Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

The V10 has an extra main cap, it isn't suffering from a lack of main bearing surface area, the 6.2's timing chain drive is essentially identical to the Modulars.

I was told that it testing main loading and crank defection were issues, and required a forged crank. The mains on Mod's are very thin, and even with the extra cap surface to displacement was on the small side. No matter, it has not proven to be a service issue, but the solution made the engine more expensive.

 

There are some significant differences between the Triton and Boss timing chain setup. Most significant I think is Ford came out with a much more robust hydraulic tensioner for Boss, rather than that leak-prone plastic one on the 3 valve Triton. Those tensioners are a common cause of valvetrain issues on 3 valve Tritons because when they leak they not only cause excessive chain wear and noise but they can starve the cam 'bearings' and followers for oil. It also looks like the Boss engines have far fewer issues with cam phasers than the 3 valve Tritons do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best and worst part about the 3v V10s was the lack of vvt! It probably could have hit 400 hp if it had vvt but on the flip side it isn't plagued with the cam phasers issues that the 4.6 and 5.4 are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trick Flow 4.6 2V address the the PI/NPI's negative intake valve angle problem, and subsequently flow and perform much better.

I'd be absolutely ecstatic to see trick flow add an extra cylinder to their modular heads. The only other piece needed at that point would be for somebody to do a proper intake manifold for the V10. Cams, headers, throttle bodies are already available and obviously the internals are the same as what is used on the V8 modulars.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best and worst part about the 3v V10s was the lack of vvt! It probably could have hit 400 hp if it had vvt but on the flip side it isn't plagued with the cam phasers issues that the 4.6 and 5.4 are.

My thoughts exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that it testing main loading and crank defection were issues, and required a forged crank. The mains on Mod's are very thin, and even with the extra cap surface to displacement was on the small side. No matter, it has not proven to be a service issue, but the solution made the engine more expensive.

 

There are some significant differences between the Triton and Boss timing chain setup. Most significant I think is Ford came out with a much more robust hydraulic tensioner for Boss, rather than that leak-prone plastic one on the 3 valve Triton. Those tensioners are a common cause of valvetrain issues on 3 valve Tritons because when they leak they not only cause excessive chain wear and noise but they can starve the cam 'bearings' and followers for oil. It also looks like the Boss engines have far fewer issues with cam phasers than the 3 valve Tritons do.

Later 2Vs and 3Vs are the only Mods with nylon tensioners. Early 2Vs, 4.6 4Vs, GT500s, Coyotes...All have steel tensioners.

 

Main bearing surface area has proven to be a non-issue, even in 3000 HP applications. The Modular has an excellent oiling system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just playing around with an online displacement calculator and I come up with some easy scenarios.

 

Boring the 6.2 to 105 mm and utilizing a 101 mm stroke and you land exactly on 7.0 liters or 427".

 

Now the current 6.2 has a 115 mm bore spacing so my math says even at 105 mm's there is still plenty of meat between cylinders on which to effectively clamp the head gaskets.

 

In fact at those numbers my humble opinion is that, that would still be an under-stressed architecture.

 

I believe there could be more left in that engine maybe even up to 7.5 liters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to remember for commercial use (particularly class 6 & 7) is that the coolant volume, passage design, and even velocity in both the block and heads has to be such to allow extended operation at full rated output. From what I have heard over the years cooling (where, I do not know) has been the issue preventing the 6.2 from being used in the heavier classes. Cooling the area around the exhaust valves is particularly important. I have seen the old FT and 401/477/534 engines run so hard that the exhaust side of the heads had a dull red glow and still provide long and reliable service. Could be one reason that the valves were on the small side - to leave more room for coolant passages. Whatever, the new 7.0 will hopefully be able to handle the demands of class 6 & 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying it isn't possible but it would be hard for me to believe there is not water fully surrounding the ext valves on the 6.2.

 

On top of that aluminum tends to shed heat better than conventional iron.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though if Ford isn't contemplating some iron heads for class 6 and 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boring the 6.2 to 105 mm and utilizing a 101 mm stroke and you land exactly on 7.0 liters or 427".

7.0L engine have been built off of the existing block. (The Roush 777.)

 

I am not saying it isn't possible but it would be hard for me to believe there is not water fully surrounding the ext valves on the 6.2.

 

On top of that aluminum tends to shed heat better than conventional iron.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though if Ford isn't contemplating some iron heads for class 6 and 7.

I was the one who started the whole "6.2L won't pass class 4-7 durability", because of heat. I got it straight from "the horse mouth" about 5 -7 years ago.

 

I know very early on in that engines development there were discussion of pushrod vs OHC. DOHC was ruled out because of cost, but that does not mean they could not do a 3V !

 

To be the "class leading" gasoline engine in the Class 6-7 they really need something >8L.

Edited by theoldwizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be surprised if this 7.xx has pushrod architecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be surprised if this 7.xx has pushrod architecture.

 

Wow. I remember hearing that the pushrod idea was being kicked around early in the 'Boss' engine's development, just because "that's the way GM does it"! I will say I would be VERY surprised if the new 7.xx engine is not a simple enlargement of the current 6.2L. I have been wrong before, but in this instance I don't see enough volume for Ford to design and manufacture a specific engine family for larger commercial trucks.

 

I have it on good authority GM is also working on a larger gasoline/CNG/LNG V-8 for commercial trucks which could possibly be shared with Navistar and Isuzu. I expect that engine to be some sort of LS series derivative. It is due about the same time as the Ford 7.xx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone would be shocked if it was OHV and not OHC considering they already have the 6.2 OHC to work from and they don't have any other pushrod engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be surprised if this 7.xx has pushrod architecture.

That would be a huge departure and surprise for me. Call me crazy but I like a direct acting valvetrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were going to start from scratch and build a new pushrod engine, and that engine was designed specifically for use in class 4-7, wouldn't they design it to be larger than 7.0l?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, maybe they can just bring back the 385 series BBF!!!! It easily supports displacements of 7.0L - 8.6L and already has a proven track record in heavy trucks. Just throw a set of aluminum heads at it along with modern fuel injection and it'd be plenty competitive. It's not like the LS and Hemi engines don't use pushrods.

 

On a more serious note, does any one know if Ford is still casting the 385 block? You can still buy new crate motors but I'm not sure if the blocks are Ford or aftermarket at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford could pick any deck height and bore spacing it pleases for a new SD/MD engine, so why not follow

some of the aftermarket engine copies that have 5" bore spacing and and say, a 10.3" deck height?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys let's go back to the heyday of Ford big truck gas engine design.

 

In the year of our Lord 1958 Ford introduced a "scaled up" version of their passenger car V8 technology and called it the Super Duty line of engines. Initially they were 401", 477", and 534" slab head V8's with an innovative dual thermostated and dual water passage coolant system.

 

These big muthas were beyond a 5" bore spacing while the passenger car MEL's were 4.9". They had flat heads with the decks milled to around 10 degrees to form a perfect and consistent combustion chamber.

 

The bottom end of these monsters included 4 ring pistons, great big old wrist pins and crank pins. This was all carried in a precision cast fully skirted high grade iron block.

 

Other than a reputation for being a bit thirsty these Super Duty V8's earned a stellar reputation.

 

Maybe history will repeat itself..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow. I remember hearing that the pushrod idea was being kicked around early in the 'Boss' engine's development, just because "that's the way GM does it"! I will say I would be VERY surprised if the new 7.xx engine is not a simple enlargement of the current 6.2L.

I concur on ALL statements !

 

Sadly, the existing block can not go much more than 7.0L without changing the deck height and that would be a HUGE manufacturing cost !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many years, Livonia Transmission had 534's power the C6 "hot test" stands ! Can you imagine going into a room with a dozen or more 534s howling near WOT !!! :drop:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys let's go back to the heyday of Ford big truck gas engine design.

 

In the year of our Lord 1958 Ford introduced a "scaled up" version of their passenger car V8 technology and called it the Super Duty line of engines. Initially they were 401", 477", and 534" slab head V8's with an innovative dual thermostated and dual water passage coolant system.

 

These big muthas were beyond a 5" bore spacing while the passenger car MEL's were 4.9". They had flat heads with the decks milled to around 10 degrees to form a perfect and consistent combustion chamber.

 

The bottom end of these monsters included 4 ring pistons, great big old wrist pins and crank pins. This was all carried in a precision cast fully skirted high grade iron block.

 

Other than a reputation for being a bit thirsty these Super Duty V8's earned a stellar reputation.

 

Maybe history will repeat itself..........

Good info Stray Kat. They were also warranteed for 100,000 miles which for a gas engine I believe was a first. As a college kid working his way through school (I drove a 345 International v-8 dump) I would haul out of pits/quarries and as a Ford nut always had to question the guys driving Super Duty Fords.

 

Usual responses..."ball of fire", trim the ass off a 220! etc". "220" was the most popular Cummins in early/mid 60's before the NH-250 became the popular non-turbo big Cummins. Oh and one other correct comment.."pass anything but a gas station" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many years, Livonia Transmission had 534's power the C6 "hot test" stands ! Can you imagine going into a room with a dozen or more 534s howling near WOT !!! :drop:

Could you imagine the look on the faces of Ford brass if they were told that

the old 534 is exactly the kind of size that the MD trucks need..... Priceless

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the relatively low volume needed for an engine like this it would seem a perfect project to turn Jack Roush loose on (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×