Hang On! The 3 valve isn't dead!

[sleekism]

I thought the Barra 220/230 according to the official release was axed in the Falcon because of a plant closure America but apparently according to Wikipedia the 3 valve V8 is still in production now uprated to 239kw and 529nm of torque and is used in the F series trucks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mo...engine#4-valve

[edit] 3-valve
In 2003, Ford introduced a new 3-valve SOHC cylinder head with variable camshaft timing (VCT), improving power and torque over the previous 2-valve SOHC version. The 3-valve cylinder head was first used on the 2003 Ford Fairmont 5.4 L Barra 220 engine in Australia.[7] The 3-valve 5.4 L was introduced to the North American market in the redesigned 2004 Ford F-150.

2003-2005 Ford Fairmont, 3-valve SOHC, 295 hp (220 kW) and 347 lb·ft (470 N·m)

2003-2004 Ford Fairlane G220, 3-valve SOHC, 295 hp (220 kW) and 347 lb·ft (470 N·m)

2004-2008 Ford F-Series, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m)

2005-present Ford Expedition, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m)
2
005-present Lincoln Navigator, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m)

2005-2007 Ford Fairlane G8, 3-valve SOHC, 309 hp (230 kW) and 369 lb·ft (500 N·m)

2006-2007 Ford Fairmont, 3-valve SOHC, 309 hp (230 kW) and 369 lb·ft (500 N·m)

2009 Ford F-Series, 3-valve SOHC, 320 hp (239 kW) and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m)

What is going on?? Where is the 3 valve option for the FG?

[Burnout]

Thats easy, Ford au is not bringing them in anymore....or installing any in vehicles here. They have enough spares to support existing 3V's in stalled in vehicles and that it.

[pauljh74]

Ford has 4 engine specs - I think it was a good idea to leave the 3 valve out this model, it enables more funds to be spent in other areas of development. You have the standard N/A 6, the EGAS 6, the turbo 6 which could easily cover the old 3 valve V8 market and the XR8 in BOSS spec. The 3 valve wasn't selling too well anyway. With 4 engine specs to choose from spread across the whole range, that's not a bad deal. We're not starved for choice. Then there's the FPV models with more power.
Holden for example have 2 similarly specced N/A 6 cylinder engines and a V8. Most other popular medium/large models have 1 or 2 engines to choose from. Camry/Aurion - 2 engines between them + the TRD Aurion.

[AUXRVIII]

The factory which built the 3V we received closed production of the engine, the 3V is still produced elsewhere, not sold in enough numbers here to continue with.

[XR Martin]

Doesnt meet Euro 4 compliance

[Bossxr8]

No one bought them before so who cares.

[XR6_190]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

No one bought them before so who cares.

Exactly!

If Ford were to bring out a V8 engine for it's non XR models, It would have to be competitive with Holdens V8, at 240Kw it would not be anywhere near as competitive as Holden's V8 or even Ford's own Turbo 6. I would love the option of buying a G8E but I can't see it happening for a while

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

No one bought them before so who cares.

Hey, I did :

Actually, I noticed the wikepedia thing the other week. But really Ford dont need the 3V, there isnt enough market for it. And now with the turbo available in the G6E and no long wheel base Fords anymore there is almost no market for it.

240kw in a 5.4L V8 just wont cut it when the atmo 4L 6 makes almost 200kw, even though 530Nm is nothing to sneeze at (the torque curve is why I love my 3V)

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

No one bought them before so who cares.

Precisely....

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

No one bought them before so who cares.

What if the 3v was available in the Territory.....................

I've heard people compare the 3 valve torque curve to the 5.6L stroker. Sounds like a rea V8 compared to the torqueless BOSS.

[schnoods]

I dont think they like changing the spark plugs on em.

In this day and age 239 kw just wont cut it. Torque might be there too, but would anyone walk past a XR8 or G6E T for a fairmont equivelent 3v equipped falcon for near on the same price with less grunt but the trade off with torque?

Also the boss Has more torque than the 3v, just not as much down low but a set of diff gears soon changes that.

There are adjustable cam gears for the 290 too, can change the characteristics of the motor and when the torque comes on too.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by sleekism

I've heard people compare the 3 valve torque curve to the 5.6L stroker. Sounds like a rea V8 compared to the torqueless BOSS.

Sounds like youre fishing just to stir the pot....

More people have answered this poll than bought 3V powered vehicles, i think people have already voted with their wallets on this one.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by sleekism

What if the 3v was available in the Territory.....................

It would be Australia's biggest gas guzzler. Standard 6 powered Territorys are bad enough, mine averaged around 14L per 100 just taking it easy, a V8 would probably use close to 20L per 100.

[JBomb3000]

Originally Posted by sleekism

What if the 3v was available in the Territory.....................

The territory is already to heavy the last thing it needs is more dead weight from a motor that makes less power while using more fuel than the turbo 6. No thanks.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by JBossxr8

It would be Australia's biggest gas guzzler. Standard 6 powered Territorys are bad enough, mine averaged around 14L per 100 just taking it easy, a V8 would probably use close to 20L per 100.

Originally Posted by JBomb3000

The territory is already to heavy the last thing it needs is more dead weight from a motor that makes less power while using more fuel than the turbo 6. No thanks.

You would find the extra torque would offset the bad fuel economy as the engine wouldnt have to work as hard as the atmo 6 to push the Terrys huge bulk.

14/100 is what I get out of my 3V 4spd Falcon under normal driving on LPG, so if you add some extra weight to that I think 20L sounds a bit excessive.

But like I said earlier, the 3V isnt needed with the current FG and Terry range so why bother. Makes mine rarer :evil3:

By the way I voted "no"

[Laminge]

Keep it on topic it aint a boss bashing thread

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by Laminge

Keep it on topic it aint a boss bashing thread

Nothing wrong with the BOSS.

Being on the wards best list nearly every year aint nothing to sneeze at.

But I think someone looking for torque rather than horsepower the 3V aint a bad engine.

[Laminge]

Huh???

[Clint Eastwood]

It will be great when alot of these cars hit the second hand market,especially bf fairmonts with 6 speed auto's,they will make great sleepers with a few mods.

[DWC]

Originally Posted by Laminge

Huh???

Getting a bit off topic, but, do know the difference between torque and horsepower??

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by DWC

Getting a bit off topic, but, do know the difference between torque and horsepower??

Torque is rotational force, horsepower is a product of torque and speed (engine rpm)

Were you genuinely asking or being smart to Laminge (which is probably not a smart idea :togo: )

[DWC]

Not trying to be a smart@#$e, just wanted to know if Laminge knew the difference.
I've not driven a 3v, have driven my mates boss 260. I can see why some would prefer a motor with a flatter torque curve than one that peaks high in the rev range. Ultimate horsepower(Kw) doesn't mean much if the torque wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, it just has to rev a lot higher.
I'm not bashing the boss 260(far from it), just trying to make a point of difference.

Back on topic
If I had the cash (and they were available) I would buy one.

[Grum]

Originally Posted by DWC

Not trying to be a smart@#$e, just wanted to know if Laminge knew the difference.

Brave, very brave :togo:

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by DWC

Not trying to be a smart@#$e, just wanted to know if Laminge knew the difference.
I've not driven a 3v, have driven my mates boss 260. I can see why some would prefer a motor with a flatter torque curve than one that peaks high in the rev range. Ultimate horsepower(Kw) doesn't mean much if the torque wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, it just has to rev a lot higher.
I'm not bashing the boss 260(far from it), just trying to make a point of difference.

Back on topic
If I had the cash (and they were available) I would buy one.

Nope not at all you better tell me, is the difference like between a cheese grater and deep heat or cap forward and seat straight or cap backwards and seat all the way back?

[Powdered Toast Man]

I didnt say it would use less fuel than the atmo 6, I said your estimate figures are exaggerated.

And if the turbo 6 made as much torque as low as the 3V then yes it would use less fuel than what the current turbo terry does (once again I'm not saying it would be more efficient than the atmo 6). I'm not saying the 3V matches the turbos outright numbers but it is a little meatier under 1500rpm, maybe even meatier up to 2000rpm (turbos max torque is 450Nm from 1750rpm to 4000 or something right? And the 3V makes 470Nm at 3750rpm with most of that available by 2000rpm I'd say). Sounds like they have addressed the low down torque in the turbo FG range though going by the road tests I've read. Sounds like a great engine.

Have you never modded a car such as exhaust or intake and noticed that under the exact same driving conditions the engine doesn't need to work as hard because it is more powerful? Thats all I was getting at.

It's all about low down torque when moving heavy cars efficiently as possible, not power. Hence diesels being used in trucks.

[AnthonyQLD]

well this thread is going well

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by flappist

I compare two vehicles that are virtually identical other than the engine.

You compare two totally different vehicles, RWD to AWD, totally different weights, geometry, transmissions and driving techniques and you think that is valid?

But then you started this thread so obviously your studies have not yet included logic or reasoning.

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by sleekism

the Barra turbo ... is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

Just let it go!

[Clint Eastwood]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Ok to settle this argument before knives come out would 3-valve owners and XR6T owners on here please state what fuel economy they are getting.

I reckon a 3v with a low revving torquey character and VCT could match the fuel economy if not exceed it of the Barra turbo which is effectively a low compression engine with a massive restriction in the exhaust manifold.

I can gaurantee you that my 230rwkw 3V guzzle's more fuel than my mate's 290rwkw XR6T,both 5 speed manuals,both driven in a similar manner.