Hurricane snuffed out

[jwfisher]

Car Connection synopsis:
"Ford HEMI Rival Stopped in Development Tracks

Ford has stopped development work on a new range of V-8 engines that were planned to rival Chrysler Group's successful HEMI V-8 engines. The Detroit News says that the high-performance engine program suffered from commensurately high development costs, and Ford, keen to keep its profitability on track, has pulled the plug on the new engine. The "Hurricane" V-8 had been planned for 6.2 liters of displacement, larger than Chrysler Group's bigger 6.1-liter HEMI which will be offered in cars like the 300C SRT8 this year. Ford's plans for a 605-hp, 6.4-liter V-10 engine are still on, the paper reports. "

DetNews - full article: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0502/08/A02-81538.htm

I don't have a problem with the cancellation of the 6.2 liter Hurricane V-8 engine development project. The trend towards a larger and larger engine is going to end up hurting high performance enthusiasts by rasing costs, insurance, and worse of all by visibility to the anti-car forces.

Same for a larger and larger F-150: at some point you have to ask yourself "when is it too large"? Will the next F-150 get larger yet, or could it instead get more efficient? Can the same size box be put on a smaller and more efficient vehicle? The idea of an SVT product that just gets larger and larger is very unappealing to me.

In the full-size truck market, Ford is probably trapped by the marketplace and the competion into staying with the paradigm. There doesn't appear to be any way out of this... and it's too risky to hurt the cash cow. What would be needed is something that breaks the paradigm. New innovation. As an exmample, look at the Fairlane and how that breaks the paradigm of the minivan and the SUV - it's got everything in one efficient package and it does it with an entirely new and desirable product class.

 

[SGL]

Car Connection synopsis:
"Ford HEMI Rival Stopped in Development Tracks

Ford has stopped development work on a new range of V-8 engines that were planned to rival Chrysler Group's successful HEMI V-8 engines. The Detroit News says that the high-performance engine program suffered from commensurately high development costs, and Ford, keen to keep its profitability on track, has pulled the plug on the new engine. The "Hurricane" V-8 had been planned for 6.2 liters of displacement, larger than Chrysler Group's bigger 6.1-liter HEMI which will be offered in cars like the 300C SRT8 this year. Ford's plans for a 605-hp, 6.4-liter V-10 engine are still on, the paper reports. "

DetNews - full article: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0502/08/A02-81538.htm

I don't have a problem with the cancellation of the 6.2 liter Hurricane V-8 engine development project. The trend towards a larger and larger engine is going to end up hurting high performance enthusiasts by rasing costs, insurance, and worse of all by visibility to the anti-car forces.

Same for a larger and larger F-150: at some point you have to ask yourself "when is it too large"? Will the next F-150 get larger yet, or could it instead get more efficient? Can the same size box be put on a smaller and more efficient vehicle? The idea of an SVT product that just gets larger and larger is very unappealing to me.

In the full-size truck market, Ford is probably trapped by the marketplace and the competion into staying with the paradigm. There doesn't appear to be any way out of this... and it's too risky to hurt the cash cow. What would be needed is something that breaks the paradigm. New innovation. As an exmample, look at the Fairlane and how that breaks the paradigm of the minivan and the SUV - it's got everything in one efficient package and it does it with an entirely new and desirable product class.

I'm not sure if this motor was push-rod or not. If it was, that is unfortunate. That means we are stuck with the modular motor with all of it's downsides:

Let me see,

1. huge size not conducive to good crash performance
2. packaging nightmare
3. complicated and expensive camshaft system
4. high center of gravity = not good weight distribution
5. poor low end torque despite long stroke
6. small bore size and tight bore spacing not conducive to performance upgrades or future growth
7. Poor fuel economy despite appearance of "high tech" content
8. heavy motor in spite of extensive use of aluminum

And the list goes on.

In my opinion, there is a breakpoint around 3.5~4.0 Liter where the advantages of overhead cam technology disappear and become needlessly expensive. GM has understood that for quite a while now. DCX also.

 

[GTSpartan]

Quick question about the packaging nightmare. In terms of overall volume and weight, what engine is larger, the '00 Cobra R 5.4 dohc or the new 7.0L Z06?

 

[SGL]

Quick question about the packaging nightmare. In terms of overall volume and weight, what engine is larger, the '00 Cobra R 5.4 dohc or the new 7.0L Z06?

I do not have numbers but I think it goes without saying that the 5.4DOHC is a monster. Keep in mind that the 7liter Z06 motor is just a LS1 with increased bore/stroke and revised heads. I don't think GM raised the deck height. I could be wrong though.

Case in point, Dodge's 4.7L OHC couldn't be packaged into the 300 and Magnum because of crash performance (amongst other reasons). You need a crumple zone. An engine is not a good energy absorber.....

Getting good airflow for cooling around a DOHC behemoth is no easy task either.

 

[AbusiveWombat]

In my opinion, there is a breakpoint around 3.5~4.0 Liter where the advantages of overhead cam technology disappear and become needlessly expensive. GM has understood that for quite a while now. DCX also.

I could be wrong but I think the problem is the bore to stroke ratio. With a better ratio, Ford could take full advantage of the OHC's and extend the redline. As it is, the stroke is so long that it's forcing a lower redline. No point in having OHC's if you're not going to build a motor that revs.

 

[SGL]

I could be wrong but I think the problem is the bore to stroke ratio. With a better ratio, Ford could take full advantage of the OHC's and extend the redline. As it is, the stroke is so long that it's forcing a lower redline. No point in having OHC's if you're not going to build a motor that revs.

exactly!

But you see, according to SVT's past comments: "The cobra and the modular DOHC is a premium product". Thus maybe it should have the "appearance" of similar technology as Honda, BMW and alike. And I want to stress the word "premium" and "appearance". :nonono:

In many ways I am happy Colleti and Co are gone. Maybe the limited production recycled "halo" technology made with unobtanium will go away......

 

[fordification]

I'm not sure if this motor was push-rod or not. If it was, that is unfortunate. That means we are stuck with the modular motor with all of it's downsides:

Let me see,

1. huge size not conducive to good crash performance
2. packaging nightmare
3. complicated and expensive camshaft system
4. high center of gravity = not good weight distribution
5. poor low end torque despite long stroke
6. small bore size and tight bore spacing not conducive to performance upgrades or future growth
7. Poor fuel economy despite appearance of "high tech" content
8. heavy motor in spite of extensive use of aluminum

And the list goes on.

In my opinion, there is a breakpoint around 3.5~4.0 Liter where the advantages of overhead cam technology disappear and become needlessly expensive. GM has understood that for quite a while now. DCX also.

Where are you getting your information? Or are these just opinions?

Without going into a HUGE heated argument, virtually ALL supercars are dohc's.

 

[SGL]

Where are you getting your information? Or are these just opinions?

Without going into a HUGE heated argument, virtually ALL supercars are dohc's.

1. Most of the information I listed, is in plain view of anyone who has worked on Ford's Modular motor.
2. I am privy to some information but it is not listed above. Listing it here would jeopardize my career. I will leave it at that.
3. Don't confuse marketing ploys with engineering. Every engineering requirement must be met with careful attention to cost, weight, complexity, objective, service and a host of other details. Because the Ferrari F50 has 86 valves per cylinder does not mean that Ford has to do the same thing. It's all about balancing design requirements and customer expectations. Something tells me that even if the Cobra had two valves per cylinder, you guys would still run to go buy one. Most couldn't tell the difference. Ford misjudged the market requirement with their modular motors and those motors are misadapted for truck use and needlessly complicated and expensive for the mustang. That is my personal opinion.

We'll leave it at that.

 

[Jman20427]

I'm not sure if this motor was push-rod or not. If it was, that is unfortunate. That means we are stuck with the modular motor with all of it's downsides:

Let me see,

1. huge size not conducive to good crash performance
2. packaging nightmare
3. complicated and expensive camshaft system
4. high center of gravity = not good weight distribution
5. poor low end torque despite long stroke
6. small bore size and tight bore spacing not conducive to performance upgrades or future growth
7. Poor fuel economy despite appearance of "high tech" content
8. heavy motor in spite of extensive use of aluminum

And the list goes on.

In my opinion, there is a breakpoint around 3.5~4.0 Liter where the advantages of overhead cam technology disappear and become needlessly expensive. GM has understood that for quite a while now. DCX also.

I could see some of those points, but every motor has some weak points. However fact it, the DOHC motors are more efficient then a pushrod motor. Something like 8-10% more efficient. And when your talking about big HP numbers, thats alot of lost power for the pushrods.

 

[GTSpartan]

I'm not sure if this motor was push-rod or not. If it was, that is unfortunate. That means we are stuck with the modular motor with all of it's downsides:

Let me see,

1. huge size not conducive to good crash performance
2. packaging nightmare
3. complicated and expensive camshaft system
4. high center of gravity = not good weight distribution
5. poor low end torque despite long stroke
6. small bore size and tight bore spacing not conducive to performance upgrades or future growth
7. Poor fuel economy despite appearance of "high tech" content
8. heavy motor in spite of extensive use of aluminum

And the list goes on.

In my opinion, there is a breakpoint around 3.5~4.0 Liter where the advantages of overhead cam technology disappear and become needlessly expensive. GM has understood that for quite a while now. DCX also.

I believe you are correct about the expense of designing dohc engines being very high, especially for the types of cars/trucks Ford is trying to sell. Of course you can have a very expensive dohc setup in a supercar. Thats what you pay for. But when you are trying to sell a 30k car or truck it can be quite expensive. I believe thats why Dodge/GM can up their power so easily to make mid-life products better, thay donm't have to redesign an engine just to get 20-30 hp more. For example, the pre '03 cobras were getting easily overpowered by the f-bodies and all GM had to do was simple changes to get more power, while the Cobra was at its limit for what the factory was going to offer w/o putting on a power adder. :thumbsup:

 

[SGL]

by the way, look under the intake of the new 05 Mustang. You tell me if this efficient use of space.

 

[Fourcam330]

I had heard from a Ford engineer at the Windsor CA plant that the Hurricane was backshelved, if not outright cancelled months ago. Ironically the new MT has the Shelby GR1 powered by a new 7.0L DOHC V8...
Anyway, B/S ratio is really a useless statistic in this regard. The largest problems with Modular motors with respect to power production/performance is the relatively small cross sectional valve seat area, smallish valves, and piss poor bore spacing. For instance a true performance 5.0 4v should have 42-43mm intake valves (vs. our 37s) and a like bump in exhaust valve size as well.
Despite the fact we are slightly handicapped by design (square 4.6 and very undersquare 5.4L) we can rely on other aspects of design/engineering to make power. The bottom line is that any engine of any given displacement needs to breathe to make power. Since we can't really effectively increase displacement by a significant amount and retain 100% structural integrity, Modulars need cams, headwork & VJs, quality intakes, exhaust components, and VCT, etc. to make N/A power.
Obviously, Modulars can hold their own when forced induction comes into play.

 

[jwfisher]

1. Most of the information I listed, is in plain view of anyone who has worked on Ford's Modular motor.
2. I am privy to some information but it is not listed above. Listing it here would jeopardize my career. I will leave it at that.
3. Don't confuse marketing ploys with engineering. Every engineering requirement must be met with careful attention to cost, weight, complexity, objective, service and a host of other details. Because the Ferrari F50 has 86 valves per cylinder does not mean that Ford has to do the same thing. It's all about balancing design requirements and customer expectations. Something tells me that even if the Cobra had two valves per cylinder, you guys would still run to go buy one. Most couldn't tell the difference. Ford misjudged the market requirement with their modular motors and those motors are misadapted for truck use and needlessly complicated and expensive for the mustang. That is my personal opinion.

We'll leave it at that.

It sure is your personal opinion. Most of it is technically dead wrong.

Take crash packaging - the thought that a smaller "chevy small block" type of engine would provide better crash protection is backwards. The larger motor that will contribute it's size and position to a crush zone that is very advantageous - particularly in an engine bay thatw as designed that way (not one that was designed mid-seventies).

And "packaging nightmare" - yes, it is a packaging nightmare to put a larger engine into an engine bay originally designed for an inline 4. That's what we've been stuck with for 25 years. Now, for the first time ever, we have an engine bay designed for a 4.6 modular.

Ford's modular engines started out on the right track, providing a flexible engine with high-RPM attributes. They were reasonably state-of-the-art way back when, and Ford hasn't done a darned thing since then to keep them that way. Other variants of them - the 5.4 V-8 and the V-10, have been all about quick compromise. The 5.4 has an absurd rod length and cylinder bores too small to accept proper valve sizes, and the V-10 is an even worse example - uneven firing and similarly poor breathing. Serious technical development stopped years ago for lack of funding and leadership, the Yamaha 5-valve with variable intake timing was the best peice of work done but it has all but dissappeared (despite some engineers saying it's still on the table for eventual production).
The 3-valve heads are a necessary compromise, to pick up the power a bit while improving mileage and drivability. There is hardly anything state-of-the-art about them; cam phasing is a compromise itself; packaging is a bit better; and other manufacturers are or have walkied away from 3-valves (Mercedes in in the midst of walking away from it, having already ditched it on the V-6).
Two projects show there is still some life in Advanced Engines: the experimental 4.6 project that was run to determine the high-RPM attribuites of the engine (9000 RPM, some indications of what's really wrong with the basic design, and a resulting SAE paper), and the FRPP 4.6/Cammer projects that are really just tuning exercises - not engineering exercises. The geometry is all the same and other than some tiny bit of cooling attention, the heads are architecturally identical.
An engine that started out roughly equal to an early nineties BMW DOHC V-8 has fallen seriously behind. An engine that started out as the equal to the Cadillac engine of the same size has fallen behind (especially behind their new supercharged V-8).

The 2-valve 4.6 is shamefully pathetic these days, a 231-horse version for trucks (how can a 4.6 liter engine make only 231 horses?), and a 3-valve engine that makes only 300 horses. How can such a large engine do so little?
Farrari's "86 valve" engine as you puit it is an expensive proposition, but one that market can easily bear. But a 4-valve engine that is a joy to rev and that wants to rev (and is exciting to drive: the current 4.6 Cobra engine is one of the dullest performance engines I've ever driven - and I've driven nearly everything) is long gone from production at Ford. These are the attributes that Don Peterson originally talked about, and they are long gone due to budget, compromise, and low standards. And a customer base (the remaining customer vbase, anyway) who has long since been conditioned to accept compromise and low standards.

And it's not much better elsewhere in Ford. Just compare the new Mustang's 4.0 SOHC V-6 engine - one of the worst V-6 engines in existance (but still light-years ahead of the 3.8/3.9/4.2 lump) - to Nissans truck 4.0 DOHC engine (based on what is probably the best production V-6 in the world). Night and day in terms of every attribute - toque, HP, mileage, emissions, and especially driving "feel". Whether or not Ford will ever compete with it's all-new 3.5 liter engine is up in the air - with the delays to it apparently a lot of work is taking place there. In the meantime, the new Mustang V-6 is one of the dullest driving experiences there is - right on par with the V-6 experience in the last Mustang (especially pathetic when introduced in '94). And the question of whether or not Ford will update it after it's finally released need to be examined too. Will Ford spend any money on continuous improvement of what is probably their most important engine? Will Ford have any money to spend on it even if they so desire?

This company is in serious trouble... and having the ranks accept out-dated and uncompetitive compromises (and even promote them as desirable) doesn't help the company become a worldwide competitor. Getting there - and maintaining sconstant improvement and evolution forward - is the only way this company is going to thrive. Otherwise it's a long slow decline into twilight years, with the inmates claiming they prefer whatever corner is left to retreat into.

 

[SGL]

OK Mr. know-it-all in Texas. I've worked in crash safety. I doubt you can tell me how to do my job, but hey, you never know. Maybe we should hire you to solve all of our problems here in Detroit. This way we could save ourselves the millions of $$$ of expensive finite element analysis software and crash testing and just leave it to you to design it properly..... :rollseyes

Even at 5 times my salary we would still come out a winner. You could divulge all of Nissan secrets to us...... I think not.

You might want to stop sniffing that stuff. I hear it is not recommended.....

 

[AbusiveWombat]

I had heard from a Ford engineer at the Windsor CA plant that the Hurricane was backshelved, if not outright cancelled months ago. Ironically the new MT has the Shelby GR1 powered by a new 7.0L DOHC V8...
Anyway, B/S ratio is really a useless statistic in this regard. The largest problems with Modular motors with respect to power production/performance is the relatively small cross sectional valve seat area, smallish valves, and piss poor bore spacing. For instance a true performance 5.0 4v should have 42-43mm intake valves (vs. our 37s) and a like bump in exhaust valve size as well.
Despite the fact we are slightly handicapped by design (square 4.6 and very undersquare 5.4L) we can rely on other aspects of design/engineering to make power. The bottom line is that any engine of any given displacement needs to breathe to make power. Since we can't really effectively increase displacement by a significant amount and retain 100% structural integrity, Modulars need cams, headwork & VJs, quality intakes, exhaust components, and VCT, etc. to make N/A power.
Obviously, Modulars can hold their own when forced induction comes into play.

A better bore/stroke ratio would allow larger valves. This would lead to better breathing and bump the redline a bit. The downfall would be a loss in torque but with 4.6L of displacement, I would expect that Ford could a least come up with 280+ ft-lbs.

 

[fordification]

2005 Mustang GT

4.6L
300hp@5750
325ft.lbs@4500
18mpg-city
25mpg-hw
5-speed
3450lbs

2002 Camaro Z28

5.7L
310hp@5200
340ft.lbs@4000
19mpg-city
28mpg-hw
6-speed
3554lbs

Agreed, the Z-28 is a few years older, but are the numbers really that far off? Less 1 gear and 1.1liters of displacement.

I'll look for trucks specs next.

 

[fordification]

2005 Z-71CC 4wd

5.3L
295hp@5200
335ft.lbs@4000
15mpg-city
19mpg-hw
4-speed auto
5008lbs


2005 F-150XLT 4wd

5.4L
300hp@5000
365ft.lbs@3750
14mpg-city
18mpg-hw
4-speed auto
5540lbs

Very comparible. And check the weights out. I'm not sure on engine weights but a huge part of that is because the F-150 is box frame with extensive structural support. Over 500lbs with minimal difference in mpg!! Shed that weight off and see what that f#$%er will do!!

 

[fordification]

specs from MSN auto

 

[jwfisher]

OK Mr. know-it-all in Texas. I've worked in crash safety. I doubt you can tell me how to do my job, but hey, you never know. Maybe we should hire you to solve all of our problems here in Detroit. This way we could save ourselves the millions of $$$ of expensive finite element analysis software and crash testing and just leave it to you to design it properly..... :rollseyes

Even at 5 times my salary we would still come out a winner. You could divulge all of Nissan secrets to us...... I think not.

You might want to stop sniffing that stuff. I hear it is not recommended.....

There you go again... this is the perfect example of what's wrong in Dearborn.

 

[SGL]

There you go again... this is the perfect example of what's wrong in Dearborn.

You haven't the slightest idea of the complexity involved in designing, engineering, testing, producing and servicing a device as multifaceted and complex as an automobile. Your past posts are proving this to be all too clear.

I would love nothing more than to see you in front of Ford's (or any other manufacturer) crash testing committee saying the following: "Take crash packaging - the thought that a smaller "chevy small block" type of engine would provide better crash protection is backwards. The larger motor that will contribute it's size and position to a crush zone that is very advantageous - particularly in an engine bay thatw as designed that way (not one that was designed mid-seventies)."

Your a$$ would either get fired for total incompetence or relegated to toilet sanitation. Either way your engineering days would be over. That is 4 lines of complete jiberish that makes no engineering sense. Actually it reminds me of some program managers that throw generally vague comments in meetings with the purpose making an impression. Garbage in, garbage out.

By the way, I don't work for Ford (thank god....).