Has anybody else thought about what this would be like? I was just pondering the idea and wonder what it would even go in. I haven't dug into it so I am not sure if they already have one made. What are your opinions on how it will perform and the numbers it would put down?
Modular 427
- Thread starter Lycosa
- Start date
Can't happen with the bore spacing limits of the 5.0 block. But if you bored/stroked a 6.2 block and put good 4V heads on it and it maintained the specific output of the Coyote, you'd be looking at a 588 hp engine. Sounds like it would stomp on the Z06!
420/5 = 84 hp/L
84 x 7 = 588 hp
420/5 = 84 hp/L
84 x 7 = 588 hp
Now imagine supercharging it like a cobra or gt500. That would be something.
4v heads aren't a requirement for the 6.2. It's heads in budget truck motor form already flow way better than a Modulars 2v heads. 4v a cylinder are necessary to make a small bore motor like a Modular have an efficient topend, but really a requirement on a large bore motor like a Boss 6.2 or LSx as you can fit much bigger valves in them.
Last edited:
The engineers at Rolls Royce and Allison would disagree with you. The Merlin and the Allison V12 were both 4-valve engines, and they redlined under 4,000rpm.
Pratt and Whitney spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make a 4-valve head for their radial engines, because of the limits of two-valves. They figured it out, but it was way too expensive ever to put in production.
A few years back, Jim Feuling did make a 4-valve head for Harley V-twins, and you couldn't beat them.
Pratt and Whitney spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make a 4-valve head for their radial engines, because of the limits of two-valves. They figured it out, but it was way too expensive ever to put in production.
A few years back, Jim Feuling did make a 4-valve head for Harley V-twins, and you couldn't beat them.
Ford made a 413" modular...:dw: Granted it was a 2V truck engine, but it was no different from any other 2V - quite unimpressive.
Don Bowles already did a 7.0L based off the new 6.2L about 3 years ago. Was a Roush project that was running on E85 and running 8's N/A.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/mmfp_0711_ford_mustang_roush_ethanol_fuel/
Don Bowles Ford Experimental Engine
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/mmfp_0711_ford_mustang_roush_ethanol_fuel/
Don Bowles Ford Experimental Engine
Last edited:
Ya but that was a V10 which required power sapping balance shafts. Little known fact is that they had a 3V non-VCT version of that engine that made 362/457. A 4V version with variable valve timing could have easily made 450/500.
I should have phrased it a little better. What I meant was a stock 427 made by ford and put into a production vehicle. That is a heavily modified moduler 7.0 but not what I meant. On a side note, that car is sick.
Jon Kaase built an N/A 5.4 and stroked it to 409ci. The engine made 720 horsepower N/A with 4 valve heads.
Jon Kaase built an N/A 5.4 and stroked it to 409ci. The engine made 720 horsepower N/A with 4 valve heads.
Wow, What did that cost?
Looks like it was on SVTP before...
http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...motors-dominate-engine-masters-challenge.html
More than you can afford, pal.
Jon Kaase built an N/A 5.4 and stroked it to 409ci. The engine made 720 horsepower N/A with 4 valve heads.
Thats insane!
Are you saying 2v fords are unimpressive sir! ?
He must know all two valve heads are unimpressive. My 6.2 2V heads only went 350cfm after a minor port on the 320cfm stockers :kaboom:
Yea too bad its just a pipe dream and the LS7 still stomps any Ford NA production motor in power and fuel efficiency.
Yeah you're right the "efficient" 1.19 hp per cubic inch LS7 crushes all fords NA especially the coyote at 1.39 hp per cubic inch. 30+ mpg at 3700 lb with driver is rough on the pocket book too
When a lot of us think 2v ford heads, we think of the ones on a mustang or lightning i believe.
I'm with Snover on this one. I've read repeatedly that four valves are inherently better than two for one simple fact. Air going around the larger valve in a two valve has to go down the intake runner and effectively make a larger, more flow-reducing 90 degree turn to get around the valve. Smaller valves don't have as large a distance between the valve stem and outer valve edge, adding up to higher air flow. I doubt there's any reason to believe that this is any difference for a big bore engine.
Users who are viewing this thread
