Wild thought on a new BOSS

[JETSOLVER]

So as this retro muscle car thing really starts to take off, I was musing on the original idea of the heritage cars we are speculating on the return of. The original Boss 302 was a light, agile car based on an extension of the base v-8 car. But, it was for racing. I just don't think that will cut it anymore as oil floats around $65 a barrel. And I can tell you I would not be in the market for a 6 litre pushrod Hemi(Challenger) and the sort of around town fuel economy it would give up. So as a radical idea for discussion how about a supercharged or even turbocharged version of the Ford/Yamaha 3.4l V-8? It was designed to fit in the last gen taurus engine bay where the vulcan v-6 sat. All aluminum, very high output, and already been done. That engine was 235 horse and 230 tourque. A small eaton would put it around 325 or so and should give really good fuel economy. And it would probably weigh less than the current iron 3 valve. And it would help with the weight distribution as well. Fire away and here is a quote form a contemporary road test in R&T July 96. The car was offered until 99. "Take the engine, another Ford/Yamaha joint effort that's a marvel of compactness and refinement. The steel-sleeved aluminum powerplant is space efficient out of necessity because, according to product design engineer Ted L. Byers, the V-8 had to be designed to fit the Taurus' V-6-size bay without changing any sheet metal. It's based on the Duratec 2.5-liter V-6 and shares its bore (82.4 mm), stroke (79.5 mm) and bore spacing, as well as its pistons and connecting rods. For extra rigidity, a stressed aluminum oil pan bolts to the underside of a girdle that supports the crankshaft's main bearings and forms the lower part of the block "Everything from the head gaskets down is Ford," beams Byers.

 

And almost, everything above that was the responsibility of Yamaha, which machines and assembles the engines in Japan. Those familiar with the original SHO's V-6 will recognize the tightly intertwined array of intake runners, each with its own double-hose-clamped rubber coupling, that dominate the engine compartment. They feed into Yamaha 4-valve-per-cylinder heads whose four chain-driven cam shafts actuate those valves in a time-honored way via aluminum bucket tappets with lash adjustment through steel shims. It's a light, simple system that shouldn't need adjustment for 100,000 miles. There are other features worthy of note: a balance shaft in the vee, driven off the timing chain; coil-on-plug ignition; a water pump on the flywheel side of the engine, belt-driven off the forward intake camshaft; and reverse-flow cooling, where the cylinder heads receive coolant first in the interest of efficiency and cleaner emissions.

 

It's an absolute jewel of an engine whose purr at idle transitions to the chunky mellow burble as revs climb - all the way to 6800 rpm before fuel shut-off or an upshift crashes the party. There's plenty of torque to boot you off the line (it peaks at 230 lb.-ft. at 4800 rpm), yet the curve isn't steep enough to blow the inside front tire loose when exiting a tight corner, a happy sort of natural traction control. In cold, hard acceleration numbers, the new SHO is more than a match for the V-6 automatic version we tested in July 1993 darting to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds (versus 7.5) and to 90 in 15.6 (vs. 15.8). In one of those seat-of-the pants sensory contradictions, the old SHO felt quicker, its more tightly wound, harder-working V-6 no doubt adding to the sense of acceleration. The upshot? The V-8 is more tractable, more relaxed, more powerful; but by its very nature, it's less exciting."

[MustangFanatic]

Interesting thought but IMHO the Boss should be naturally aspirated, not super or turbo charged. Plus a larger displacement engine will give that instanteous low-speed torque hit that America V8's are famous for. Someone would have to do an extensive demonstration to convince me to alter my opinion on the power plant for the Boss.

[Boss_302]

Same as MustangFantic said but would be nice if ford would do something like Dodge did with the Charger where it was a v8 but once it got to crusing speed drop down to 4cylnder to save some gas

[robertlane]

I like the Boss 302 and the 351, but I really believe the time is ripe for a Boss 329.

 

I do think the idea of a Boss/Yamaha powered vehicle would be interesting, but cannot imaging Ford doing this due to the investment when the 5.4L is ready (GT500).

[unfairadvantage]

Hey Jetsolver, I just posted the same idea over on the Boss Mustang wish list thread, except rather than the Volvo V8, I was looking more at the 3.5L V6 for boosting.

 

If you apply the same 70% increase Mazda put to the 160hp 2.3L I4 for 270hp, then a 250hp 3.5L V6 has the potential to go all the way to 425hp, while maintaining close to stock V6 highway mpg when you keep the engine out of the boost.

 

As a Mustang owner for the last 22 years, I do like V8 Mustangs as much as the next guy. But it seems with the GT, maybe a new Mach1, and the blown Shelby, we have a nice selection of V8 Mustangs to choose from, so why add another one? I'd really like to see a modern rendition of the SVO Mustang I used to own, except this time around I would like to see Ford build a turbo V6 rather than a turbo I4, it just seems a better setup for a car of the S197's size and weight.

[BossMan]

Anything that can beat the Challenger.

[Tboneguy]

Any thoughts about using a Supercharged 3.9 out of the LS? It's no doubt smaller and lighter than the 4.6 which would improve handling. Jag already did all the work on their 400HP 4.2.

 

Tweak it to 402 HP and call it the BOSS 402! B)

[crispy23c]

I like the Boss 302 and the 351, but I really believe the time is ripe for a Boss 329.

 

I do think the idea of a Boss/Yamaha powered vehicle would be interesting, but cannot imaging Ford doing this due to the investment when the 5.4L is ready (GT500).

 

Totally agree. I am a big fan of the Yamaha engine, but I can't see it either. Plus, it......just...hurts to think of a Japanese-derived engine in an American icon like the Boss. We can build great, high-revving powerplants here!

[svtbird91]

Totally agree. I am a big fan of the Yamaha engine, but I can't see it either. Plus, it......just...hurts to think of a Japanese-derived engine in an American icon like the Boss. We can build great, high-revving powerplants here!

 

A friend of mine stopped by last week driving a new Lotus. It had a four cylinder Yahama twinturbo engine in it. He let me drive it ,very fast ,felt like driving a go kart, especially climbing into it. It only weighs a little over 2300 lbs. Yahama makes a great "small engine" not necessarily a great V-8.

Just thought I'd share.

[bee bop]

The only thing about using the Yamaha motor is the cam sprocket will have to be welded or bolted on before the engine could be reliably be used with any kind of power adder. Just do a web search and you will find a good bit of info about this engine jumping time because the cam sprockets slip.

[robertlane]

The only thing about using the Yamaha motor is the cam sprocket will have to be welded or bolted on before the engine could be reliably be used with any kind of power adder. Just do a web search and you will find a good bit of info about this engine jumping time because the cam sprockets slip.

 

 

I never understood why Ford or Yamaha didn't originally do this? Talk about the silver bullit.

[yamahar1]

I never understood why Ford or Yamaha didn't originally do this? Talk about the silver bullit.

 

Did someone say Yamaha?

[mmaurader81]

i dont think the yamaha engine would have any place in the boss mustang.. a boss mustang must have presence. the new hurriccane engine would be just right.. after all people dont buy muscle cars for good gas mileage. they buy them for raw v8 power and dominance.. if you want economy buy a focus. you want split your wig power buy a big bad mustang. if ford did something like that i would not want the next boss mustang as bad as i am anticipating it right now.. thats a must have for me.. but i dont want no low torque yamaha motor.. give me the american real deal power and torque, or ill just buy the gt and fix it myself. a 4.6 v8 is still better than a 3.4 v8. if the engine was so great they would still be using it.

[BossMan]

With a Big cam.

[ford4v429]

I'd still like to see yet another version- a severely undersquare cheep torque monster...I think I'd be even happier with the new mustang gt if it had 420 ft-lb instead of 320, EVEN IF REV LIMITED to 4000 due to longer stroke(gotta use longer rods too, look at rodlenth/stroke ratio on 426/429...only two bigblocks any where near 1.8:1, no wonder they ran so freakin strong).

 

99% of the time seat of the pants torque off idle with a tight torque converter and moderate gearing would give the 'power' feel without getting into noisy(cop attracting) hp realm of most new motors 4.6 included...I think most 'non dragstrip' people would get much more enjoyment driving a smooth/quiet/torky motor everyday...God I miss those bigblocks...gotta put them in something...

[68fastback]

Hmmm, small V8 Boss is a nice idea. But the cammer 2.5 V6 has the same cyl-spacing (I think) as the rest of the modular family, just with a short stroke. So it's essentially a de-stroked 4.6 -- which would be fine in a car under 3200 lbs., 425HP -- at least for me. But in a mustang at 3650 lbs (with the smaller motor), it would have to be bargain priced and have IRS for me to jump. I guess I'm not feeling less CID with all the mustang weight will be any better than a GT (which is very nice as is) unless it's a bargain. I'd rather have an all alum 425HP nat.asp. 4.6 Boss or 450HP Boss 330. Why bother with the static-load of a blower and the lower mileage when it's unnecessary? I can understand why Ford did it with the 03/04 Cobras and GT500 (aftermarket fun) but I want 25mpg down the highway -- like the '01 4.6 all.alum Cobra with IRS but on the much improved current platform -- priced like a GT.

 

With the bore of the 4.6/5.4 but a short stroke (4.2L disp) it would easily rev to over 7000 ('01 Cobra 4.6 was 6,800). Done as a 3.9L it would rev to 7,400 or so, but torque would start to be a problem in a 3650 lb car.

 

....

 

Funny, in all these scenarios, the core problem comes back to weight! The next gen 'stang has to be 300-500lbs lighter for any of these variations to have a performance market, I think. And that won't crash-test worth a damn unless it's a true high-tech chassis, which precludes the price points for a V6 base mustang, and around we go again.... That's why Hau Tai-Tang was encouraging GM to do a base V6 Camaro. If they do it only as a hi-po Z28, the price point would permit a 'vette chassis derivative which would be so much lighter than a GT500 that HP can't make up the diff... hence my gripe and the vicious circle...