Jump to content

Custom Search





Coming Up Next:
Lincoln Continental • Lincoln Aviator


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

New light & medium duty news


  • Please log in to reply
2135 replies to this topic

#2121 OFFLINE   Joe771476

Joe771476

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined 11-August 00

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:04 PM

7M3, Your point is well taken about profit margins for upper class F-series, but I think you mean MUNICIPAL fleets. What about the lowly landscaper, and other small vocational biz?  Do they get huge discounts?









Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#2122 OFFLINE   7Mary3

7Mary3

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined 01-August 05

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:15 PM

7M3, Your point is well taken about profit margins for upper class F-series, but I think you mean MUNICIPAL fleets. What about the lowly landscaper, and other small vocational biz?  Do they get huge discounts?

No, all fleets.  Fleets most often buy low bid, and that holds true for most any fleet large or small.  Fleet vehicles are typically base models as well, with very few options.  It's not so much large discounts with the smaller fleets, it's simply lowest purchase price gets the sale.  All to the negative effect on margins.



#2123 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,266 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 18 August 2017 - 06:14 PM

 

But, from what I was told, the primary reason for the small bore and tight bore spacing has to make the engine as short (crank pulley to flywheel) as possible for front-wheel-drive car applications.  Lower emissions was a welcomed coincidence.    

 

That may have been the reason for the tight bore spacing, but contemporary accounts had the Mods slotted for truck applications from the get-go, and then as now, they would've been the bulk of the engine volume.

 

The SOHC 4.6 wasn't a great engine for making power, but the 3V, 4V, 5.4, and 6.8L were all decent engines.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#2124 OFFLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 18 August 2017 - 09:05 PM

What's interesting is that 20 years on trickflow developed 2-valve heads that flow about the same as the coyote heads. Lots of 2-valve 4.6 and 5.4 motors making in the 400+ hp range with nothing more than a set of these heads and rather mild cams. All from moving the intake valve to the other side of the cam. You have to wonder why it took the aftermarket to figure out something that simple.

I'm patiently waiting for the V10 version of the heads to be released!!!

#2125 OFFLINE   packardbob

packardbob

    Ask the man who owns one

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 231 posts
  • Joined 24-August 08
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Nebraska
  • Current Vehicle:2003 Mercury Marauder (Dark Pearl Blue)

Posted 19 August 2017 - 05:09 AM

 

That may have been the reason for the tight bore spacing, but contemporary accounts had the Mods slotted for truck applications from the get-go, and then as now, they would've been the bulk of the engine volume.

 

The SOHC 4.6 wasn't a great engine for making power, but the 3V, 4V, 5.4, and 6.8L were all decent engines.

What the 2V lacked in power, I believe it more than made up for it with reliability and durability.  They ones I was exposed to seemed to last forever.

 

I believe the other mod engines are severely underrated and more than decent engines.  http://www.enginelab...-john-mihovetz/

 

The mods were allowed to compete in the Amsoil Engine Masters in 2013 and they swept the top three spots.  The 2014 competition came with a rule change and the mods were not allowed.  I see they will be running in 2017 against LS and Gen III Hemi with a displacement limit of 380ci.  Should be interesting.


"Everything in life is somewhere else, and you get there in a car."

Current Vehicles:
1930 Model A Fordor (3.3L L-head I4)
1955 Packard Patrician (Packard 352)

1997 Volvo 960 (2.9 I6)
1997 Ford F-250 (7.3L)
2003 Mercury Marauder (4.6L)

2005 Ford Excursion (6.0L)


#2126 ONLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,568 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:55 AM

What's interesting is that 20 years on trickflow developed 2-valve heads that flow about the same as the coyote heads. Lots of 2-valve 4.6 and 5.4 motors making in the 400+ hp range with nothing more than a set of these heads and rather mild cams. All from moving the intake valve to the other side of the cam. You have to wonder why it took the aftermarket to figure out something that simple.

I'm patiently waiting for the V10 version of the heads to be released!!!

The problem with the V10 is the need for  the left side to mount the balance shaft.

 

You're probably better off porting a later set of  3V V10 heads, they'll flow just as much as your trickflow 2Vs.


Edited by jpd80, 19 August 2017 - 07:04 AM.


#2127 OFFLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 19 August 2017 - 07:04 AM

Frankly it would have been nice if Ford did that design right from the factory.

Essentially this is the exact configuration that Ford built millions of in the 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5 Lima engine.

Those little engines were a little anemic in factory tune but with just a little work they went on to dominate small 4 cylinder racing classes like oval track, road racing and inboard race boat applications.

Ford is often too conservative in their approach in my opinion.

#2128 OFFLINE   Bob Rosadini

Bob Rosadini

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined 15-October 99

Posted 19 August 2017 - 11:15 AM

Frankly it would have been nice if Ford did that design right from the factory.

Essentially this is the exact configuration that Ford built millions of in the 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5 Lima engine.

Those little engines were a little anemic in factory tune but with just a little work they went on to dominate small 4 cylinder racing classes like oval track, road racing and inboard race boat applications.

Ford is often too conservative in their approach in my opinion.

And also a lot of industrial engine applications when Ford Industrial was an in house function.



#2129 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,266 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 19 August 2017 - 01:28 PM

What's interesting is that 20 years on trickflow developed 2-valve heads that flow about the same as the coyote heads

 

I'd be curious if those heads pass emissions testing.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#2130 ONLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,568 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 19 August 2017 - 03:33 PM

What's being missed is that Ford went to 3-valve heads to improve breathing  but also retain a lot of low end

torque by being able to close off one of the two inlet ports with charge motion control valves.

 

With proper and judicial porting, those 3V heads can  flow  270-300 cfm on the inlet side, that's impressive.



#2131 OFFLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 19 August 2017 - 04:22 PM

Yes the 3 valve setup was way under utilized. There is a lot more in that system than what was brought to the fore.

The "Coyote" pretty much put the 3V's out to pasture.

To tell you the truth I'd rather see a 5.2 liter 3 valver in the current F150's instead of the more high performance 5.0.

I'd like to see what a 3.7" bore 3 valve engine tuned for torque could do with the new 10 speed trans.

I don't know if 4 valve heads are necessary on a truck.

#2132 ONLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,568 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 19 August 2017 - 04:35 PM

but what we have is a standardized engine design and build process and when it comes to the

intake side, there's really no difference between a 3V and a 4V head. The big differeneces are

obviously the extra exhaust valve but more importantly, being able to independently control

the inlet and exhaust cam phasing.

 

Ford considered it cost effective to develop one coyote engine with 4V heads and vary that rather than

sticking with the older 3V heads on a truck coyote and makes 4V head design standard on all F150s.


Edited by jpd80, 19 August 2017 - 04:41 PM.


#2133 OFFLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:45 PM

I'd really like to see the coyote improvements (bore, heads, etc) on the V10. It'd be 7.1L if it retained the current 4.165" stroke or 6.2L if it used the coyote stroke. The balance shaft would have to move to the block to accommodate the ti-vct, but man what an engine that would be.

#2134 OFFLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:54 PM

Yes I get the twin variable cam timing advantage. I was more thinking that the commonality between the 3V V10 and a bigger bore 3V V8 might drive that technology further.

Might be a lower cost option for a bread and butter V8.

#2135 ONLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,568 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 19 August 2017 - 07:37 PM

I'd really like to see the coyote improvements (bore, heads, etc) on the V10. It'd be 7.1L if it retained the current 4.165" stroke or 6.2L if it used the coyote stroke. The balance shaft would have to move to the block to accommodate the ti-vct, but man what an engine that would be.

Or, you could eliminate the balance shaft by using a shorter stroke and run odd-fire.

 

Multiples on big bore coyote could be 5.2 V8, 6.5 V10 and 7.8 V12 for big SD and MD.

All three engines could be built in the one production facility, sharing a lot more parts.


Edited by jpd80, 19 August 2017 - 07:38 PM.

  • Sevensecondsuv likes this

#2136 OFFLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 20 August 2017 - 07:33 AM

Yes, I doubt there would be too many NVH complaints from a class 6 or 7 V10 or V12.

Vibrations in those applications could be seriously dampened with the heavy flywheels and balancers necessary for that kind of work.
  • Sevensecondsuv likes this








Custom Search


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)
Privacy Policy Terms of Service ·