Reply to "4.6 advantages or disadvantages?"

> And what about weight saving? is there a weight saving to be had over a
> Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block?

The engine is heavy for it's displacement. The block architecture was
compromised for transverse applications (Ford thought the engine would
be used in front wheel drive cars) and also for manufacturing reasons
(ability to manufacture 2V and 4V heads on common tooling). The DOHC
heads and cam drives are quite bulky. The small bore andlong stroke
requires a tall deck height. Combine the large cylinder head castings
with a tall deck and you get a very wide and tall engine. Aluminum
is 1/2 the weight of iron but is also not as strong, so more of it needs
to be used. The trade publication "Design News" lists the weight of
the aluminum block and heads 4.6L DOHC engine at 521 lbs. The iron block
4.6L and taller 5.4L block are heavier. Ford's published number for the
all aluminum, dry sump, supercharged GT 5.4L DOHC is 315 Kg (695 lbs.).
My Fontana should come in at a bit over 400 lbs.

> What?? Are you serious?? Ford is going back to the push rod?? Oh they will
> screw this up somehow.

Quite serious. No real details are known about the engine but Ford
had a program to counter GM and Daimley-Chrysler but dropped it due
to budget cut backs. However, given the limitations of the mod motor,
they simply can not compete without it. Whether or not it is a pushrod
engine, is not known at this time. Here's a story on it:

Hurricane Watch

Ford hopes high-performance V-8 blows away rivals
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

The Hurricane is back.
A year after Ford Motor Co. killed its planned Hemi-fighting V-8 to the dismay
of horsepower junkies, Ford Americas group chief Mark Fields has put the
high-performance engine back in the company s product pipeline, according to
sources familiar with the project.

Fields revived the engine three months ago as part of a new restructuring plan
for the automaker. The decision offers a telling insight into how serious
Fields is about shaking things up at Ford, underscoring his repeated assertions
that nothing is off the table when it comes to reshaping the automaker s
troubled North American auto operations, which lost $1.6 billion last year.

Ford nixed the Hurricane project because of concerns about development costs
and rising gasoline prices. Now, Fields has decided that maintaining Ford's
leadership in the pickup truck market against mounting challenges from rivals
General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group trumps those
concerns.

Many analysts were dismayed by Ford s decision to halt development of the
Hurricane, which will likely get a new name before hitting the market.

"It was a dumb program to kill", said Jim Hall, an analyst with AutoPacific
in Southfield. Hall said Ford got spooked by soaring fuel prices last spring,
which seemed to spell bad news for thirsty high-horsepower engines. However,
he said long-term analysis shows that, while demand for big engines may ebb
and flow as a result of gasoline prices or other factors, it remains steady
over time.

Erich Merkle, a brand analyst with IRN Inc. in Grand Rapids, is not surprised
Ford decided to revive the Hurricane.

"They've got to do something from a powertrain perspective if they're going to
hold on to the F-series lead, he said, noting that both GM and Chrysler have
more powerful engines on the market, particularly in their trucks and sport
utilities.

"Ford has nothing", Merkle said. "Without those bigger options, they are going
to have a hard time competing."

Ford does have some big engines, but none that can compete with the 425
horsepower 6.1-liter Hemi or the 403-horsepower Vortec that will equip the
2007 Cadillac Escalade SUV. With its 300-horsepower Triton, Ford s2007 Lincoln
Navigator will have a hard time keeping up with the Escalade.

When it comes to engines, few have captured the public's imagination like
Chrysler's Hemi.

The Hemi's roots go back to the 1950s, but the vaunted powerhouse disappeared
from production cars in 1974, a victim of new government fuel economy
requirements. Chrysler reintroduced a new Hemiin the 2003 Dodge Ram Heavy
Duty pickup.

Ford wants the Hurricane to more than a match these engines and help ensure the
automaker stays on top of the hotly-contested truck segment. As Chrysler has
shown with Hemi, however, automakers also can command a price premium for
high-performance powertrains. That means the Hurricane could help Ford's bottom
line.

Merkle said Ford's Cleveland casting plant has received orders for a new
6.2-liter engine block, with work to begin next year.

"We believe that would be the Hurricane, he said.

However, the Hurricane is not likely to make landfall before 2008. It will
probably debut in Ford's F-series pickups. A team has visited Ford's Dearborn
Truck factory, where F-150s are made, to assess what changes will be needed to
accommodate the new engine on the line there.

But sources say the Hurricane also will be used in other platforms.

While Ford's engine may not incorporate the sort of cylinder deactivation
system found in the Hemi and Vortec, sources say it will offer similar fuel
economy.

Other approaches that could be used to realize these gains include using the
sort of multi-valve systems found on some German engines.

Whatever method Ford employs, the emphasis will remain on horsepower.

> Well judging by the new Shelby GT mustang, I would say the mod motor is a
> real porker in the weight department.

That it is. Plus, to make any sort of respectable power, you have to
supercharge the things. The Ford modular V8 packaging was severely
compromised for transverse mount installations. When the engine was
designed, Ford believed many of them would be installed in front wheel
drive applications. This dictated the engines be as short as possible
longitudinally, so they would fit in the planned engine compartments when
installed transversely. The bore spacing is very narrow, resulting in
very small bores and long strokes for their displacements. The 4.6L and
5.4L V8's have bores about the size of my little Buick 215 cube V8. To
get the displacement desired, the blocks had to be relatively tall.

The small bores limit the valve curtain area and, ultimately, the
maximum flow the heads can achieve and power the engine can develop.
This forced the designers to 4 valve per cylinder heads for the high
performance versions. Unfortunately, the heads and cam drives were
made very bulky. Combine the enormous cylinder head castings with the
tall decks needed to contain the long stroke cranks and you get an
engine that is tall, wide, heavy and expensive to manufacture.

With the limited bore spacing, stroke and extra cylinders are your only
ways to get extra displacement. The 5.4L V8 (with a taller deck to
accomodate the longer stroke crank) and 6.8L V10 are the direct result.
The 5.4L V8's have an even worse bore/stroke ratio than the 4.6L, resulting
in very high piston speed at a given RPM. The limited bore spacing also
limits the crank journal width, limiting the crankshaft strength. A
bunch of Lightning truck 5.4L engines have snapped connecting rods and
ventilated blocks due to this.

> When we get to be 90 years old and want to get a new thermostat for our
> cars, the punk ass kids behind the parts counter will laugh at our request.

You can still buy all the parts you want for a flathead Ford V8.

I have nothing against DOHC engines. The package particularly well on
an inline engine. On a vee engine pushrods make a lighter, more compact,
less expensive package. The engine neither knows nor cares where the cam
is located. If you design a good set of cylinder heads, a pushrod V8 is
a very tidy package that's hard to beat. Ford needs to use their canted
valve D3 race heads on a cross-bolted 9.5" deck height aluminum block.
The taller deck height (compared to GM's LS-series) and bore spacing would
allow them to one-up GM and go safely to nearly 440 cubic inches (versus
the LS7's 427 cubes). The D3 heads are superior (by a lot) than the heads
GM uses on the LS7. Even with a small port size, the D3 heads can flow
over 430 CFM and have excellent low lift flow. Increase the cam main
diameter so more aggresive hydraulic roller profiles can be used and
combine with beehive valve springs would be a killer package.

Dan Jones