Who has details about the new 'hurricane' engine?

[biminiLX]

Any info. that's concrete? Any websites for details you can point me towards?
Only things I've heard is that its an engine family that can go bigger to give more power (mainly for trucks) and that it might be similar to the current mod family but with better bore spacing.
Just curious about the new engine family and thought this might be a good place to ask.
Thanks, J
:beer:

 

[Naste50]

I want info too! Someone please chime in!

 

[Wildpony]

I think it may be Ford going back to a pushrod style engine because they are not making the big power in their trucks to compete with the Hemi Ram (which is rumored or will be punched out to 6.1 liters& 400hp in the future), or the GM engines with 2 or 3 V-8 engines up over 300 hp..
I read an article on this a month ago although I didn't see the "Hurricane" as listed as the name of the engine series.
What I don't get is Ford can get a 4.6 3 valve motor for the Mustang @300 hp but yet it can only get 300hp for the 5.4 3valve truck motor. You would think they could at least do 340 or 360 HP on the bigger displacement (with 87 octane fuel)

 

[grandestang]

I think it may be Ford going back to a pushrod style engine because they are not making the big power in their trucks to compete with the Hemi Ram (which is rumored or will be punched out to 6.1 liters& 400hp in the future), or the GM engines with 2 or 3 V-8 engines up over 300 hp..
I read an article on this a month ago although I didn't see the "Hurricane" as listed as the name of the engine series.
What I don't get is Ford can get a 4.6 3 valve motor for the Mustang @300 hp but yet it can only get 300hp for the 5.4 3valve truck motor. You would think they could at least do 340 or 360 HP on the bigger displacement (with 87 octane fuel)

Its not the fact that a pushrod will make any more power. In fact a pushrod engine with the same dimensions and specs as the current 5.4 3v would probably make less power.

Mod motors suck because of their terribly tight bore spacing. The bore spacing is so tight b/c these engines were first used in FWD lincolns so the engine had to fit between the fenders. Ford has known this for a long time, but the fact is if you change bore spacing then you pretty much destroy the interchangeability of engine parts that has made the mod motors such a success and so profitable for Ford. They are finally realizing that to get any sort of displacement without ridiculously long strokes and deck heights they will have to increase bore spacing. It would be a HUGE surprise to me however if they decided to go back to a pushrod style engine. It would make no sense with all of the development they have in OHC engines... and on top of this it would be a disasterous marketing decision. It would basically be like Ford admitting "yep we were wrong, pushrod engines are really better chevy was right all along" When it reality one is not better than the other, the fact is they use this approach in their marketing... so to change this would be not a good thing for Ford IMO.

Paul

 

[Naste50]

Its not the fact that a pushrod will make any more power. In fact a pushrod engine with the same dimensions and specs as the current 5.4 3v would probably make less power.

Mod motors suck because of their terribly tight bore spacing. The bore spacing is so tight b/c these engines were first used in FWD lincolns so the engine had to fit between the fenders. Ford has known this for a long time, but the fact is if you change bore spacing then you pretty much destroy the interchangeability of engine parts that has made the mod motors such a success and so profitable for Ford. They are finally realizing that to get any sort of displacement without ridiculously long strokes and deck heights they will have to increase bore spacing. It would be a HUGE surprise to me however if they decided to go back to a pushrod style engine. It would make no sense with all of the development they have in OHC engines... and on top of this it would be a disasterous marketing decision. It would basically be like Ford admitting "yep we were wrong, pushrod engines are really better chevy was right all along" When it reality one is not better than the other, the fact is they use this approach in their marketing... so to change this would be not a good thing for Ford IMO.

Paul

EXACTLY

 

[jwfisher]

Very good post!

 

[Wildpony]

Ok help me out here -
IF the engines are the same displacement (dimensions?) then you say the 5.4 Chevy motor(yeah I know they don't make a 5.4) will make less power than the OHC 5.4 modular?? Buttt the Chevy 5.3 ("327" ) motor makes 285or 290 (can't remember) and the Chevy 5.6 motor makes 345-350 depending on vehicle. So the way I see it (even though it sucks-not a Chevy fan), is that their motors make more power. Now either they have better flowing heads than Ford's 5.4 truck motors or something else.

Back to my question -What does the "bore spacing" have to do with engine power?? Are you saying Ford can't "upsize" the displacement because the blocks are not long enough/bores spaced apart, to gain the bigger displacement engines (ie. 330" Ford vs. a 5.6/5.7 or 6.0liter GM or Hemi Dodge engines??)
Thanks

 

[Naste50]

Ok help me out here -
IF the engines are the same displacement (dimensions?) then you say the 5.4 Chevy motor(yeah I know they don't make a 5.4) will make less power than the OHC 5.4 modular?? Buttt the Chevy 5.3 ("327" ) motor makes 285or 290 (can't remember) and the Chevy 5.6 motor makes 345-350 depending on vehicle. So the way I see it (even though it sucks-not a Chevy fan), is that their motors make more power. Now either they have better flowing heads than Ford's 5.4 truck motors or something else.

Back to my question -What does the "bore spacing" have to do with engine power?? Are you saying Ford can't "upsize" the displacement because the blocks are not long enough/bores spaced apart, to gain the bigger displacement engines (ie. 330" Ford vs. a 5.6/5.7 or 6.0liter GM or Hemi Dodge engines??)
Thanks

I agree, Chevy engines are making more power with 2-valves. The current Ford Modulars have small bore spacing and rely on stroke to make power. This really hit me when I took a trip to the junk-yard in search of some misc. part for my 331 build up. I walked past a 1997? Lincoln Town-Car with the 4.6 and it was missing the left-hand cylinder head. I walked past and had to take a double-take. I couldn't believe how small the the pistons looked. I thought, "those things are hiding 4.6 liters? WOW!" then I thought, "HOLY CRAP! All of Fords modulars have pistons that small! Not just the 4.6 liter cars, but the 5.4 liter vehicles including the Lightning, the Cobra R And last but not least, the Enzo-heel-biting 550 horsepower FORD GT!!!" To imagine how those little pistons are swinging on such HUGE strokes is hard to imagine. This I can assure was NOT Ford's original intention when designing the 4.6 for FWD applications. There is just not enough room for large valves like there is on 4.00" bore engines.-Jordan

 

[grandestang]

Ok help me out here -
IF the engines are the same displacement (dimensions?) then you say the 5.4 Chevy motor(yeah I know they don't make a 5.4) will make less power than the OHC 5.4 modular?? Buttt the Chevy 5.3 ("327" ) motor makes 285or 290 (can't remember) and the Chevy 5.6 motor makes 345-350 depending on vehicle. So the way I see it (even though it sucks-not a Chevy fan), is that their motors make more power. Now either they have better flowing heads than Ford's 5.4 truck motors or something else.

Back to my question -What does the "bore spacing" have to do with engine power?? Are you saying Ford can't "upsize" the displacement because the blocks are not long enough/bores spaced apart, to gain the bigger displacement engines (ie. 330" Ford vs. a 5.6/5.7 or 6.0liter GM or Hemi Dodge engines??)
Thanks

Okay.

Bore spacing and engine stroke have a lot more to do with engine power than you'd think. Take two engines displacing the exact same amount, but with different bore spacings and stroke lengths. Take an engine of bore 3.55 and stroke of 3.8, and an engine of bore 4.00 and stroke 3.00. By nature of the engines internal dimensions, the engine with the longer stroke and smaller bore would make more torque down low, and less up high, and the engine with the larger bore spacing would me much more of a high end screamer. Ford actually uses this aspect of the mod motors to their advantage in their Ford trucks. Sure they don't make the most high end advertised horsepower, but try finding an engine of similiar displacement that makes as much low end torque at such a low rpm as a ford 5.4. And THAT is the name of the game when you are towing a trailer, not how much horespower you have at 5500 rpm... thats just an rpm you won't ever use when you're towing. Yeah that dodge HEMI pos makes a ton of horespower, but it doesn't hit until above 4k. Not a very practical truck engine... but a very practical marketing scheme. Don't get caught up in advertised horespower numbers because thats all they are... advertisement.

To answer your question about motor size, bore sizing is so very critical when trying to achieve displacement. Without a decent bore size you have to have long strokes and large deck heights to accomodate this. Now OHC engines are naturally tall engine because of where the cams are period. But when you add a tall deck height to this, you get an engine that is so big you can't shoehorn it into anything. A big block 429 will actaully fit easier into a car than a ford 32V 4.6 will, and it displaces 148 less cubic inches!! I've shown this image before, but just look at a ford 302 right up against a 4.6 32V engine.

Thats what a 4 inch bore versus a 3.55 inch bore will give you, and this is why it is utterly necessary for ford to increase the bore spacing. Only reason why Ford has been holding off so long is because of what I said before, they love the profitability of having an engine line with so many interchangeable parts.

I can't wait for the hurricane.

Paul

 

[jwfisher]

Interesting discussion on the Hurricane, but given that the Hurricane engine is a few years out for it's first iteration, who can say that we'll see it in an enthusiast car (Mustang, Cobra, Falcon) anytime soon? Given very limited development funds, the over-riding priority is trucks. That means large displacement and slow turning... oriented around low-speed torque. That does not make an engine of interest for our kind of cars.

Later development might include a less pedestrian cylinder head... more breathing... higher RPM. But not at first given the constraints and market pressures Ford has to live within. Remember, Hurricane is intended to answer the needs of several hundred thousand buyers (high volume and high profit per unit) a year - not ten thousand buyers with minimal profit returns.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the existing modular lineup - at least in 4.6 (and 5.0) form (I'm not interested in the absurdly long-stroke 5.4). It is limited in displacement - but it is competitive against like displacement (that does not mean a GM 5.7 or 6 liter engine).

A problem with the modular engine is that evolution of it has essentially come to a stop. The 4V cylinder head is all but identical to the head when it was first introduced to production 12 years ago. Yes, some minor differences have taken place - the inlet tract, minor changes to water passages (and not enough, only the Ford GT head has the most even cooling properties). But, nothing major in terms of evolution. There is a fundamental issue with the head, and that's the location and positioning of the 4 valves. They limit airflow. Ford created an experimental version of the head with the valves repositioned over the bores so that they could breath considerably better (this is all publicly documented in an interesting and very worthwhile engineering paper). Ford also built (courtesy of engineering partner Yamaha) an experimental 5-valve head (with variable intake cam timing) that offered considerably better breathing. But, none of this has gone into the run-of-the-mill production heads. Evolution has all but come to a stop.

Serious evolution never took place on the 2-valve head. Sure, better breathing in the PI version, but not much else. The 3-valve head is a compromise and represents the most money Ford has invested in the entire modular cylinder head line - but even it's a compromise, a placeholder. Cam phasing is the largest benefit - but it's not the most optimum variable cam timing because it has to move the intake and exhaust together.

Take a look around the rest of the industry to what's happening to modern OHC engines - BMW for example. There's a lot of evolution that has taken place there that provides a lot of dividends - and yes it is expensive stuff. Variable intake and exhaust (separately) cam timing. Variable lift - even throttle-less engines. Simple parts (in terms of development funding, but certainly not packaging) like individual throttle bodies right over the intake ports. All of this benefiting multiple displacement options.

When the decision was made to use the modular line in the Mustangs (and we'd like to think it's was an enthusiasts choice but it had just as much and more to do with budget) the inherent limitation of displacement became a fact of life. To be fair, when the entire modular line was designed, it was thought that this kind of displacement was the most that would ever be needed.

And that's not a bad decision. It was certainly indicated... and it's not necessarily still a bad decision. Will this trend towards larger displacement engines remain... or is it temporary? What about the economic factors of it (development dollars) - it's easier to just increase the displacement than it is to make an engine work more efficiently and thus create more power because of efficiency rather than displacement. That's what the modular line was all about originally, and that's what it can still be all about - given some investment. And I don't mean investment in large displacements (aka 5.4) or cheating (aka supercharger), I mean some fundamental investments in technology.

Technology is what it is all about, and it is where the entire rest of the world has been going for a long time. You don't get engines that are a joy to accelerate thru RPM (like the original Cobra engines, before they got numbed it down in '99) or make fabulous power without un-natural aspiration (for examples, take a look at the 298 HP 3.5 DOHC V-6 engine from Infiniti, the 120-HP/liter Honda F20C, Ford's own turbocharged 2.3 - aka Mazda - with direct injection, or even SVT's 2.5 with almost ~84 HP/liter). All of these are great examples of technology to make power - power that is a pleasure to harness (compare and contrast to ye olde 4.9 liter OHV V-8 - a short low-end grunt and it was all over).

None of this technology in any ways limits displacement. Take a look at BMW's new V-10 engine for that answer. Yes, it's a helluva lot more expensive than we'd need in a Ford, yet all of the basic technologies in the engine are now showing up in their most pedestrian base engines as well (the new engines coming in the 1-series, the new 6 in the 3-series).

These same technologies make for cleaner more environmentally responsive engines as well as enthusiast oriented engines.

There were some enthusiasts who guided the original decision at Ford towards the modern mod-motor line. While it had economic benefits for the company, it was also crafted to contribute to a better total driving experience. I'd ask "where are those people today"? Where's the investment, where's the interest, where are the engineering enthusiasts?

This is why I have zero interest in simply relying on displacement and un-natural aspiration (supercharging) for the next Cobra engine. It's not really any kind of enthusiast move on Ford's part at all - it's simply leveraging old tech. A compromise with inherent limitations and a built-in expiration timestamp as environmental and mileage regulations inevitably catch up to it. A small investment in development funding now for an engine that is a dead-end - one which can't exist 7-10 years out. Rather than an investment in the continuing evolution of an existing engine - one that could very well exist 7-10 years out. By which time it'd make even more HP, be even cleaner, make for an even better driving experience.

So, what I'd like to see from Ford is a 4.6 DOHC engine with variable cam timing on the intake side (with architectural provisions for future exhaust cam timing). A new design cylinder head, with properly placed and sized valves and ports. Extra care taken for cooling each cylinder (one place where the current head falls on it's face). Extra care taken for equal flow to each cylinder (another place where the current head falls short). Provisions for future direct injection (very much an enthusiast dream - far better air/fuel mixture precision and a large increase in torque) (which would probably preclude 5-valves, so I left that off). A modern intake manifold with individual throttle butterflies for each set of ports. Call it 390 HP and 350 torque for now... much more when direct injection and variable exhaust timing comes on line in the continuing evolution of the engine.

Match this with some investment in accessories that can be spun to a slightly higher RPM, and a chassis that allows much larger exhaust headers.

And, SVT, match this to an investment in lighter weight body panels for the Cobra. If we can already have an aluminum or SMC hood, we can certainly afford SMC fenders (technology exists already, that's what the T-Bird uses today). This, as John Colletti himself has said in some of his last interviews, is the future: efficiency. Not larger and larger engines but more and more efficient engines. Efficiency is inherently good for true enthusiasts.

And, for god sake, somebody invest in a transmission with proper gear ratios for modern engines, not for yesterday's engines. A transmission with modern shift qualities. If this means ditching ye olde Tremac, then by all means do so and go to Getrag (who already has such a transmission off-the-shelf). Ford and Getrag already closely collaborate on several transmissions so engineering connections already exist.

 

[mmarfan]

Hurricane... continuously variable intake air flow, creating "hurricane" effect??? Direct fuel injection anyone? High compression? Hmmmm I think Ford could be on to something...

 

[CobraKindaGuy]

, as John Colletti himself has said in some of his last interviews, is the future: efficiency. Not larger and larger engines but more and more efficient engines. Efficiency is inherently good for true enthusiasts.

I think Colletti may have also been saying between the lines that the high-HP craze we find ourselves is just that....a phase....and that the market will soon begin a downturn back to average HP/TQ vehicles.

When you come to think about it....people like us who crave HP and TQ are really the dinosaurs in the world today because there is no real practical application for any of the high HP and TQ cars to even exist other than for entertaining our infantile egos. Its sad but it is true.

 

[jwfisher]

Code name "Petunia" - no indication whatsoever of the final product!

 

[jwfisher]

I'll be perfectly happy to have 500 horsepower.... if and a big if it can all be put on the ground. The last Cobra couldn't put a quarter of it down. Much less apply it coming out of a corner (which it overshot due to lousy brakes and weight distribution anyway)... much less maintain it without over-heating and embarrassing it's owner.

These are suppossed to be reasons why SVT exists.... and it's sole surviving product couldn't do any of them.

 

[jshen]

Thanks all

This has been a very interesting discussion...I hope Ford takes some of this to heart. :beer:

 

[blksn8k]

Mod motors suck because of their terribly tight bore spacing. The bore spacing is so tight b/c these engines were first used in FWD lincolns so the engine had to fit between the fenders. Ford has known this for a long time, but the fact is if you change bore spacing then you pretty much destroy the interchangeability of engine parts that has made the mod motors such a success and so profitable for Ford.

Wow. I almost can't believe I actually read this. I tried to make this exact same arguement at least four years ago and nobody wanted to hear it. Everybody was clamouring for the 5.4L in the Mustang and I said it was not a performance design due to the rediculously long stroke in comparison to the bore size. It makes a decent truck engine but even in that application to get a larger displacement than 5.4L Ford did the only practical thing they could, they added two more cylinders to make the 6.8L V-10. The only problem with that is it would no longer fit in the F150 engine bay.
The mod motor was a good design for its original intended purpose which was as a relatively small dispacement powerplant with adequate torque for large sedans. But it has been a compromise in one way or another in almost every other application Ford has tried to use it in.
The other thing I find amazing is the sheer size of the mod motor heads. Good grief. Ford needs to look no farther than Jaguar to see how to design a proper 4V head.

 

[jwfisher]

Speaking of Jaguar's V-8, that is a vastly superior engine design over the Ford mod motor. It's making 450 horses in supercharged form in '06, and Astin Martin's new 4.3 liter variant is making a but under 400 in naturally aspirated form. All of this form an aluminum block that is plenty strong to cintinue developing. And, obviously (except in 3.9 form) has a long life ahead of it.

And, note too, that our own version of it - the 3.9 form - is produced here already. It's interchangable with the Jag parts, which means it could be made as large as 4.4 liters using existing off-the-shelf design.

 

[biminiLX]

Grandestang, jwfisher, everybody else too...good posts.
Couple questions:
1) Why is the 'hurricane' style engine still a few years out. I would assume that Ford could simply design a block with bigger bore spacing and adjust all other dimensions accordingly, maintaining the interchangability of the 'mod' motor while allowing evolution of a solid engine series.
2) jwfisher: I like your ideas of further technology, but imagine your ideas using a V8 with bore spacing that allows the added displacement. I think your ideas sound great, but I believe that in the US simply adding displacement NOW while continuing technology in the future makes more sense. Remember, European engine design (more efficient, less c.i.d.) is largely fueled by size restrictions. I like their ideas very much, but imagine them on a 6+ litre (haha) motor.
3) What size bore does the Jag use?
Good discussion. -James

 

[cobra4b]

What's direct injection.... I have eight fuel injectors...don't you?

 

[mmarfan]

What's direct injection.... I have eight fuel injectors...don't you?

This is a new technology that will be used on the 2006 MazdaSpeed6. This technology actually places the injector inside the combustion chamber. This helps with the mixture and ionization. It also reduces the chance of pre-ignition due to the fact that it has a slight cooling effect on the chamber. It will be used to up the compression ratio, be able to achieve slightly better fuel economy, and run on a lower grade of gasoline then expected. Higher c/r can mean better low-end torque as well. Although it is being used on turbocharged engines, I can't see why it won't be used on N/A engines for the future. BTW, the c/r of the MazdaSpeed6 is an incredible 9.5:1.

Check out the vid clip under engine: http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=mazdaSpeed6