular loves boost. Go in that direction and grow on it Ford! Chevy has won the naturally aspirated modern muscle game, but they cant to boost like a 03/04 Cobra 4.6L or GT500 5.4L can. IMO start making every GT come factory supercharged, but detune it and lower the boost and keep it around 350hp (however with the Challenger / Camaro on the horizon, sub 400hp would be preferred), however we all know its a pulley swap and tune away from 50+whp gains. and hell ford, take after Mopar/SRT and offer staged upgrades that DONT void your warranty if the upgrades are dealer-installed. stage1 = boltons+tune. Stage2 = boltons+pulley+tune, Stage3 = Ported Blower+pulley (upper/lower combo)+Tune. IMO Factory Warrantied staged upgrades would be great for those who want a cheap modded car, and want to keep their warranty intact, this is where Mopar failed many SRT owners, you buy the staged upgrades sold by Mopar yet you get the TPS CEL and take it in for a simple 3$ fix (they extend the harness, big whoop) and they void the warranty because the car is modded, which means it was abused and caused the CEL.
I want a more powerful Mustang as much as anybody, but I fail to see how a truck engine design will really help. A truck has plenty of room for tall engines, and increasing frontal area and gaining a hundred pounds or so as a trade-off for more towing power is not a bad trade. In a sports car, increasing weight and frontal area is a bad, bad trade.
The heads on our cars are already quite bulky. I like the high-revving nature of my SOHC V8, and want more of it. But what my engine needs more than stroke is bore. And more bore means bigger heads just to cover the piston. And bigger heads, needing to fit cams over valves, will only add more weight on top, which isn't really where it ought to be to improve handling.
I certainly don't want a big-ass truck engine in my car if that means a taller hood and wider body. That just adds frontal area, which kills acceleration as speeds climb, not to mention decreasing cornering speeds. I'd be happier if physical size didn't change dramaticaly but returned more power. As demonstrated for years in the Cammer 5.0 crate engine.
I sure as hell don't want a lower-revving truck design simply for big numbers. I'd rather sacrifice torque on the lower end for more torque on the upper end, making more power as a result. Give me peak torque of 300 ft-lbs. at 6000 rpms and a redline near 7500, and I'll see more power, pull harder for longer, and be faster over any course. Keep the stroke short so the rotating mass is smaller and revs are easier on the engine, and I could really give a damn about displacement. We already know Ford can get 300 ft-lbs. out of 4.6 liters. *Just* improve the flow, increase bore if neccessary, and don't increase the height of the engine. (I realize that's a tall order.) Get those 300 ft-lbs. at a higher rpm. Carry it longer if possible. If stroke needs to decrease to keep the width of the engine within a reasonable width, great. If bore increases but displacement decreases, while power improves, I'll call that a win all around. Powerband rules, displacement is for people who "don't race." :/ (Put up or shut up.)
Assuming one can decrease stroke, increase bore, keep the width at the top of the heads the same, and not lose torque or power or increase engine weight, one has laid the groundwork for improving power. It doesn't matter if displacement has changed if performance hasn't degraded. If one can only add power by increasing weight, height, and width, you lose real-world performance, since the car has to increase frontal area to accomodate the engine, and weight never helps performance. I'd rather lose objective power numbers than objective performance.
It seems to me the key strength of the OHC design lies in high rpm operation. A short stroke is beneficial to high rpm operation. We already know Ford has figured out how to get twin-cam perfomance out of a single cam. They can match the old N/A DOHC Cobra numbers with a SOHC design. Can they then decrease stroke, lighten the engine (and car as a whole) and match those numbers? Because if the answer is yes, they can improve the performance of the car.
The key strength of the OHV design is a compact engine, which results in a lighter car with a lower frontal area without sacrificing power. Ford already parted ways with Chevy, going with OHC designs over OHV. Chevy has demonstrated with authority that the OHV design is not a dead end. Can Ford make the same statement with the OHC design? I know they can, but without a flagship like the Corvette, is there money to be made with such a statement?
I'd say it's high time a car bearing Mustang heritage stepped up to to the Corvette plate. Drop the Cammer 5.0 in a smaller, more aerodynamic Mustang, call it a Boss, design it to weigh less than 3200 lbs., and feel free to offer it for $40-50K. Use the same platform to house a less powerful or heavier powerplant in the same chassis as a Cobra Jet. Interchange the designations to suit taste, if you will.
Offer a V6, and a base V8 with a GT mechanical and trim package similar to what separates the V6 and GT other than engine today. Keep the Boss and Cobra/Cobra Jet versions distinct by materials/weight and cost. Use thinner glass in the top versions, or more composite panels, or whatever. You can make a more expensive car by dropping weight without having to add power, if real-world performance is superior. 200 pounds wins races, and we all know people who spend thousands just to win by a fender.
Hell, just add the price of a loud free-flowing titanium exhaust and ultra-light alloy wheels, and you'd get many people signing on just to swap in heavier stainless versions, a la Corvette. Move the front axle as far forward under the engine as possible, and the handling will improve without a longer hood, even if it adds 25-50 lbs. to the weight. I can't help but think moving a mass of weight like the steering assembly and front wheels forward wouldn't improve safety as well. (I'm a living believer in the safety of the 99-04 chassis, BTW.) And what corporate board member can rationally argue against "safety imrpovements"
Give me a Mercury version, preferably called the "Cougar," to trade on brand recognition, allowing me to buy a Mustang that rides nicer, quieter, more "grown up," without having to sacrifice performance. It ought to cost more than a GT, close to a Boss/Cobra/Cobra Jet, so the people buying the Cougar can spend their money without feeling like they are getting a raw deal on resale. And a very real consideration - so the people seeing a Cougar on the street know the owner has the resources to buy one, and passed on the cheaper Mustang for a reason. It's not about being shallow, it's about the very real fact that money takes work and dedication. Nobody wants to spend their hard-earned money and have everyone assume they make minimum wage. Add value to the brand by making it speak for the owner. MAKE people choose between a Cobra\Boss\Cobra Jet and a Mercury Cougar. Don't make the Cougar a V6 with leather. Don't offer a Cougar without a V8 - it's not cost effective, and dilutes the brand. Don't remove the incentive to buy the Cougar, even if it seems sales would jump immediately if a cheap optipon existed. It's all about preservation of the brand's value. Keep the brand value intact, cash in on it without risking devalueing it, and you have a cash cow good for decades. The more cash you harvest, the more you have to spend to sell the car. The recent V6 FWD Cougar has plenty of fans, since the car had long been gone as a GT luxury powerhouse. But offer it with a 300 hp V8 and nav, leather interior, radically different gauge package than the current Mustang, perhaps auto-leveling shocks or Corvette-like driver-selectable shock modes - sport, touring, luxury, so the buyer is definitely getting something they don't get from a Mustang. You don't have to worry that you are competing against your own brand. Make sure the passenger doesn't have to be told they aren't in a Mustang. You are selling a car nobody else is - a V8 RWD GT coupe for under $50K. Lincoln sells family cars, Mercury doesn't have to.
Of course, all this costs money. Ford has many priorities competing for attention right now. I'm not thinking quality is really a problem, and I drive a four-year old car. I can see how a board member sees ever-more powerful limited edition Mustangs as sapping resources that could otherwise be used to improve the profitability of a bigger-selling car. The Focus was recently the best selling car in the world. I can certainly understand the man or woman who wants to regain that title, even if it comes at the expense of another Ford model. I just hope the crew running the show in Detroit remember why we buy their cars and wish we had their job. Projects they greenlight today sell cars ten and twenty years from now.
Ok some of these posts in here have me shaking my head.
THE MODULAR NEEDS THIS REDESIGN FOR FORD TO COMPETE WITH THE HEMI AND THE LS MOTORS IN THE PICKUP AND SUV MARKET. THE MUSTANG MARKET IS SECONDARY... BTW unless ford does something retarded with the heads ( I hear they will be just like mod heads with much bigger valves
intake rumored to be in the 2.05 range) Multivalve S/C motors may do ok in a mustang but it is not going to cut it in the truck market for a few reasons the big one is COST, both to the consumer and to ford. You guys are not seeing that these measures were bandaids nothing more. Ford NEEDS to build N/A motors that can compete.
Then think of what kind of power you can make with a 400+ hp N/A 6.2 when you go FI!!!!
Ford is 50+ HP behind with the current 3valve 5.4, the problem is the TINY bore size of the modualrs, there is nothing that can be done other then a redesign with a larger bore. And that is what this is. The new motor will still be just like the modular but with a bigger bore and bigger valves..
This new motor will OWN
the current modular.. The thing that held all mod motors back was the bore size and the side effect of small valves. This is why ford had to go to expensive multivalve heads to build any power N/A out of these things, the only way you could get decent valve area was with multiple smaller valves because of the tiny bore.Ford did not think back in the late 80's when the design of the motor was put in motion that we would have 350+ hp 5.7 liter N/A 2v motors today. All they are doing now is correcting a mistake they made years ago with the bore and valve size.
You guys should be HAPPY like I am, now we will have a motor that will be right up there with if not better than the LS motors.
BTW????????????
Pickup trucks have what extra room under the hood????? How many new ford trucks have you turned a wrench on? Let me tell you the mustangs have way more room to work under the hood, the engines in the trucks are shoehorned under the cowl, sure they have more room for a taller intake but other than that the mustang has WAY more room under the hood and is a 1000 times easier to work on with the current modular.. If they moved the engine in both the superduty and the F-150 6 inches forward there would be a ton of room to work in the truck engine bay but they moved the drivetrain toward the rear probably for weight distribution
The current modulars is A "truck" motor too. the mustang version will have a different intake and cams then the truck version.. You realize that is the only difference right?? The outward dimensions of the engine will be the same
From what I have heard ( not much LOL and not anything official) is it's going to be almost like like the modular but redesigned with a over 4.00 inch bore.. so you will still have SOHC and other good things from the modular but with a real bore size with nice big valves.
YAYYYYYY ford answered my prayers.
Ok some of these posts in here have me shaking my head.
THE MODULAR NEEDS THIS REDESIGN FOR FORD TO COMPETE WITH THE HEMI AND THE LS MOTORS IN THE PICKUP AND SUV MARKET. THE MUSTANG MARKET IS SECONDARY... BTW unless ford does something retarded with the heads ( I hear they will be just like mod heads with much bigger valves
Multivalve S/C motors may do ok in a mustang but it is not going to cut it in the truck market for a few reasons the big one is COST, both to the consumer and to ford. You guys are not seeing that these measures were bandaids nothing more. Ford NEEDS to build N/A motors that can compete.
Then think of what kind of power you can make with a 400+ hp N/A 6.2 when you go FI!!!!
Ford is 50+ HP behind with the current 3valve 5.4, the problem is the TINY bore size of the modualrs, there is nothing that can be done other then a redesign with a larger bore. And that is what this is. The new motor will still be just like the modular but with a bigger bore and bigger valves..
This new motor will OWN
Ford did not think back in the late 80's when the design of the motor was put in motion that we would have 350+ hp 5.7 liter N/A 2v motors today. All they are doing now is correcting a mistake they made years ago with the bore and valve size.
You guys should be HAPPY like I am, now we will have a motor that will be right up there with if not better than the LS motors.
BTW????????????
Pickup trucks have what extra room under the hood????? How many new ford trucks have you turned a wrench on? Let me tell you the mustangs have way more room to work under the hood, the engines in the trucks are shoehorned under the cowl, sure they have more room for a taller intake but other than that the mustang has WAY more room under the hood and is a 1000 times easier to work on with the current modular.. If they moved the engine in both the superduty and the F-150 6 inches forward there would be a ton of room to work in the truck engine bay but they moved the drivetrain toward the rear probably for weight distribution
The current modulars is A "truck" motor too. the mustang version will have a different intake and cams then the truck version.. You realize that is the only difference right?? The outward dimensions of the engine will be the same
From what I have heard ( not much LOL and not anything official) is it's going to be almost like like the modular but redesigned with a over 4.00 inch bore.. so you will still have SOHC and other good things from the modular but with a real bore size with nice big valves.
YAYYYYYY ford answered my prayers.
EXACTLY u got it right on, and to deal with emission i read that ford is goin to use 2 spark plugs per cylinder, have variable valve timing, and variable displacement for fuel economy, all in all ford just may do something right as long as the bean counters don't screw it up, just let me say that i'm not getting my hopes up until the engine is officially released. Also speaking of forced induction on these engines, it is rumored that ford has a 6.2 twin turbo with over 650lbs of torque, which i'm sure is extremely detuned from what it is capable of
04YELLOWGT
Active Member
Wow, I wrote WAY too much last night. Can you tell I had been drinking? lol
My essential point was I want more bore, and don't need more stroke at all. The engine needs to be light and compact, not tall and heavy. I'm not sure if increasing stroke adds more weight than increasing bore, but the current 4.6 is already pretty fat at the heads, we don't need that weight farther from the ground.
My comments re: truck engines was regading the FACT that in a 4000 lb. truck, you can add 100 pounds without seriously damaging towing ability, but in a car like the Mustang, adding 100 pounds over the front wheels will slow the car down and impair handling. No comment was made regarding how much room is under the hood of a modern truck - I'm not sure where a person would get that idea.
FWIW, it doesn't matter one bit if Ford sells a Mustang with an engine putting out 400 hp if the car is STILL slower than a stock 98 Camaro because they had to add so much weight and height to the car. Why the hell would anyone want to pay the price for a brand new Mustang that is still slower than a decade-old car making less power? I'd rather have less power in a faster, better-handling car than pretend my over-weight, over-sized Mustang is somehow superior because it needs more power just to move it's fat ass.
My essential point was I want more bore, and don't need more stroke at all. The engine needs to be light and compact, not tall and heavy. I'm not sure if increasing stroke adds more weight than increasing bore, but the current 4.6 is already pretty fat at the heads, we don't need that weight farther from the ground.
My comments re: truck engines was regading the FACT that in a 4000 lb. truck, you can add 100 pounds without seriously damaging towing ability, but in a car like the Mustang, adding 100 pounds over the front wheels will slow the car down and impair handling. No comment was made regarding how much room is under the hood of a modern truck - I'm not sure where a person would get that idea.
FWIW, it doesn't matter one bit if Ford sells a Mustang with an engine putting out 400 hp if the car is STILL slower than a stock 98 Camaro because they had to add so much weight and height to the car. Why the hell would anyone want to pay the price for a brand new Mustang that is still slower than a decade-old car making less power? I'd rather have less power in a faster, better-handling car than pretend my over-weight, over-sized Mustang is somehow superior because it needs more power just to move it's fat ass.
Wolvrin704
Member
After doing some more online research I found that the F150 will get this motor in 2009 and the new updated Mustang in 2010. Here is some additional info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_engine
The exterior size of the motor will be similar to current production V-8's, this has to be done for the new motor to fit in the current chassis
Even if this motor weights more it will not be by that much.
