Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

7 liter Thumper engine


moabman

Recommended Posts

This month's MM&FF features a much better layout dedicated to the large block NA test engine seen in the Roush drag Mustang last month. Inside sources say it is big - 427 in^3 and is making about 800 hp in its present form. It is a push rod cam-in-the-block configuration. The block looks like aluminum to me but I could be mistaken. The article gives the bore and stroke and reveals that it is running on a 110 octane E-85 fuel. It also says that Ford is being vewy vewy quiet about this and won't confirm details. Although they refused to confirm or deny any of the details, Ford did say that they would have an announcement about the future engine soon :happy feet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bores are 4.250" and the stroke is approximately 3.75" :happy feet:

 

The 800 hp figure was derived by taking the 3300 lb weight of the car and the times that the car turned in on the 1/4 mile (9.10 @ 145). That was in unfavorable temperatures so I can't wait to see the hp numbers on a good day :happy feet:

 

The twin injectors per cylinder make sense if they are running on E-85 and it's lower energy content even though the octane rating is 110.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be the long awaited "hurricane" series bored out from 6.2 to 7 liters. I think the spacing on the 6.2 would allow for the bores mentioned above and most (not all) of the speculation/rumors about the 6.2 is that it will be a return to a push rod design.

 

Disclaimer: All of this is hearsay and not admissible in a court of law as evidence :hysterical2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone kmow what engine family this belongs to?

 

Black Sheep family, I think ;)

 

Pushrods, eh? :banghead: maybe they're toying with us? The bore of 4.25" is consistent with HRM saying 4.5" c-t-c. Well, ford has successfully gotten everyone's attention ... I find it hard to believe there's not also a 2 or 3V OHC motor in the bushes tho.

 

Here's the pic from HRM:

 

post-4902-1190847092_thumb.jpg

 

Dan

post-4902-1190847092_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are positioning it squarely against the ZO6 LS6 which is also a OHV pushrod engine (I was surprised when I read that) in the high performance market and against the Hemi in the truck market. Maybe they will continue the modular series with a 400 hp version also for the road racing crowd. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI........

 

George, thanks for posting that!!

 

---

 

-the old FEs were 4.63" CTC with the 427 being 4.232 x 3.78 or .40" between cylinder bores. With just a 428 crank it goes to 454cid and with a little bore and/or siamesed liners in an alloy block and bit more stroke goes easily to 514-520cid (Shelby, others).

 

-this motor is rumored to be 4.50" CTC (BOF discussioins from last year saying 2-valve motor), and article says 4.25 x 3.75 or .25" between cylinder bores (also consistent with BOF discussions). They also mention it can go to 7.5 litres (+/460cid). Hmmm... makes me wonder if this motor isn't actually 4.63 CTC like the old FEs so it could be able to share all the big parts that have been developed by Shelby, Dove, Genesis and others (the Genesis billet ally blocks and other pieces are very slick) in recent years as the BB-Ford motors experience a resurgence of interest.

 

-Hemi heads (even with pushrods) might permit some interesting branding opportunities and a re-entry into pro-stock where the basic block and heads have to be loosely based on factory pieces -- a class where Ford participation has ben lacking since Glidden left the sport some 15-20 yers ago (he's back now).

 

-Ford has also carefully leaked their joint development with Force Racing on a "Ford-branded Fuel [Funny Car[ motor" (John Medlin is the Ford point-man in Force Racing on that project -- the joint development location is somewhere just south of indianapolis in a facility prepped for this purpose, i.e. joint develiopment).

 

When I put this all together the crystal ball screams BOSS-branding returns. I'm just uderwhelmed at pushrods. Possibly NASCAR or NHRA has signalled that the ban on OHCs is not going to be lifted? Possibly Ford has come up with a clever (non-infringing) way to do VVT/VCT for the production engine in a pushrod motor (doubt that, but...). This where I start to disconnect -- where I start to think there's another motor and this "experimental" piece is just to gauge what can be done with E85 (NASCAR is considering an E85 race series) and throw the competition off from a S/DOHC (which GM is reportedly rethinking). Also, this experimental motor is a conventional [dual-] injector motor -- also not a production fore-shadowing, imo, since any future engie has to be GDi provisioned.

 

All this says to me that this may be the general size/displacement of a new motor, but that this is may not be the architecture/configuration of the actual future motor.

 

...but, who knows?!

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article did say that they "speculate that this engine mightwill be found under the hoods of many Ford vehicles including trucks or even Mustangs"

 

This sounds to me like it indeed is the Hurricane (racing) test bed. If they make it with an aluminum block that will be the indicator to me.

The fact that it will be a hemi head design( not a first for Ford either) is also a tell tale sign.

This sounds like it will be a very versatile engine esp with the possible CI and RPM range.

 

 

As far as NASCAR is concerned, two things stand out .

1. their max cubic inch is 358 ci

2. they have banned OHC engines after the old CAMMER that Ford produced back in the 60's and are not likely to lift that ban now.IMO

 

If this eventually finds itself into a BOSS Mustang that will be the car to have someday , a car for all venues of racing from drag to road racing .Even NASCAR teams would be interested IMO.

 

I too wish it was an OHC engine but over all I think it will be a great engine.

 

moabman Posted Yesterday, 09:51 PM

Thanks svtbird! That's the article

 

No good deed should go unrewarded so here you go:

Thanks for the pic moabman ....."now that's what I'm talken about !"

 

1435437236_6071d4059b_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there will be some insight in the live media event Ford has planned for Tues 10/2 1:00 eastern (800 num and pass-code listed to dial-in and listen)

 

Ostensibly, that just about September sales info, but I suspect it's either damage control on poorer that projected results or a marker/declaration event that Ford is finally turning the corner in the N.A. market. If the latter, they may choose to showcase/mention some other "bold moves" in the pipeline as part of that (because it's hard to believe it will take 45 minutes to present the September sales info <lol>).

 

So maybe the Ford motor-branding pre-announcement (from Ford Corporate late last year) will be addressed as part of the upcoming media event. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've been studying this new engine...

 

Hot Rod mag says it's an 427 SOHC.

 

MM&FF says they think there's a cam and some pushrods in it.

 

I think Hot Rod mag is correct -- see what you think.

 

So what can we tell by the outside of an engine? Can you tell if it's OHC or pushrod from a good pic? Maybe and maybe not.

 

Well, you know how the front cylinder intakes are really close to the front of the block on a OHV engine but are considerably further back on a OHC engine. And you know how the water pump sticks way out on a OHV engine because there's no chain-drive covers to stick out on either side thqat might permit the pump to tuck in between. And from the look of the valve covers on the 'experimental' motor it looks like an OHV engine.

 

I'M NOT BUYING IT! :nonono: ;-)

 

Lat's look a few motors... forst some shopt of vintage Ford iron. In all of these pics note the offset from the intake of a front cylinder to the front of the block. This is typically short on OHV engines and long on OHC engiens to accommodate the drive train for the cams. Also notice the location of the water pump realtive to the front of the block.

 

First off, a 427FE EFI by 2G Motorsports: short offset = pushrods

post-4902-1191045701_thumb.jpg

 

Brand-new old-stock 427FE side-oiler: short offset = pushrods

post-4902-1191045713_thumb.jpg

 

1969 Boss 429 hemi-head: short offset = pushrods

post-4902-1191045721_thumb.jpg

 

Small Block hi-po 289 in the fabled Shelby Lonestar Cobra-III prototype: short offset = pushrods

post-4902-1191045729_thumb.jpg

 

Next post we'll shift gears to OHC....

post-4902-1191045701_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191045713_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191045721_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191045729_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now lets look at some "cammers," new and old...

 

4.6 modular cammer in the 1953 UPS Concept truck: big-offset = cammer!

post-4902-1191046465_thumb.jpg

 

2005 Cobra Concept V10: big-offset = cammer!

post-4902-1191046474_thumb.jpg

 

"427 concept" V10 at 2004 NYIAS: big-offset = cammer!

post-4902-1191046492_thumb.jpg

 

Vintage 427 S.O. SOHC "cammer": big-ofset = cammer!

(and note the bridge on this vs the modulars... this motor has one huge cam drive chain that spans the heads!)

post-4902-1191046504_thumb.jpg

 

...ok, next up: our mystery motor!...

post-4902-1191046465_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191046474_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191046492_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191046504_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...look carfully now... ;-)

 

"experimental" motor MM&FF: big-offset = cammer!

post-4902-1191046965_thumb.jpg

 

"experimental" motor HotRod mag: big-offset = cammer!

post-4902-1191046975_thumb.jpg

 

But the valve covers don't look like a cammer and the plugs don't go thru the covers and the valve cover bolt pattern looks like a pushrod engine! Well, go back and look at the 1953 UPS Concept, the V!0 CObra Concept and 427 V10 concept (all indisputable cammers) and no plugs or wires in the covers either!

 

But the offset tells the real story...

 

Yup! That motor is a cammer. My bet is SOHC -- that's why the valve covers can be deceptive (likely quite intentional and the fastener pattern may change in the production engine) since the single drive gear will fit nicely in there.

 

Hot Rod is right, MM&FF is, well, can't say they're wrong because they admitted to only a guess. The front cylinder offset doesn't lie... imo, that pup is a cammer in disguise!!! I rest my case <lol> ;-)

 

:happy feet: :headspin: :bandance: :happy feet: :headspin: :bandance: :happy feet: :headspin: :bandance:

 

:)

 

Dan

post-4902-1191046965_thumb.jpg

post-4902-1191046975_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did notice the offset too Dan. What is deceptive though is the lack of evidence of the plug wires being located in the center of the valve covers. If this engine has a hemispherical shaped combustion chamber I believe it would be necessary to have the spark plug located in the center......unless (thinking out loud) they are using two plugs per cylinder opposed from each other at an angle. Still there is no access cover for the plugs!

The more I look at the offset on the front of the heads the more it does look like an OHC head ....It would be very cool indeed if that is the case but I'm not quite ready to committ to that philosophy.

I'll have to check my sources to see what I can find out on this. LOL Time for some detective work :superhero::hysterical2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was also doing some sleuthing on the dual-injectors. I've found many instances of 1-injector 2-valve OHV motors (like most all of them <lol>) and a few examples of dual-injector 4V DOHC, but nowhere have I found any dual-injector 2V motors.

 

I'm starting to think that when MM&FF was guessing on the pushrods they may have also been guessing on the 'hemi' or using the term loosely. I'm beginning to think that this motor is a SOHC 3V motor with each injector's pattern targeting each bifurcated runner to each intake valve -- just like on the FordGT but only one exhaust valve.

 

I also noticed that the DOHC V10s used in the 427 Concept, Cobra Concept (and GR-1 Prototype too) also show no evidence of a centered plug -- and there seems to be no pics anywhere of the actual head chamber config -- they are one-off pieces since the production V10 is a 3V motor. That pic I posted of the 2-plug design a while back was used by an engineer to illustrate a 2-plug semi-hemi design (like the DCX "Hemi"), but a they noted a 3V would nicely acommodate 2 plugs as well, and GDI (right in the center!).

 

So a SOHC 3V would seem to be the only logical arrangement that can properly move the plug(s) out of the covers (you can see the wires in one pic but can't tell if 1 or 2/cyl [they show 4-coils in the Hot-Rod pic]), properly utilize two injectors today, and leave the center clear for GDI in the future.... and the SOHC drive gear would fit under that domed cam cover very handily in a narrower design (no prob in the trucks but it appears narrrower than a modular partly due to a modest deck height like the vintage 427s -- fairly compact). Besides, the most compact SOHC designs don;t want the plug in the center because the cam wants to be there to permit a semi-hemi angled-valve design. While that's doable for a 2V, 3V or 4V SOHC, it only really makes sense, imo, for a 3V (assuming need for 2-plugs, optimum breathing and GDI-capable).

 

I also notice in the mag pics that there appears to be a bump-out in the chain-drive cover (if that's what's in there) even further out than on the modulars and just under the cam covers, hence the larger offset than the mods. Could that be Ford's rumored VVT/VCT/variable-lift tech that can vary intake and exhaust timing independently with a single cam and vary lift at the finger-follower (the latter not affecting bump out size)? There is at least one solution in production for that today using concentric camshafts (but not with variable lift, I believe).

 

Ford has been working on both a 2-stage and a variable lift done with servos at the finger-follower (since 2001/2 or so?) and has patented a 'camshaft-switching' device (a 2-stage solenoid-controlled approach) somewhere around 2000 (definately before 2001). If I recall correctly there was some real potential affinity with GDI such that when the valve is in the partial-open mode (much better milage) versus full-lift, GDI could exploit the low-load condition better than any above-valve injection, so that could now be coming mainline (dunno) but the fact that it has been patented says it's unique enough, important, and possibly a place-holder waiting on another tech (GDI?) since patenting shows how it works and manufacturers are loath to patent before 'necessary.' When the cam's full lift is used (high-output) big overlap is possible to scavange the cyl of exhaust gas without losing efficiency due to intake wash-thru. Again, only GDI can likely systemically address that, imo, above valve-injection can't -- no prob on a race motor, but key on a hi-po low-emissions production motor. Other changes, like more powerful controllers, will certainly be required, but chip design and processing power is certainly no longer any technical limitation -- not by a long shot -- just expensive to develop and program the logic!

 

Am I dreaming? ...because this is making far too much sense to me (tho I've certainly been wrong before!<lol>). Even tho this is clearly a conventionally injected motor today, it's design will have to accommodate the full-run of known-and-likely tech, and it would seem only a 3V can reasonable accommodate 1 or [likely] 2 plugs, GDI, VVT/VCT and Variable-lift (which also plays into a needed valve-deactivation approach to Variable Displacement, another subject), all those pieces would seem a sure bet in the next several years. Team that up with the trucks being Ford's bread and butter, the CO2 regs looming especially dark on the trucks, and the engine pics we've seen and it would say there may be a lot more in this engine than meets the eye -- today and/or design-provisioned for the future. ...just some thoughts.

 

Anyone with other isight and thoughts??

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sold me on the OHC Dan but I'm not so sure about the number of valves. I hope you are right but I've got a nagging feeling that the dual injectors are necessary for the lower energy content of E-85. Getting enough gasoline into the cylinder to make 800 hp takes a robust fuel system. Making that HP with E-85 will require even more fuel. Maybe it's easier to go with 2 lower capacity injectors instead of using a giant single injector. I don't know what injector capacities are available and maybe there is a large capacity one that works with the rest of the fuel management system that they could have used and they decided to go with the twin injectors for a 3V, 2 intake configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Mark, could certainly be dual injectors just for the E85 volume needs, but...

 

Making a special manifold just for this mule/testing (i.e. not production-purposed) doesn't make sense, imo, since injectors are available in huge lb/hr sizes for racing (way more than any NA motor can digest). The only reason I can see that Ford might want to spend R&D dollars on a one-off dual-injector manifold is if production intentions are primary since high lb/hr racing injectors have crappy idle and low-speed metering characteristics that makes them inappropriate for an emissions engine.

 

Then again Ford might be evaluating the need for a 3V since 4.25" bores reduce the incremental benefit compared to a small-bore (e.g. mod) motor where 2V is nearly useless, and may be running this motor with two sets of heads keeping injectors identical in both cases to eliminate them as variables in an evaluation -- that could justify what otherwise seems an odd arrangement (for a 2V motor).

 

Also, on the outside chance this is in prep for some new E85 NASCAR/NHRA race series, where low-emissions will be part of the public-spin (good racing-sport image), dual street injectors might have merit if low-speed operation was somehow part of the program -- again, doesn't make much sense, imo.

 

Of course if this is to be a 3V motor, even if 1-injector/cyl would be adequate for street use, Ford might want to provision it for two (e.g. Ford GT) or make such available as an FRP piece and if this is going in a Boss in some form in Spring '09, it's not too early for such development to be well underway now.

 

The only thing that makes sense to me if this will be built in some production context (and I sure hope so) is a head configuration with two intake valves.

 

One other thought.. if NHRA were seriously contemplating E85 'green-street' classes (<--I made that name up), a two injector stock config would make sense, even if unnecessary as factory-delivered. But if something like that is the intent, a 3V motor would also seem the better config to go with it.

 

Dunno... I'm actually struggling to find solid logic where a 2V dual-injector intake makes sense in a production environment with the 'givens' we're assuming (now that could be my problem! :hysterical: ), and what is actually built doesn't have to make the most sense to me either ...sure wouldn't be the first time ;-)

 

Btw, in the context of the trucks, admittedly the only thing I'd heard (even going back to last year) was 2V 2-plug. But since the truck motor ships late this year or spring next year, this 'experimental' motor likely has no bearing on anything having to do with a production truck, imo, hence my unbridled (and hopefully not unfounded) enthusiasm that this may genuinely be someting special.

 

Dan

 

<edited for 'clarity' -- lol>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's another tack that may be of interest...

 

The MM&FF article says the car runs 9.10@145 on 110-octane E85

 

In January when they tested the car with a Ford-GT motor with Ford-GT heads and cams but ported by Roush and running 10# boost the very same physical car (yellow Roush mule driven by Don Bowles) made "650rwHP and ran "9s" at 140.

 

To be conservative, I'll assume the car weighed exactly the same as the "experimental"-engined version (3300lbs). That's conservative to my mind because the S/C-intercooler weighs about 150lbs by itself and the HE and tank, fluids and plumbing probably another 50. The modular motor in the GT500 is 820lbs, The Ford GT block is about 85 lbs lighter, so that would be about 735#. The vintage cast-iron 427s long-skirted side-oiler weighed 680lbs. If I assume that the H/Boss cast iron motor (which is also most likely a long-skirt motor) is similar in weight to it's vintage FE, it's probalby no more than 55# lighter than the Ford-GT motor in the Roush Mule in January '07. So, essentially, the H/Boss mule and the Ford-GT mule (same physical car with two diff motors) are about the same weights or the H/Boss may be a bit lighter.

 

So if I assume similar weight, the Ford-GT, and if the current car is 3300lbs and runs 9.10 @ 145, and if I used mph to relate the engine output (because it's likely a better indicator than e.t.) and we assume Don + 5 gals fuel is about 250#, the car's track weight is about 3550 and solving for HP (using speed, not e.t.) I get 760HP at the wheels for the Ford-GT motor, ported heads, 10#boost. If we assume the 3300# they quote was track weight, it's still 707HP (not the 650 they quote in the 1/07 article).

 

If I use then plug the nums in for the H/Boss motor in that car, at 3550lbs we get 845HP and at 3300# 785HP at the wheels.

 

So the S/C 5.4 Ford-GT vs the 7.0 H/Boss might be like this:

-----@3300#---707------vs------785

HP/L@3300#---131------vs------112

-----@3550#---760------vs------845

HP/L@3550#---141------vs------121

 

So the 7.0 NA H/Boss is making about 93% of the HP/L of the 5.4 S/C. That's impressive, imo.

 

But the H/Boss is running 110-octane E85 and I'd guess the Ford-GT version was running either 110 or 100-octane race gas.

 

If we assume both motors exploit their octane equally (as safe assumption, imo) it would be fair to de-rate the 110 E85 output by 9% (110->100octane) for a better comparison if we assume the Ford-GT version ran 100 octane (if 110, no adjustment needed, so we're being conservative). So adjusting for octane (if needed) the N.A. 7.0L H/Boss would still be making about 80% of the S/C 5.4 Ford-GT mule's rwHP/Liter.

 

That tells me the H/Boss is one amazingly efficient motor since the Ford-GT mule was running 10# boost (and that's after the head porting, etc) -- impressive!

 

Another perspective: if the NA H/Boss were a running 93-octane pump gas, and therefore I de-rate it's output to 85-86% of the above calculations, it would be making in the vicinity of 665 (3300#) - 715rwHP (1550#).

 

By comparo, Roush and FRP's pricey 427cid NA crate motors on 93-octane are rated at 550HPcrank or +/- 470wheel vs the H/Boss's derated-to-93-octane nums of 665-715wheel.

 

Back in the day on the equivalent of 93-octane (+/- 101-octane on the old method), a 427 2x4bbl was rated at 425HP and actually made about 515-530crank under the old measurement ratings, or around 390-400HPcrank by today's SAE measurement, or about 340rwHP ...vs 665-715rwHP for this H/Boss (and that's adjusted for octane!). Amazing!

 

So we have NA-60s-427race-motor---vs---NA-modern-427-crate---vs---NA-H/Boss looking like:

rwHP: -------------------340-----------vs-------------470--------------vs-------------665-715

 

And as a sanity-check, if use the weight/HP/e.t./mph calculators and plug in some vintage numbers using some vintage Shelbys/mustangs/Bosses, the numbers are a reasonable fit.

 

All my assumptions above may not be perfect, but they are all very much in the ballpark, imo. If so, the H/Boss in that yellow Roush mule is one awesomely impressive piece of NA iron!!!

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...