New Ford engine discussion thread.

[Stray Kat]

Dreamer's question: a Lincoln V12 created by combining two 2.7 V6's together like was done for Aston Martin years ago.

[SoonerLS]

I am not an expert by a long way, but I don't think liners are ever cut, but they are typically replaceable.

I know they are replaceable on older sleeved engines (f'rinstance, my 8N's sleeves are supposed to be replaced during periodic maintenance, and Ford even made a tool for the job), but it's not necessarily true of modern engines (like the aforementioned Ford/Jag AJ V8s).

[SoonerLS]

Dreamer's question: a Lincoln V12 created by combining two 2.7 V6's together like was done for Aston Martin years ago.

I guess that would largely depend on CD6; aside from the Navigator, I don't think Lincoln has a platform that can accommodate a V12-length mill. Maybe a V12 Mustang-derived Mark IX? I know there were solid reports of V12 (presumably the Aston's "double Duratec") Mustangs undergoing testing within the last decade, so it's likely that the platform could accommodate it. Lincoln seems to be stable enough to support a new luxury sport coupe, and an un-Mustang-y V12 would certainly set it apart...

[akirby]

[naysaying]

I don't see a future for V-12s since a blown V8 or twin turbo V6 can produce 650+ hp reliably and probably with better CAFE numbers and lower emissions.

[/naysaying]

Edited August 31, 2017 by akirby

[Sevensecondsuv]

Yeah but this would only be 5.4L. considering Ford currently sells a mustang with a 5.2L engine this isn't much of a stretch. Plus the 2.7 (or in this case 5.4) has tiny cylinders which would make emmisions easier to control than a V8 of similar displacement.

 

It can't be any less likely than the new 7.0L finding its way into a 'stang lol!

[Stray Kat]

I doubt Lincoln will be aiming at the top of the luxury market anytime soon but like you guys said a Flagship sport Coupe or Sedan could be built on a Mustang platform.

 

Wanna hear a really crazy idea? How about a large prestige sedan built on an F150 chassis. Don't laugh till you think about it.

 

They could have it all, imposing presence, mega interior space, body on frame isolation, fully developed RWD and AWD drivelines.

 

Such a vehicle with a 5.4 V12 done correctly should hurt some feelings in the mega rich auto market.

 

 

Remember just dreaming out loud here.......

[jpd80]

I think you've just described the president's Limo, "the Beast" looks like a Cadillac but is built on the GM truck platform.

[Stray Kat]

I think you've just described the president's Limo, "the Beast" looks like a Cadillac but is built on the GM truck platform.

Well heck, then do it Ford! It'd be nice to see a Lincoln back in the presidential motorcade.

[tbone]

I think you've just described the president's Limo, "the Beast" looks like a Cadillac but is built on the GM truck platform.

That would be a medium truck platform. They don't have a heavy enough pickup platform for that role.

[jpd80]

That would be a medium truck platform. They don't have a heavy enough pickup platform for that role.

Not withstanding that, I doubt there much call for a vehicle like that except maybe prestige as a state vehicle

 

but getting back to Stray cat's idea of an F150 . expedition based Limo, You're dealing with a +5000 lb vehicle

and when it comes to the EPA formula for working out corporate average fuel economy, those vehicles really

hit the rest of the fleet really hard (It's worked out on harmonic mean or inverse proportions) So as car sales lessen,

the exposure and hit on CAFE for cars becomes greater...

[White99GT]

Really? You don't like any 3-valvers? Gosh you get the breathing of a 4 valve with the simplicity of a 2 valve.

Not in the case of the Mods.

 

In theory, a 3-valve layout can match the intake side flow of a 4V given common bore and valve diameters but that wasn't the case with the 3V offerings Ford actually produced.

 

In addition to the 3-valve's comparatively low-flow exhaust port, the 3V was down by almost 40 cfm on the intake side versus a 2003/2004 4V Cobra/Mach cylinder head and by roughly 80 cfm versus a 2005/2006 Ford GT/07-14 Shelby GT500 cylinder head.

 

The 3V cylinder head very clearly wasn't designed with performance/flow as the primary criteria as the wide intake valve placement in the chamber forced a reduction in intake valve size and prevented the casting from accepting the kind of intake valve diameters the older 4V heads would accommodate. The 3V's intake valve placement also promoted valve shrouding versus the 4V placement, the outside edge of the 3V intake valves are much closer to the cylinder walls than desired.

 

Keep in the mind all of the Ford 4V heads (pre-2015) came with 37mm intake valves, and they can physically accommodate up to 39.5mm intake valves without shrouding issues.

 

The 3V came with 33.9mm intake valves.

 

 

The 3V simplicity didn't pay off either; at least on the customer's end, as they are far and away the most unreliable variation of the Modular to date. The 3V's roller followers (which are 3V specific pieces) are undersized and commonly suffer both follower roller needle bearing failure and follower body failures on the valve tip side, where the follower body pinches down in size drastically versus every other Modular follower before or since. Follower failure is something that is very rare (virtually non-existent) in the older 2V/4V Mods, Ford GT/GT500 or Coyote.

 

The 3V oiling system also suffered from the oil pressure driven cam phasers. I've seen exponentially more main/rod bearing oil starvation failures in 3Vs than from any other Modular configuration, that's in addition to the common 3V phaser knock.

 

The 3Vs were a significant misstep from both a performance and reliability perspective. The 3V issues went deeper than the original 2-piece spark plug failures, they had some very fundamental flaws versus the previous 2Vs, 4Vs or the Coyote that were not addressed with the single piece spark plug revision for 2008.

 

In my opinion, the most (or only) successful aspect of the 3V engine program was the intake manifold, it was a drastic step forward from the restrictive split-plenum setup of the 99-04 Cobra/Mach 4V intake manifolds. But that's about it.

 

Thankfully Ford moved on to the 5.0 4V, which is superior in every single respect and in all applications.

 

Did I mention the 3V is the only Modular that requires camshaft removal to replace lash adjusters and for whatever reason (probably oiling) they are most likely to suffer from collapsed or lazy lash adjusters?

 

The death of the 3V was a great thing for Ford and Ford fans everywhere. I genuinely see the 3V as a blemish on the mod motor's record.

Edited September 1, 2017 by White99GT

[7Mary3]

That's were we had problems with the 3 valve 5,4L's. Seemed to be something of a syndrome that may have started with the timing chain tensioners (plastic housing) or perhaps the cam phasers leaking too much oil internally. Since these components were at the end of the oil flow in the head if they didn't hold back a certain pressure it seemed to result in oil starvation to the cam and valvetrain, and roller-follower and cam lobe failures would result. In addition, since the engine had no cam bearings a lack of oil would quickly waste the cam journals and result in even less oil pressure and make bottom end troubles even more likely as White99GT noted. For these reasons when we saw valve train failures on 3 valve Mods we simply replaced the entire engine with a re-man. With regards to cam journal wear, I was told that Jasper's was seeing a very high scrap rate on 3 valve Mod head cores for this reason, so much so they started line-boring the journals and having special oversized cams made to save the heads. Never saw these issues with any 2 valve Mod..

 

Most years our fleet bought both 5.4L F-250 Super Duties and 6.0L Chevy 2500HD's, and the difference in reliability between the 3 valve Mod and LS was dramatic. Happy to report we are having no issues with the Ford 6.2L.

Edited September 1, 2017 by 7Mary3

[SoonerLS]

The 3V oiling system also suffered from the oil pressure driven cam phasers. I've seen exponentially more main/rod bearing oil starvation failures in 3Vs than from any other Modular configuration, that's in addition to the common 3V phaser knock.

The Coyote and EB35 also use hydraulic cam phasers, as did the Lincoln/Jag AJs after '02. How are they different/better?

[jpd80]

Also, by the time

 

The Coyote and EB35 also use hydraulic cam phasers, as did the Lincoln/Jag AJs after '02. How are they different/better?

Good article here......LINK at STANG TV

 

 

Understanding the new 5.0 Variable Valve Timing Magic

 

e new Ford 5.0-liter V8 engine reportedly achieves a number of previously contradictive performance goals by using the latest technology in camshaft timing. Cam indexing has long been one of the more obscure performance tricks used by engine builders to squeeze more horsepower out of an engine.

 

Changing the cam timing can have a substantial effect on an engine’s power output, but classic methods restricted the gain to a limited RPM range. More recently, Variable Valve Timing (VVT) implementations have been used to improve peak power, broaden the engine’s torque curve, reduce emissions and improve fuel economy performance.

 

Recently seen in the 4.6-liter, 3-valve V8 engine used in the 2005 and later Mustangs, the mechanism for adjusting cam position was powered by the pressure from a high output oil pump. The concept had seen earlier use in the 5.4-liter Triton V8 engine for the 2004 F-150 pickup.

 

The actual movement of the camshaft, relative to the timing gear, is accomplished using a “phaser” that is inserted between the cam and the gear. This is not a Star Trek phaser, but a rotary device that changes the relative position, or phase, of the two parts. Because the 4.6-liter 3-valve engine uses a single overhead cam – which has lobes for both intake and exhaust valves – the true potential cannot be realized.

 

When applied to a double overhead cam engine, the cam phase profiles can be separated for the intake and exhaust valves and, thereby, more finely tuned. Still, an oil pressure-powered arrangement will be sensitive to oil delivery issues, which are already of critical importance in a DOHC engine. The oil pump used in the 2005 – 2010 3-valve engines is reported to deliver 30% more pressure than the stock 4-valve Cobra pump.

 

 

 

Some innovation was required to resolve this issue and that came when engineers decided to take advantage of camshaft torque variations. These variations are generated every time each lobe on the cam approaches and passes peak lift on its valve. Imagine that as the lobe begins to compress the valve spring, the resistance of the spring requires increased torque in the cam in order to maintain the same speed. Once past the peak lift point, the now-expanding spring is trying to push the cam lobe faster, which actually reduces the needed torque driving the camshaft.

 

Patended technology by Borg Warner allows these changes in energy to be captured and used to change the phaser’s position. These cam phasers operate more quickly and under a wider range of engine speeds and temperatures than traditional oil pressure actuated cam phasers, enabling optimal air flow into and out of the engine for most operating conditions.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

Also, by the time

 

Good article here......LINK at STANG TV

I understand how the phasers work (at least in the general sense) and that there are twice as many of them on the TiVCT engines, but that doesn't explain why hydraulic cam phasers are a liability on the SOHC but not on the TiVCT engines.

[7Mary3]

The Coyote and EB35 also use hydraulic cam phasers, as did the Lincoln/Jag AJs after '02. How are they different/better?

 

Not sure, and have not had any issues with the phasers on 6.2L's, which are also SOHC.

Edited September 1, 2017 by 7Mary3

[jpd80]

I understand how the phasers work (at least in the general sense) and that there are twice as many of them on the TiVCT engines, but that doesn't explain why hydraulic cam phasers are a liability on the SOHC but not on the TiVCT engines.

Ah, you missed the discreet difference In the article I quoted.

 

the 3Vs use engine oil pressure to move and control the cam phases, while the Coyotes

use the actual torque of the cam to generate inertia to actuate the phasers more quickly.

 

Patended technology by Borg Warner allows these changes in energy to be captured and used to change the phaser’s position. These cam phasers operate more quickly and under a wider range of engine speeds and temperatures than traditional oil pressure actuated cam phasers, enabling optimal air flow into and out of the engine for most operating conditions.

 

The new cam phasers are a different design so they don't have the same fail points as the previous MODones.

Edited September 1, 2017 by jpd80

[White99GT]

The Coyote and EB35 also use hydraulic cam phasers, as did the Lincoln/Jag AJs after '02. How are they different/better?

The 3V used oil pressure actuated (OPA) cam phasers, the 5.0/EB/6.2 use cam torque actuated (CTA) cam phasers.

 

Borg Warner is the supplier, they have a good bit of published info out there regarding the different styles of cam phaser actuation that they offer.

 

EDIT: or just read jpd80's post.

Edited September 1, 2017 by White99GT

[jpd80]

The 3V used oil pressure actuated (OPA) cam phasers, the 5.0/EB/6.2 use cam torque actuated (CTA) cam phasers.

 

Borg Warner is the supplier, they have a good bit of published info out there regarding the different styles of cam phaser actuation that they offer.

 

EDIT: or just read jpd80's post.

Thanks White99GT, we always appreciate your input on all things MOD.

 

Many like to think that the ported 3V heads now available offer a good performance kick up for

the latter MODs, I just think the early 4Vs without cam phasers are still trumps when built right

especially in a low deck 5.3 stroker of the 5.4 s like we had in Australia.

 

Mind you, the later Coyotes are just fantastic and while not perfect are a damned site better

and more robust than their early cousins. - I'm only disappointed that Ford didn't follow through

with a better highdeck version in the 5.8 guise...more cubes and longer stroke, gotta be better..

 

 

Quick question, '18 versions of Coyote going to roller followers, better or worse than direct buckets?

Edited September 1, 2017 by jpd80

[White99GT]

Thanks White99GT, we always appreciate your input on all things MOD.

 

Many like to think that the ported 3V heads now available offer a good performance kick up for

the latter MODs, I just think the early 4Vs without cam phasers are still trumps when built right

especially in a low deck 5.3 stroker of the 5.4 s like we had in Australia.

 

Mind you, the later Coyotes are just fantastic and while not perfect are a damned site better

and more robust than their early cousins. - I'm only disappointed that Ford didn't follow through

with a better highdeck version in the 5.8 guise...more cubes and longer stroke, gotta be better..

 

 

Quick question, '18 versions of Coyote going to roller followers, better or worse than direct buckets?

The Coyote has always been RFF, it's the Cyclones (2017 Gen 2 3.5 EB) that are switching from DAMB

to RFF.

 

Some of the early 3.5 Cyclones had issues with bucket/tappet wear that was addressed in the first year or two of production.

 

I personally prefer RFF as it's just a lower friction, lower wearing setup. Frictional losses are probably the reason Ford seems to be moving away from DAMB in the EcoBoosts.

 

The RFF valvetrain, with the proper lash adjuster pre-load, has no issues with 9000-plus rpm operation (with OEM lash adjusters and followers at that). I honestly don't see a reason for DAMB in car/truck applications, except for perhaps reduced exterior dimensions in the cam cover area.

Edited September 1, 2017 by White99GT

[Stray Kat]

So we threw the baby out with the bath water?

 

Those 3V combustion chambers and intake valve locations were a patented Jim Feuling design purposefully crafted like they were.

 

Those 4.6 3V's created a better torque curve than a big 460 from just a decade before.

 

I'm skeptical when you say that the single exhaust vslve and port arrangement wasn't up to the job. For Pete's sake it's a decent sized valve/port with a nice shape that is short and direct like a Chrysler Hemi!

 

My original point about the 3V's was that they were underutilized. If I were in charge there would be 3V 6.2's right from the get go.

 

This "valve curtain" business well I'd like to study just what Jim Feuling was doing when he spread the intake valves out like that. Is it possible that the cylinder walls were used to create some kind of mixing motion? Or maybe the fact that the valve angles are such that they move "away" from the cylinder walls at higher lifts and thus unshroud themselves dynamically.

 

Now on to the cam phasers and spark plugs. THAT COULD'VE BEEN FIXED WITH MORE DEVELOPMENT!

 

Aren't the 3V V10's reliable? Every single person I have spoken with that owns and operates a V10 Ford likes it and says it's a pulling beast. Everyone

 

I think there is a place for the K I S S method to remain. I am fully behind Ford's Ecoboost line as a consumer product but in the rough and tumble and often less maintained world of work trucks I'm for simple, basic yet powerful and capable.

 

The V10 quietly does that in thousands of RV's and more every year. The 3V's were dropped too early in my opinion and certainly could have been utilized as a simple alternative in the aforementioned F250/F350 work truck line. The 4.6 3V with some work could've been an excellent V8 option in the F150 line instead of the more expensive Coyote.

[theoldwizard]

Thankfully Ford moved on to the 5.0 4V, which is superior in every single respect and in all applications.

Except cost !

[theoldwizard]

Duplicate

Edited September 1, 2017 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

The Coyote has always been RFF, it's the Cyclones (2017 Gen 2 3.5 EB) that are switching from DAMB

to RFF.

 

Some of the early 3.5 Cyclones had issues with bucket/tappet wear that was addressed in the first year or two of production.

 

I personally prefer RFF as it's just a lower friction, lower wearing setup. Frictional losses are probably the reason Ford seems to be moving away from DAMB in the EcoBoosts.

DAMB has been the "grail" of OHC valvetrain designers for years. Fewer parts (lower cost), lower overall height, what is not to like ! It is hard to believe that with modern lubes that wear was/is an issue, especially since some manufacturers are still using it. Besides frictional losses, DAMB has a very high repair cost if the customer complains of valvetrain noise during the warranty period.

 

The RFF valvetrain, with the proper lash adjuster pre-load, has no issues with 9000-plus rpm operation (with OEM lash adjusters and followers at that).

Ford RFF use hydraulic lash adjusters, so I did not think there was anyway to "adjust" the pre-load.

[White99GT]

DP

Edited September 1, 2017 by White99GT