nachtkriechen Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 With the advent of the return of the Bullitt, and all of the discussions about possible upcoming engines, I have a few questions for those in the know. When the S197s came out, I was really impressed that Ford went with an all aluminum block and aluminum heads. A light weight 4.6L aluminum engine putting out 300 HP is great. However, I was wondering why Ford didn't go with an aluminum block on the GT500's 5.4L as well. One of the common complaints by car magazine editors that got to test the GT500, was that it felt heavier, and not as nimble as the GT. Initially I thought Ford went with an Iron block 5.4L because of the extra HP being produced, but, that doesn't make much sense if the GT's 4.6L can safely produce 450 - 500 RWHP (albeit supercharged) out of it's aluminum block. And while we're at it, why not a titanium block? Is it expense alone? Years ago I remember Popular Mechanics having an article about GM using a ceramic block engine in an experimental test mule. However, they never followed up on it, so I never found out why it wasn't further researched. Thanks, - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Josh - Good questions. I have often wondered the same thing about the 5.4 in the GT500 because it is worse than you stated - Ford already had a 5.4 aluminum block blown engine - It's the Ford GT (Not Mustang GT, just GT) engine. In fact, the heads are the same on the Ford GT and the GT500. Cost is the only reason I can think of that made them convert over to the iron block version of the 5.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted September 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Josh - Good questions. I have often wondered the same thing about the 5.4 in the GT500 because it is worse than you stated - Ford already had a 5.4 aluminum block blown engine - It's the Ford GT (Not Mustang GT, just GT) engine. In fact, the heads are the same on the Ford GT and the GT500. Cost is the only reason I can think of that made them convert over to the iron block version of the 5.4. Thanks, Moabman. Concerning the Ford GT's aluminum 5.4... you don't think it was something as stupid as the "exclisivity" issue, do you? I mean, I can sort of underderstand that aspect, if I was a Ford GT owner, but, on the other hand, GT500/Supersnake owners seem to be the same way. No offense to GT500/Supersnake owners out there, ideally or ultimately, I would love to have a Supersnake. However, in my career and particular life situation, I can only hope to turn a Supercharged Mustang GT into a "cloner" Supersnake. Ford GT owners probably don't want GT500 owners to have their aluminum 5.4, and the GT500 owners would probably kill to have that engine (if it was an option), just as GT500/KR/Supersnake owners don't want Mustang GT owners getting their hands on the parts that make the GT500/KR/Supersnake unique. It's hypocritical, but, I guess thats how it goes. - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 I really do think it was just cost. I think you can buy a Ford GT crate engine but I can't remember the cost. I think the aluminum block 400 hp NA 32V Cammer engine is around $20,000 in crate form so that should give you an idea. Of course it would be less in a production car but it still might put the price point above where Ford wanted it. Edit: The Cammer goes for $29,000! Yowsah You can buy the GT block but not as a fully dressed crate engine: There is a note that the block will have to be modified for the starter in non-Ford GT applications. It costs $3,699 and tips the scale at a sweet 110 lbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted September 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 I really do think it was just cost. I think you can buy a Ford GT crate engine but I can't remember the cost. I think the aluminum block 400 hp NA 32V Cammer engine is around $20,000 in crate form so that should give you an idea. Of course it would be less in a production car but it still might put the price point above where Ford wanted it. Ouch! If you did go as far as to buy the crate cammer (plus supercharger if the GT500 supercharger didn't fit it), I wonder if you'd have to have a beefed up tranny too? Suddenly you could be looking at a $25,000 - $30,000 upgrade to your GT500. You might as well buy a KR or a Supersnake package instead! Do you know how much of a HP gain the Mustang GT would get if Ford just replaced the 3V head for a 4V? - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Oh B Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Ford used all aluminum heads & blocks in the 2003-4 Mach 1's, while the 2003-4 SuperCharged Cobras got aluminum heads, but iron blocks. The reason was to handle the long-term durability tests that an OEM like Ford must consider. Sure, you can supercharge a 4.6L or 5.4L aluminum block and get away with it for awhile, but it will fail much earlier than an iron block. "Much earlier" is a loose term here, as it could last 20K miles, 50K miles, 100K miles, etc., who knows, but Ford does have very strict guidelines for durability testing. Ford is very aware that Mustang owners modify the heck out of their cars, and they know that any factory motor they offer in a Mustang is going to get modded. By going with the iron block and forged internals in the Terminators and the GT500's, they are looking at our best interests long-term. Even if you mod a factory supercharged V8, blow it up, and Ford can get out of covering it under warranty, I suspect that they do not want the bad press that long-term durability is questionable (even though us enthusiasts understand the strains that modifying puts on an OEM setup). The 5.4L aluminum block in the Ford GT is reinforced above and beyond the 4.6L aluminum blocks that Ford has used in the 2003-4 Mach 1's and the 2005-8 Mustang GT's. That reinforced specialty 5.4L aluminum block is quite spendy and that cost is the biggest factor in not using it in a "value" priced car like Mustang (even in GT500 guise). In the Ford GT, it is easier to pass that expense on to the customer. Also, a much smaller percentage of Ford GT's will be modified versus Mustangs, so there is going to be a very small handful of maxxed out GT's compared to the large number of maxxed out Mustang GT's and GT500's. Oh, and Josh, 35 years ago GM released a super lightweight engine. The plastic motor for the subcompact Chevy Vega. Super lightweight is only good if it is durable and cost effective. I think GM had the cost effective part nailed down on that one, just not the durable part. A titanium engine would likely be just the opposite. Durable perhaps, but certainly not cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Oh B Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Do you know how much of a HP gain the Mustang GT would get if Ford just replaced the 3V head for a 4V?- Josh Josh, 4V heads weigh signifcantly more than 3V heads (2 camshafts per head versus just one, plus the related valvetrain pieces). The 4V heads also restrict packaging under the hood as they make the engine much wider (wider than a Boss 429, as a matter of fact!), and the 2005-8 Mustang engine bay is a bit smaller than the prior generation Mustang as it is based on the Lincoln LS, 2002-5 Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-type. As far as hp gain, you can certainly rev a 4V higher to get more hp up top, but there's really no hp gain in the low to mid range. I owned a 2003 Mach 1 (4V heads) before my 2007 Mustang GT (3V heads). The 4V motor required premium gas to get to the 305hp factory rating, but real dyno'ing showed that the 4V's in the Mach 1's were really making about 325-330hp stock. The 3V motors in the new GT's make 300hp on regular 87 octane fuel, but with a premium gas "tune" they make about 320-325hp. Add a good CAI in a 2005-8 GT to match the factory "Shaker" in the 2003-4 Mach 1, and you've got the same horsepower. So, considering the extra weight, cost, and packaging issues of the 4V heads, it seems that Ford made the best decision in offering the new GT's with 3V heads. I gotta admit, though, that the 4V heads sure look way better than the 3V heads when you pop the hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted September 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 Josh, 4V heads weigh signifcantly more than 3V heads (2 camshafts per head versus just one, plus the related valvetrain pieces). The 4V heads also restrict packaging under the hood as they make the engine much wider (wider than a Boss 429, as a matter of fact!), and the 2005-8 Mustang engine bay is a bit smaller than the prior generation Mustang as it is based on the Lincoln LS, 2002-5 Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-type. As far as hp gain, you can certainly rev a 4V higher to get more hp up top, but there's really no hp gain in the low to mid range. I owned a 2003 Mach 1 (4V heads) before my 2007 Mustang GT (3V heads). The 4V motor required premium gas to get to the 305hp factory rating, but real dyno'ing showed that the 4V's in the Mach 1's were really making about 325-330hp stock. The 3V motors in the new GT's make 300hp on regular 87 octane fuel, but with a premium gas "tune" they make about 320-325hp. Add a good CAI in a 2005-8 GT to match the factory "Shaker" in the 2003-4 Mach 1, and you've got the same horsepower. So, considering the extra weight, cost, and packaging issues of the 4V heads, it seems that Ford made the best decision in offering the new GT's with 3V heads. I gotta admit, though, that the 4V heads sure look way better than the 3V heads when you pop the hood. Thanks, Five Oh B! Great info, you've answered a lot of my questions. I love to read up on this stuff. Sorry to keep asking questions, as I've stated in other threads, I'm pretty mechanically minded, but I'm not a mechanic and I only know a little bit on the inner workings of engines. My next question is: Why would it be a good thing for Ford's next monster engine to be a "pushrod" design instead of OHC? Is it like you mentioned in your last post, Five Oh B, with the weight factor? And someone mentioned that it might be "two" valve versus 3 or 4. Is that just simplicity of design for the reduction of weight as well, or are there other benefits I don't know about? I generally tend to look at what the pro racing teams (e.g. F1, NASCAR, LAMANS, Drag/funny car) are using technology mechanical wise, to see what's best and why. However, the "why" part is a little harder to come by, usually. To my knowledge F1 engines are still using OHC designs. Thanks for all of the information, - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted September 27, 2007 Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 The new Camaro is supposed to use a variant of the Corvette LS-6 engine which is - can you guess? - a push rod design. There is a group of people who prefer the push rods because of simplicity and familiarity of design. NASCAR still mandates push rods. Most but not all endurance road racing cars in addition to the F cars are OHCs. By the way, Ford is offering a beefed up 4.6 aluminum block called the "Aluminator" that is specifically modified like the 5.4 aluminum GT block to handle the stresses of boost applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted September 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2007 The new Camaro is supposed to use a variant of the Corvette LS-6 engine which is - can you guess? - a push rod design. There is a group of people who prefer the push rods because of simplicity and familiarity of design. NASCAR still mandates push rods. Most but not all endurance road racing cars in addition to the F cars are OHCs. By the way, Ford is offering a beefed up 4.6 aluminum block called the "Aluminator" that is specifically modified like the 5.4 aluminum GT block to handle the stresses of boost applications. That's right! I forgot about "The Aluminator". I remember reading the news on that engine here on the "latest news". Weren't they using some super young guy that was an up and coming "drifting" champ, or something like that? I wonder how much that crate engine goes for? - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloy Dave Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 My next question is: Why would it be a good thing for Ford's next monster engine to be a "pushrod" design instead of OHC? Is it like you mentioned in your last post, Five Oh B, with the weight factor? And someone mentioned that it might be "two" valve versus 3 or 4. Is that just simplicity of design for the reduction of weight as well, or are there other benefits I don't know about?- Josh I believe the OHC engine is much more expensive to produce than an OHV. Two-valve versions are less expensive, with the trade-off being less efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Does anyone know if a pushrod engine in the Mustang would make it sound different? Example, the Vette has a pretty cool V8 growl to it, but, it just doesn't compare to the mustang's rumble! I've said this before, but, the Mustang's rumble is as recognizable as a Ferrari's exhaust note, hopefully with these possible new engines, the sound will remain. - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloy Dave Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Does anyone know if a pushrod engine in the Mustang would make it sound different? Example, the Vette has a pretty cool V8 growl to it, but, it just doesn't compare to the mustang's rumble! I've said this before, but, the Mustang's rumble is as recognizable as a Ferrari's exhaust note, hopefully with these possible new engines, the sound will remain.- Josh Actually this is an excellent question...but I'd re-word it to say this.. What gives an engine it's distinctive sound? My experience has been that things like stroke length, RPM range (I think part of the Ferarri sound is the high RPM they can run at), oversquare vs. undersquare, and the cam type/profile are what really makes the sound. Nothing sounds better IMO than a late '60s BB chevy with a lopey solid lift camshaft. Perhaps head/combustion chamber design has something to do with it also. To me, the mufflers don't really change the sound so much...they just change the "octave" or whatever of the sound that's there. Anyone else? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted October 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Actually this is an excellent question...but I'd re-word it to say this.. What gives an engine it's distinctive sound? My experience has been that things like stroke length, RPM range (I think part of the Ferarri sound is the high RPM they can run at), oversquare vs. undersquare, and the cam type/profile are what really makes the sound. Nothing sounds better IMO than a late '60s BB chevy with a lopey solid lift camshaft. Perhaps head/combustion chamber design has something to do with it also. To me, the mufflers don't really change the sound so much...they just change the "octave" or whatever of the sound that's there. Anyone else? Dave Hey Dave, do you have a link to a 60's big block with a cam? I don't know that I've ever heard one properly. Thanks, - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloy Dave Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Hey Dave, do you have a link to a 60's big block with a cam? I don't know that I've ever heard one properly.Thanks, - Josh Not a real clear audio...but... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=37...h&plindex=2 Sorry...this is the closest I could find. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratnacage Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Everybody has addressed the iron vs aluminum block issue pretty good. But Titanium? You could not pick a more difficult metal to work with. Not only is the raw material cost in the stratosphere, but it requires very specialized casting and machining processes - processes that are not conducive to an assembly line cranking out 200,000 vehicles per year. To give you an idea, aluminum as a raw material is about $3000/ton, while Titanium is about $32,000/ton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Snake Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Josh - Good questions. I have often wondered the same thing about the 5.4 in the GT500 because it is worse than you stated - Ford already had a 5.4 aluminum block blown engine - It's the Ford GT (Not Mustang GT, just GT) engine. In fact, the heads are the same on the Ford GT and the GT500. Cost is the only reason I can think of that made them convert over to the iron block version of the 5.4. The Ford GT Alum 5.4 has a dry sump. Cost and the challenge of getting it to fit in the Mustang... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachtkriechen Posted October 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 The Ford GT Alum 5.4 has a dry sump. Cost and the challenge of getting it to fit in the Mustang... Maybe so, but, if you watched the "Bold Moves" downloads, on the GT500 line, the SVT team also had a pretty major challenge getting the iron block 5.4 in as well. Maybe the Aluminum block just wasn't feasible. I don't know the differences in the two engines when completely assembled, so, maybe the "dry sump" is the difference between the engine fitting or not. - Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.