 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / October 2007Ford's Secret New 7-Liter
Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner manifold, and twin injectors per cylinder will feed Hemi-style heads. The 7-liter will sport 4.250 bores and a 3.75 stroke. (Note: Ford's old 427 was 4.23 x 3.78 / the 428 was 4.13 x 3.98) which should give it a high-winding nature.) This new 7-liter reportly has enough room/ beef to grow to 7.5. The placement of the cam is uncertain at this time, but word is it's a cam-in-block pushrod motor. Roush currently has it punching out 800 HP using E85 fuel. Ford is very tight lipped about this motor only stating a "full media presentation will go down in due time". The motor's expected future use is Ford's truck line to special Mustangs. Info from MM&FF magazine. Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com wrote in news:1191804612.969246.274980 @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing > a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Patrick Big-displacement pushrod motor with semi-hemispherical heads? Gee, I wonder what that sounds like? ;) > NoOptio...@aol.com wrote in news:1191804612.969246.274980 > @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > in due time". The motor's expected future use is Ford's truck line to > > special Mustangs. > > Info from MM&FF magazine. > Big-displacement pushrod motor with semi-hemispherical heads? Gee, I > wonder what that sounds like? ;) :-) If this plays out like we're all hoping, The Detroit 3 will need to begin developing/promoting some new racing series. A drag program featuring: Hemi 7-liter Mustang LS7 7-liter Camaro Hemi 6.1-liter SRT Challenger A road racing series (Trans Am?) featuring: 5-liter Shelby GT Mustang 5-liter Z/28 Camaro 5.7-liter T/A Challenger Patrick NoOption5L@aol.com wrote in news:1191808865.698044.100030@ 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: >> NoOptio...@aol.com wrote in news:1191804612.969246.274980 >> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Patrick I freakin' LOVE it! :) > NoOption5L@aol.com wrote in news:1191804612.969246.274980 > @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Big-displacement pushrod motor with semi-hemispherical heads? Gee, I > wonder what that sounds like? ;) Sex. > Big-displacement pushrod motor with semi-hemispherical heads? Gee, I > wonder what that sounds like? ;) Umm, a flathead Ford with Ardun heads? A Boss 429? I give up. What? And to WindsorFox's comment about mileage, don't forget that the cam- in-block design is far more amenable to gas-saving cylinder deactivation than an ohc. 180 Out > Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing > a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Patrick Sounds like a real guzzler.  Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek On Oct 7, 8:50 pm, NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: > Ford is very tight lipped > about this motor only stating a "full media presentation will go down > in due time". Okay, being that Ford is tight lipped, here's the scoop........ It will cost more than the average enthusiast can ever afford (like the "302" that they've had in the SVO catalog), replacement parts will be out of sight and short lived, (like the Boss 429/AR parts that SVO *BRIEFLY* sold and promply shut down) will be too complicated for the average Joe to ever work on. (like the 96-99 V8 32 valved SHO Taurus) Whenever something like this comes up, I think of the Ford GT. But, hey, that's normal for Ford. I'm interested!! > Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing > a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Patrick Hope it actually happens. Ford needs a GOOD gas truck engine. Can't figure why Ford axed the 460. The V10 was a sad replacement at best. The 5.4L is a sad replacement for the indestructible 351W. Someone needs to explain to me why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke and a low red line. What's the advantage? In 04 when I was truck hunting, Ford was the truck I wanted. It had everything EXCEPT an engine. So after lots of thinking I bought a Dodge Diesel. Ford had the best suspension, driveline and I liked the cab better. But Dodge had the engine, so like my 92 W250, I'll have a sh.t truck with a bullet proof driveline to live with for the next 20 years. The 92's body is literally falling apart, but it runs like new. Reminds me of those Mercedes powered Iveco trucks. People would pray the engine would die so they could junk them:) Al >> Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing >> a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Al They junk themselves, what the hell does it matter if the engine out lives the crappy chassis by 4 times? That's kinda silly... Dodge trucks suck, they always have, and it seems they always will, stuffing an old forklift engine in them can't change that. >> Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing >> a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Hope it actually happens. Ford needs a GOOD gas truck engine. Can't figure >why Ford axed the 460. The V10 was a sad replacement at best. What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past 250K with no problems at all. The 5.4L is a >sad replacement for the indestructible 351W. Someone needs to explain to me >why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke and a low [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Al >>> Ford Motor Company and Roush have teamed up and are developing/testing >>> a 7-liter V8 engine. This motor will utilize an individual runner [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past > 250K with no problems at all. Google this: "ford v10 problems" Al >> What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past >> 250K with no problems at all. >> > Google this: "ford v10 problems" And what does this prove? "toyota v6 problems" - 1,210,000 hits "toyota v8 problems" - 1,200,000 hits "dodge v8 problems" - 972,000 hits "chevrolet v8 problems" - 882,000 hits "ford v10 problems" - 234,000 hits If Google hits is a measure of "goodness" it seems the Ford V10 wins. Ed >>> What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past >>> 250K with no problems at all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ed LMFAO!!! >>> What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past >>> 250K with no problems at all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ed Boy, he sure got you on that one LOL Signature"Are you da poe-lice?" "No ma'am, we're musicians." "So round, so firm, so fully packed, so easy on the draw" - Daffy Duck Ahem. You're talking to someone who thinks that popping a sail atop a 3,000 pound motor vehicle is a viable alternative. - dwight >>> What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past >>> 250K with no problems at all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ed Ed, Thought you would actually READ about the problems. My bad... Explain how the V10 is better than the 460 it replaced, which was what I was talking about. Is it all the extra parts? The spark plugs that blow out of the heads, the extra power they don't have, or do they cost a lot less to build? Could they be a lot easier to work on? Al >>>> What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past >>>> 250K with no problems at all. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Al Well to start with the V-10 gets 2~4 miles per gallon better fuel mileage than the 460 in the same applications across the board. The spark plug "blowing out" was a very short lived issue that was eliminated years ago. The 2005 and up 3 valve V-10 run circles around the 460 for both power and fuel mileage. The V-10's are virtually trouble free, over 100,000 miles of oil change only service, with no incessant exhaust manifold leaks, like almost every single 460 suffers from. The 460 rocks, I still have a 460 truck, I was pissed when they discontinued it for the new 6.8L V-10 but even I now have to admit that the V-10 is an improvement over the venerable 460. >>>> What's wrong with it? We've had two of them in vans that went past >>>> 250K with no problems at all. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Al Were they able to get the 460 to meet the latest emission standards? That might have been one issue. We had an E350 van with the 460 and also have some E350 vans with the V10. The V10 is better from a drivers perspective. Since we never had any trouble with the V10's and I don't have to fix them anyway, I can't say whether they are more trouble to work on. I know we got 250,000+ miles out of two of them without ever doing anything but regular maintenance and they were still running like new. The 460 did the same. Someone needs to explain to me > why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke and a low > red line. What's the advantage? Absolutely none. I saw some figures that said it costs Ford $700 more PER VEHICLE to build a 4.6/5.4 engine than what it costs GM to build a small block Chevy. Then figure out how much it costs to replace the timing chain as compared to a SBC and the "advantages" of these motors really starts to drop off. > Someone needs to explain to me >> why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke and a low [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the timing chain as compared to a SBC and the "advantages" of these >motors really starts to drop off. I've got both a 95 Caprice police package 5.7 and a 2005 Crown Vic police package 4.6. Both have more or less the same overall acceleration capability but the SBC in the Caprice has some real GRUNT that gets you where you live. No big surprise there but what was a surprise to me was that when I was driving the Caprice I regularly got 24 mpg on the highway and the Crown Vic has never done better then 22. Both suck around town but I've never measured that accurately. It just seems strange that the old fashioned SBC, push rod, low revving, stump pulling larger engine gets better gas mileage then the modern OHC 4.6. Sometimes reality just doesn't work out the way theory says it should. And teh 5.7 is a whole lot easier to work on. >> Someone needs to explain to me >>> why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > says > it should. And teh 5.7 is a whole lot easier to work on. You need to get your Ford looked after. My Mother owned two Grand Marquis with the 4l.6L V-8. I've drove them both on trips and both got better than 26 mpg - loaded with four people and luggage. I've had Ford modular motors in several other vehicles - and they never needed any repairs (one with over 150K miles) except for one coil pack - so why would I care that the Chevrolet was "easy to work on." Not needing work at all beats easy to work on every time. Ed >>> Someone needs to explain to me >>>> why Ford stuck overhead cams on an engine with a 4.16 inch stroke [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Ed Maybe they use a lower ratio rear end? Or perhaps you don't get stuck burning gas watered down with alcohol? I was just mentioning the ease of repair, it's not my problem and neither of them have needed repairs anyway. Given the little difference between them I'd still rather have the low speed torque of the 5.7 all other things being equal (which they never are). is ford making it,, only good deisel they ever made was the tractor engines . lucas http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm > is ford making it,, only good deisel they ever made was the tractor > engines . lucas At one time they did sell a version of the six cylinder tractor diesel in the low cab forward trucks. The local Ford (now New Holland) dealer had one with that engine. Big, heavy, and basically indestructible. Ed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.