6 litre Pushrod Motor...Anyone ????

CAMS290 · 31-01-2006, 10:11 PM

I have heard rumour that Ford in the good 'ol US of A, are talking about discontinuing the 5.4 litre motor, and are currently evaluating the possibility of making a 6 litre pushrod motor, for their range of light commercial, suv's and passenger car ranges.

Will the whole Modular range be axed ?

If the 5.4 motor is discontinued, where will it leave Ford in Australia ?

If it is true, the pushrod motor would be a lot cheaper to produce than the 3 valve and the quad cam, it would be easier to fit to cars, due to smaller heads.

It certainly would be keeping with the trend that GM and Chrysler/Dodge have set.

What are your thoughts ?

5speedeb · 31-01-2006, 10:18 PM

sounds like a good idea

injected 6litre in a falcon sounds really good actually id get one for sure

SSBUB · 31-01-2006, 10:22 PM

Would be interested to see the reaction of the FF crew on this one.
I welcome it, but im driving a pushrod at the moment so im not the best person to ask. :monkes:

T3rminator · 31-01-2006, 10:27 PM

For V8s I think its better to keep it simple stupid.
Big donk...air in air out.... :sm_headba

Having owned a soarer with 4L quad cam V8 and now the 5.4L BOSS quad cam V8.....I don't think it lives up to all that it's suppose to be. They seem to be very sensitive to things like heat, exhaust backpressure etc. It might win the bragging rights for KW/L, but it just doesn't drive like a V8.

rodderz · 31-01-2006, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fullthrottle

For V8s I think its better to keep it simple stupid.
Big donk...air in air out.... :sm_headba

Having owned a soarer with 4L quad cam V8 and now the 5.4L BOSS quad cam V8.....I don't think it lives up to all that it's suppose to be. They seem to be very sensitive to things like heat, exhaust backpressure etc. It might win the bragging rights for KW/L, but it just doesn't drive like a V8.

Thats it in a nutshell isnt it...we have had our OHC/multi valve vs pushrod arguments but put simply a motor is just a big air pump, and as long as it goes, sounds and performs well it's a good thing

xr8ute · 01-02-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fullthrottle

Big donk...air in air out.... :sm_headba

LMAO!!! Very well said

Who gives a ferk what technology they use to do it. Just give it big grunt, a wide/fat power curve, and the most compact package possible...

gtfpv · 01-02-2006, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr8ute

LMAO!!! Very well said

Who gives a ferk what technology they use to do it. Just give it big grunt, a wide/fat power curve, and the most compact package possible...

well doesnt the 290 already have that 290kw 520nms. holdens new 6 litre 260kw 510nms . or 297 530nms. and according to aftermarket manufacturers bmc filters give 8 RWKWS extra. which takes the 5.4 too 300kws. and the dyno shows consistancy on the boss engines and higher figures than the 6 litre hsv engine. shall i go on.

Psycho Chicken · 31-01-2006, 10:31 PM

I can't see Ford dropping the Mod for a pushrod jobbie. I'm sure if the 5.4 option was gone in the states we'd just start making our own parts ala Clevo, or they would run up a bit of stock for us ala EFI Wheezer.

5speedeb · 31-01-2006, 10:38 PM

well if they ever decide to bring this 6litre it really give the gen4 a real run for its money
will make things very interesting the power wars that ford/holden are having now

gtfpv · 31-01-2006, 11:03 PM

mmmm so all of a sudden the BOSS 5.4 ISNT competitive hey . things change quick around here.

vztrt · 31-01-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

mmmm so all of a sudden the BOSS 5.4 ISNT competitive hey . things change quick around here.

Funny how people were bagging Holden still using the pushrod motor and Ford is moving towards newer technology, now its a great move.

I'm pretty sure the 3v is going to get dropped ny Ford Oz and the FPV sereies will be getting quicker motors to give the gen 4 and the F6 real competition (on the rumor mill at Ford).

gtfpv · 01-02-2006, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Funny how people were bagging Holden still using the pushrod motor and Ford is moving towards newer technology, now its a great move.

I'm pretty sure the 3v is going to get dropped ny Ford Oz and the FPV sereies will be getting quicker motors to give the gen 4 and the F6 real competition (on the rumor mill at Ford).

WHAT CAN I SAY ISN'T THE MODULATED BOSS 5.4 supposed to have all this unleashed power. why would they change the engine other than cost.???? nothing wrong with pushrods that would be my choice but quad overhead cams have to be better, and allow so many differant states of tune due to camm shafts.
if they want a better simpler engine . they will have to change BORE/STROKE. tried and proven dinasour method. but i would stick with the boss 5.4 otherwise it would be deemed a major engineering error by ford . and i do think staying with those heads and camms are the go .

XCGS351 · 31-01-2006, 11:38 PM

All alloy Cleveland, now that would be nice.

**ebxr8240** · 01-02-2006, 12:27 AM

They are using the 3v there on the F series..
It would also cost mega setting up another polluion motor..
They also have the v10 there also...
Along with International diesels...

xr8ute · 01-02-2006, 12:31 AM

In standard form, its certainly got big grunt.

I can't speak for how wide that powerband is, except the anecdotal evidence from "edited" BA V8's making much more power down low.

It's hardly in a compact package though. Its big, wide, heavy, and in the worst possible location with respect to weight distribution i.e. at the top.

gtfpv · 01-02-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xr8ute

In standard form, its certainly got big grunt.

I can't speak for how wide that powerband is, except the anecdotal evidence from "edited" BA V8's making much more power down low.

It's hardly in a compact package though. Its big, wide, heavy, and in the worst possible location with respect to weight distribution i.e. at the top.

ahhhhh !!!!!! fair enough . no arguement thier . (other than looks)

JPFS1 · 01-02-2006, 12:56 AM

if these new blocks aren't alreay in development and in cars, then it won't happen here until AFTER the all new falcon. Frontal crash is basically done on it, so changing engines now wouldn't be possible. You just need to look at what Ford (globally) have got available to them and this is what we'll get.

Grechie · 01-02-2006, 12:58 AM

why do they want to go back to the dinosaur technology?

danv8 · 01-02-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grechie

why do they want to go back to the dinosaur technology?

Its no more dinosaur than the Boss V8's,
Only difference is that it has a central located cam than cams located on each cylinder head which is hardly break through technology itself.

gmhdriver · 01-02-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grechie

why do they want to go back to the dinosaur technology?

Sigh...

_ Some people really need to get their facts straight. DOHC has been around for just as long as pushrods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_overhead_cam

vztrt · 01-02-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmhdriver

Sigh...

_ Some people really need to get their facts straight. DOHC has been around for just as long as pushrods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_overhead_cam

It's just DOHC is a more efficient motor. If they could reduce the weight of the motor it would give the car a better power to weight and not be considered the show car (as some members have stated).

gmhdriver · 01-02-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

It's just DOHC is a more efficient motor.

Yes and no. Not in every instance. The LS1/2 engines are a good example of that. GM's engineering has done away with most of the limitations/negative aspects of pushrod engines, giving them the characteristics of a multivalve engine while retaining all the benifits of pushrods.
The 6700 rpm rev limit and fuel efficiency are proof of this.

4Vman · 01-02-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmhdriver

Yes and no. Not in every instance. The LS1/2 engines are a good example of that. GM's engineering has done away with most of the limitations/negative aspects of pushrod engines, giving them the characteristics of a multivalve engine while retaining all the benifits of pushrods.
The 6700 rpm rev limit and fuel efficiency are proof of this.

Terry Sainty would disagree, his DOHC Topfuel engine is banned in the states because it made too much HP....
Seriously though DOHC is better technology, its pointless to argue otherwise, sure there are very good pushrod engines but to meausre KW/L with engines taken to the extreme a DOHC engine will come out on top every time.
But as HSE2 pointed out, your brain doesn't care what's causing the smile...

Bossxr8 · 01-02-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmhdriver

Yes and no. Not in every instance. The LS1/2 engines are a good example of that. GM's engineering has done away with most of the limitations/negative aspects of pushrod engines, giving them the characteristics of a multivalve engine while retaining all the benifits of pushrods.
The 6700 rpm rev limit and fuel efficiency are proof of this.

Because it has all its power up high in the rev range its suddenly has "the characteristics of a multi valve engine". WTF. Fuel efficiency is only because of the lighter weight of the Commodore and extra tall gearing in the manuals, and any pushrod engine can be made to rev to 6700. Boss 302 Mustangs revved to 7000 and P3 GTHO's could go that far as well with the electric rev limiter removed and thats more than 30 years ago.

vztrt · 01-02-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmhdriver

Yes and no. Not in every instance. The LS1/2 engines are a good example of that. GM's engineering has done away with most of the limitations/negative aspects of pushrod engines, giving them the characteristics of a multivalve engine while retaining all the benifits of pushrods.
The 6700 rpm rev limit and fuel efficiency are proof of this.

I was thinking that it was more efficient because it produced the same amount of power from a smaller motor. But I would like to see the BOSS get VCT and see how it performs.

AUIII XR8 MAN · 01-02-2006, 01:00 AM

I sure if Ford US did drop the 5.4lt, there would be enough left over to keep us going for years to come. It does matter what size it is a long as it performs goods & can hull but over the dark side thats all that matters.

CAMS290 · 01-02-2006, 06:28 AM

I think the major factor in Ford's decision would be cost at actually building the quad cam motors, and even the 3 valve motors, compared to a pushrod motor.

MrSparkle · 01-02-2006, 07:49 AM

I'd like to see it happen for one reason alone - to see what FPV's marketing monkeys could come up with to promote it!!!!!!!

:

merlin · 01-02-2006, 08:01 AM

I'd like to see them stick with what is seen as "better technology". Don't get me wrong I agree that pushrod V8's do just a good a job (better in some applications) but is is percieved as "dinosaur technology" by a lot of people.

Ford want to be seen as innovators not going backwards - the motoring scribes would give them a pounding.

If you ever read ricer forums they laugh (wrongly) at the Holden V8 calling it old tech rubbish ect. - this is just their perception but remember these young ricers grow up into cashed up 30 soemthings who become the target buyers in years to come. Ford want to be seen as the local Aussie company with leading technology when that time comes - you should already see the reaction of the youth today who love Skylines/Sylvia's ect and who hated Ford/Holden - the F6 hits the market and they think it is the ducks guts. They seem to love forced induction, next step would be for Ford to offer a TT V8 on the Boss (supercharger is seen as old tech as well).

Paxton · 01-02-2006, 08:14 AM

The 4v engine doesn't have VCT in it yet does it? Lets wait until Ford/FPV give it this, and start to work more power through the engine, before calling it "a spent force".

The Boss will be a around a while yet, but work to make it lighter, and more work will be done on getting power out of it. It will be competitive.