Idea for new Inline 6
Thread Starter
|
Lead Driver
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,682
Likes: 12
From: Saskatoon SK Canada
Idea for new Inline 6
I'm just thinking what if Ford would make a new inline six but in modular form?
This what I think it would be like if you used common 5.4L parts
Modular Inline 6
Bore = 3.552
Stroke = 4.17
4 valve heads
Roller cam
248 cubic inches or 4.0L
For interest I plugged it into desktop Dyno 2000
I used auto calculate to figure out valves and cam lift.
2500 rpm (Regular driving)
120 HP
250 TQ
Peak HP
300 @ 5500 rpm
Peak TQ
300 @ 4000 rpm
That wouldn't be a bad little engine but the next problem would be to make it fit under the hood.
This what I think it would be like if you used common 5.4L parts
Modular Inline 6
Bore = 3.552
Stroke = 4.17
4 valve heads
Roller cam
248 cubic inches or 4.0L
For interest I plugged it into desktop Dyno 2000
I used auto calculate to figure out valves and cam lift.
2500 rpm (Regular driving)
120 HP
250 TQ
Peak HP
300 @ 5500 rpm
Peak TQ
300 @ 4000 rpm
That wouldn't be a bad little engine but the next problem would be to make it fit under the hood.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
GM did it successfully with the Trailblazer/Envoy. I like the idea. Unfortunately, there was too little room for it in the compact trucks and they cut off one cylinder to make a five. What do you think of one-half of the V-10 for a new Ranger?
Jim
Jim
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 1
From: Alvin, Texas.
I'm not sure the problem of an I6 making a visit into the cab is all that big a deal. Didn't Ford beef up the F-truck frame to solve that issue? I guess GM solved that issue by running the 4wd front axle through the engine oil pan of the 4.2L I6....
I think that idea with the Ford I6 would be nice, but if push comes to shove, lob a cylinder off it and go with an I5 and put it in the regular cab trucks. I seriously don't see a gasser ~3.4L I5 pushing around a SuperCrew. Or enlarge that 3.4L into a 4.0L, which I had rolled through my mind some time back, but I forgot where I ripped the dimensions from....
A 3.4 I5 wouldn't be bad in a Ranger....Ford thought of using a Volvo 2.8 I5, I believe, but they could sprout an I5 off the Duratec 2.3L. 2.8Lish, if I remember correctly.
I think that idea with the Ford I6 would be nice, but if push comes to shove, lob a cylinder off it and go with an I5 and put it in the regular cab trucks. I seriously don't see a gasser ~3.4L I5 pushing around a SuperCrew. Or enlarge that 3.4L into a 4.0L, which I had rolled through my mind some time back, but I forgot where I ripped the dimensions from....
A 3.4 I5 wouldn't be bad in a Ranger....Ford thought of using a Volvo 2.8 I5, I believe, but they could sprout an I5 off the Duratec 2.3L. 2.8Lish, if I remember correctly.
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 742
Likes: 2
From: Eastern Iowa
Originally Posted by 51dueller
I'm just thinking what if Ford would make a new inline six but in modular form?
This what I think it would be like if you used common 5.4L parts
Modular Inline 6
Bore = 3.552
Stroke = 4.17
4 valve heads
Roller cam
248 cubic inches or 4.0L
For interest I plugged it into desktop Dyno 2000
I used auto calculate to figure out valves and cam lift.
2500 rpm (Regular driving)
120 HP
250 TQ
Peak HP
300 @ 5500 rpm
Peak TQ
300 @ 4000 rpm
That wouldn't be a bad little engine but the next problem would be to make it fit under the hood.
This what I think it would be like if you used common 5.4L parts
Modular Inline 6
Bore = 3.552
Stroke = 4.17
4 valve heads
Roller cam
248 cubic inches or 4.0L
For interest I plugged it into desktop Dyno 2000
I used auto calculate to figure out valves and cam lift.
2500 rpm (Regular driving)
120 HP
250 TQ
Peak HP
300 @ 5500 rpm
Peak TQ
300 @ 4000 rpm
That wouldn't be a bad little engine but the next problem would be to make it fit under the hood.
Posting Legend
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,255
Likes: 37
To actually use desktop dyno you have to have, and read the tech manual. Most important actually understand the tech manual. The selection choices in the program do not mean what the short names say. Using the program improperly results in wild and usually inflated numbers.
Last edited by Torque1st; Mar 9, 2006 at 01:07 AM.
