Other than the Aussie 5.4 DOHC, did I say different???

 

Nope, if you'll notice I edited my response after saying there was NO 5.4 in any Mustang, live and learn eh ?

 

is there any obvious reason i'm overlooking about the 4v heads? Do the 3v heads make more torque? Better mpg? Did ford just want to be different? [img]images/smilies2/confused.gif[/img]

Ford, if you're listening, we won't be mad if you abandon the 3v, admit you were wrong and go back to the 4v w/ dohc.
[img]images/icons/icon10.gif[/img]

Just admit you were wrong and we'll forgive you..

-edit: are my emoticons working for anyone?

 

Captain sir, people will rightfully counter with the DOHC heads are more complex because of the 2 extra cams and 8 extra valves......

I would agree with this if there was no CURRENT DOHC to refine. The fact that Ford spent the money to re-tool for a TOTALLY new casting (3 valve) means we are stuck with this head for a while.

I still think we, the customer, would be better served with a hot 4 valve VVt(Like Nissan and Toyota) and I think it would of been cheaper because the existing hardware already existed.

 

the cobra r had a 5.4 32v engine

 

See post #14 on page one of this thread.

 

how about we push for the 6.4 , 605 hp v10 ford built for that special gt car

 

Yea that was a cool motor, so was the 7.0 liter in the 427 concept car because it was basically a mildly hot rodded Triton V10 truck motor. The 6.4 in the Cobra concept (that thing had been severely beaten with an ugly stick) was a one of, special castings for the block and heads. It also had a different firing order and had a very sweet exhaust note. My favorite though was the 4.6 that was V10-ized to 5.8 liters with 4V heads.

And speaking of 4V heads; typical valves sizes for medium displacement engines are like 2.00" for the intake, and 1.60" for the exhaust. Two smaller valves will flow better than one big valve, and with 2 small valves it's much easier to create cylinder filling air flow and the quench area can be better shaped for more complete combustion. But the exhaust is not as subject to having to have specific air flow properties so 1 larger valve can be as efficient as 2 smaller. Unless the rpm gets up to where a single valve is unable to keep up. Gas engines are most efficient at wide open, high rpm so as emissions get tighter, and gas mileage becomes more critical we will be seeing more and more rpms from smaller engines. Look at the 460 the 6.8 replaced, OHC, more hp, much more rpm, less weight, et al. But with a 5200 rpm redline the need and complexity and cost of 4V is not necessary, the 3V should have more capacity for torque.

 

Most of your guys are missing the marketing strategy that Ford used when they created the SuperDuty line of trucks. Hot rod speed demons they are not, and not meant to be.

The war is over largest payload, comfort, and economy. The rules of the NTSB and EPA have more to do with current and future engine design that any bragging rights for highest HP figures do. The 3v Head was married to a variable volume plenum exclusively for upping the HP and LOW RPM Torque.

Ford will never engineer the V10 to be a hot rod for some future SVT F250-F350 offering, I will bet all my cash on that fact.

The current $3.00+ per gallon cost of 87 grade may drive Ford back to the engineers to see about some hybrid adaptation, but it will not happen with the 07 offerings...to much R&D time and the sales will sag too fast in the next 18 months for Ford to stop the red ink from flowing again.

It seems to me that Ford is happy with the customer response from the Cobra, and the New Mustangs are jumping off the lots for MSRP and higher around here (mostly V6 sales)

Do you guys understand why Jeggs and Summit don't have any listing for Ford V10 go fast internals and other goodies? The 95-99 series, the 2000/1 - 2004 and now the 05/06 changes were dramatic and so the total installed base of each engine series is way too small for the Aftermarket to make any money on the 2 or 3 thousand potential customers. This motor will NEVER have a high enough density for Edlbrock or Crane to R&D cranks and cams.

Face it fellows, this is going to be one of Fords better ideas that will plod along for about 20 years as one of there best/worst kept secrets.

BTW one of the MAJOR reasons Ford does not morph this baby into a 500HP screamer is the RPM limitation and crank stress problem. Making it 415 cubes and shrinking it into the smallest lightest package possible caused the engineers to make a few critical trade offs. One being crank support and forced them to a counter rotating balance shaft. Both of these assemblies have sever limitation from flex and twist stresses. You pump this baby up too much and bottoms ends will not survive. If it could stand 500+hp reliably then it would have been stuffed in the Cobra for serious bragging rights! Dimensionally and weight wise it I think it would fit.

 

I'll agree with most of your post with the exception of the last paragraph. Unless I'm mistaken,the V10 has 6 main bearings which equals all the support a crank with 5 throws would ever need. The balancer is simply a band-aid for the 90* block with 10 cylinders. 90* X 10 = 900 which causes a harmonic imbalance. Offset crankpins could eliminate the imbalance if you think it's limiting higher revs.


Without a doubt a 4 valve head would be overkill. However, being able to spread the same tech and parts across an entire line would greatly reduce cost and give the 4 valve head a home in more applications. (Mustangs, Crown Vics, SUV's etc)

Don't forget that the 2 exhaust valves can be variable also with their own set of operating parameters and the V10's, as EVERYONE here has attested to sometimes needs to tach 4000+ RPM's when towing up grades.

As far as stuffing it into a Cobra for bragging rights.......you're forgetting about CAFE (there aren't too many +- 415 CID car motors save the 427 Z06) and the fact there are no 4 valve heads to create that high end HP needed for Cobra duty.


I know I'm beating a dead horse.......the 3 valve is here to stay. I still think applying the VVT technology and modifying it to existing 4 valve hardware would have been cheaper and give higher performance on the V8's.........the V10 needed new castings either way but would have shared all the hardware with its brothers as it does now.

A 500 HP 500# torque gasser would be a hoot!!! And I guarantee with the right valve timing you could have 80% or more of that torque off idle which is close to the peak of the current V10.

One can always dream..........can't they?

 

DOHCmarauder

My understanding is the crank is NOT one piece. Also there is a front section length between the last journal and the front accessory drive that flexes too much under such strong side loads 90 degrees from direction of rotation caused by the drive belts and cam chain.

I have tried for two days to resurrect the search I did back in 2001 on this issue and can't find it. My memory is about a statement in one of the magazines that was discussing the various blowers and some one like Gale Banks, Kenne Bell, or the Whipple engineer noted the front accessory drive flex problem. There was a picture of the fix that was pretty large and heavy but looked very well laid out and engineered. It was an external bearing assy that attached to the front of the engine/motor and provided an additional bearing to the very front of the pulley/balancer to counter act the 90 degree side load from additional drive belt and tension.

Now what would be really cool is if Ken could con the Ford engine/motor engineers to come on this site and do a Q&A session so we could get first hand info on why and how they were driven in the direction(S) they go with the modular family of motors.

 

If you saw/read it, I believe it..............but like Cobra and 5.4 truck cranks, I'm sure Ford would forge a different piece if the HP levels warranted.


I originally misunderstood your "crank support" comment...........the crank being able to support is what I should have taken it to mean???

 

I'm nearly positive that the 460 crank is one piece but I've heard something similar about the snout being a weak link when using blower pulleys.

 

DOHCmarauder

I have many years screwing around with very high RPM engines/motors ("thingies that make it go" (grin))

Examples like Mac 101b chain saw motors on carts (14,000rpm), Kawasaki racing motors (12,000- 14,000 rpm), Helicopter turbine engines (100,000+ rpm) Nissan VG30 ET 6cylinder in my twin turbo go fast Autobahn speed demon (miss that ride and being over there where I could use it)

I had that baby spinning up to 9675rpm many many miles in OD (0.75) rear gear 4.08:1 and 27 inch diameter tires...(Ken04 or some body will do the math and let you all know how fast my 3475lb Porsche eater was gliding my *** from Weisbaden to Heidelberg)

What does this have to do with turning on the HP and Torque of the V10?

Not sure if the "Aluminized" Bearings of this puppy will spin past 6500 with out some problems. Really, I just don't know. Hell I don't even know what gearing the counter shaft spins at, is it 1:1, 1:2, or 2:1? I doubt cam speed is a problem, and we know with todays high power motors that piston speeds, and spring rates can be turned up in the 8500 range reliably. And with semi exotic stuff we can get into the 9400-9800rpm range for short periods with no serious ill effects. So my main concern trying to spin a V10 above 6500rpm (Ford Engineers upper limit) gets back to bottom end bearings, stresses, and torsional strength.

I had a racing buddy a while back that bought a used AA Gasser motor That would not run right. He finally tracked down the builder and told him the problems. The guy was Named Ed Pink. He told my friend to replace the crank shaft. He bet my friend that the crank was off index by greater than 7-9 degrees from torsional twist and that is would be most noticeable from the middle journal to the tail flywheel flange. When my Friend told me this I laughed and claimed BS. (I had no idea who an Ed Pink was). Not having any way to measure the crank my friend dropped in new crank and refurbed most of the bottom end and it fixed the problem.

PS does anybody know if Ed Pink is still kicking? I met him twice after that at Seattle International Raceway and Portland International race park. Smart guy in my book.

 

J-79's outta F-4's here. Countless small engines, almost as many SBF's ........but I'm not sure if I'd have the huevos to tear into my ZX12 motor......I may want to take a swiss watch making class first.... !!

Ed Pink's shop was in Van Nuys right over the hill from where I grew up.

I'm not doubting any of your crank scenarios (I'm freaking on the 2 piece description, however.) But I do believe the STOCK crank should at least be good to 4.6 and 5.4 numbers EVEN with the 1 extra throw.

I also don't think there is ANY difference in the distance of a any of the MOD motors in snout length after the last main.

In other words, a forged Cobra crank is good for 390 HP CONSERVATIVELY. Which means to me that with comparable rods and accounting for a few other variables the forged V10 crank should go 570HP!!!

I'll even give up 10% for safety(even though the 4.6 crank goes waay past these #'s safely) still giving us 500HP.

Not sure if bearing material is a hindurance, but it's an easy upgrade.

Again, it aint gonna happen..............but I really don't think the architecture is the limiting factor.