Ford's New V8 Going To Rock You Like A Hurricane!

Hmm, you might be diappointed then. Word around Ford is that Hurricane
is truly just an extension of the Modular family: larger bore spacing,
shorter deck, but essentially a new generation of the Modular motors. I
don't know for sure, but right now it's my impression that that means
more than one cam, around 3 valves per cylinder at minium, and VCT/VVT.
I recall a story from year ago speculating on an OHV setup but that
wasn't really the case as far as I know. According to what I have
heard, this a "stretched' out Mod motor. The length has been increased
to widen the bore spacing and allow the deck height to lower a tad. So,
dimensionally, there will be a little bit of extra room vertically with
less room longintudinally and a slight reduction in overall width.

The quote I heard was, "it's set up to fit into anything that accepts
the 5.4 Modular today" and "it's supposed to provide some more
displacement in a volume similar to the 5.4". The extra bore spacing is
enough to support over 7.0L with, I think, a stroke roughly equivalent
to the current 5.4, maybe a tad shorter stroke.

It will easily match anything anyone else is producing right now, but
I'm wagering it's still got that bugaboo some of you guys don't like:
overhead cams . Personally, I'm looking forward to a 427 cammer .

Dan
2003 Cobra convertible
With some stuff and things

Dan wrote:
> Hmm, you might be diappointed then. Word around Ford is that Hurricane
> is truly just an extension of the Modular family: larger bore spacing,
> shorter deck, but essentially a new generation of the Modular motors. I
> don't know for sure, but right now it's my impression that that means
> more than one cam, around 3 valves per cylinder at minium, and VCT/VVT.
> I recall a story from year ago speculating on an OHV setup but that
> wasn't really the case as far as I know. According to what I have
> heard, this a "stretched' out Mod motor. The length has been increased
> to widen the bore spacing and allow the deck height to lower a tad. So,
> dimensionally, there will be a little bit of extra room vertically with
> less room longintudinally and a slight reduction in overall width.

> The quote I heard was, "it's set up to fit into anything that accepts
> the 5.4 Modular today" and "it's supposed to provide some more
> displacement in a volume similar to the 5.4". The extra bore spacing is
> enough to support over 7.0L with, I think, a stroke roughly equivalent
> to the current 5.4, maybe a tad shorter stroke.

> It will easily match anything anyone else is producing right now, but
> I'm wagering it's still got that bugaboo some of you guys don't like:
> overhead cams . Personally, I'm looking forward to a 427 cammer .

Dan,

I personally don't have a problem with a cammer. I've driven a number
of mod motored cars and really like the 4.6. My issue is cost. While
I love the current Terminator Cobra, I'd be even fonder of them if it
was priced like the Mach 1s. I think ditching the blower and
intercooler and swapping in a bigger inch, normally aspirated motor
would make that price possible. So I thinking/hoping for a 6.2 liter 4
valve Cobra, and 6.2 liter 2 or 3 valve GT.

As for which way Ford is going to go, just before the Hurricane got
canceled/postponed, from what I heard the debate pushrod OHC debate was
still raging/undecided. We'll see...

Whatever Ford decides, I feel more cubes is win for us enthusiasts.

Patrick

Patrick,

Yeah, I hear what you're saying and I agree that enthusiasts would
benefit. Yet Ford has had at least three larger displacement motors
that they could have put in the Mustang/Cobra: the 351, the 5.4, and
7.0(?, V10). They did two of these in low production homologation
vehicles and one in a single concept car. And all of those occurred
during a period that a stronger competitor pony car was on the market.
If they didn't do it then what's different now? What will get them to
rethink that model? Maybe the existence of two alternative pony cars
and a clear slow down in sales when they hit market would make it
happen. I dunno, though, it's hard to count on that.

Additionally, now that SVT has closed shop there's no longer a division
dedicated to an exclusive line of performance products to put the motor
in. The only hope, then, is that, like you pointed out, one of the
niche models, like the Mach I, Boss, Bullitt, etc., gets that motor and
that they produce enough of them to keep the price down. But without
SVT products drawing a premium price, I have to wonder if the niche
products won't get more expensive in the future.

I like the idea. I just don't see the incentive for Ford to make it
happen. Yet .

Dan
2003 Cobra convertible
With some stuff and things

Dan wrote:
> It will easily match anything anyone else is producing right now, but
> I'm wagering it's still got that bugaboo some of you guys don't like:
> overhead cams . Personally, I'm looking forward to a 427 cammer .


My only recollection of having worked on 427 side-oiler/"cammer" engines
is that you frequently had to deal with adjusting the valves. That
wasn't a major issue "back in the day" if you were racing. But for the
average Joe, I always liked the 428CJ since it had hydraulic
lifters...making it a bit more user friendly for people who didn't like
popping the valve covers every other weekend. 8-)

I keep threatening to resurrect a 428cj engine I rescued from a totaled
Torino by putting it in a Cobra kit. I guess I should do that before
you need a home mortgage to fill the tank.

Cheers,

Sadly, I never had the opportunity to work on an original 427 Cammer
motor. I got to tweak on a 429 Boss for a few summers, but that's the
most exotic Ford motor I've worked on from that period. When that broke
we talked about tracking down a 428CJ for the very reasons you listed.
But we never did :P.

Fortunately, though, should it happen, I'll only have to read about
those issues . If Hurricane is SOHC 3-valve like I anticipate, and it
gets punched to 427 CID (which shouldn't be hard to do), then this new
generation "427 Cammer" won't require that level of attention. The
Modular families OHC systems are very stable once the heads are
assembled and there's usually no adjustments that need to be done other
than making sure torque specs are met .

Dan
2003 Cobra convertible
With some stuff and things

Dan wrote:

> Yeah, I hear what you're saying and I agree that enthusiasts would
> benefit. Yet Ford has had at least three larger displacement motors
> that they could have put in the Mustang/Cobra: the 351, the 5.4, and
> 7.0(?, V10). They did two of these in low production homologation
> vehicles and one in a single concept car. And all of those occurred
> during a period that a stronger competitor pony car was on the market.
> If they didn't do it then what's different now? What will get them to
> rethink that model? Maybe the existence of two alternative pony cars
> and a clear slow down in sales when they hit market would make it
> happen. I dunno, though, it's hard to count on that.

I think this time the competition has the potential for stronger sales.
The previous F-bodies, while better performers than the Mustang, were
sales duds. This time around both the Challenger and new Camaro have
some real buzz surrounding them. I give Ford credit for planning
ahead.

> Additionally, now that SVT has closed shop there's no longer a division
> dedicated to an exclusive line of performance products to put the motor
> in. The only hope, then, is that, like you pointed out, one of the
> niche models, like the Mach I, Boss, Bullitt, etc., gets that motor and
> that they produce enough of them to keep the price down. But without
> SVT products drawing a premium price, I have to wonder if the niche
> products won't get more expensive in the future.

I think the opposite might happen. Without SVT, and its exclusive
badge, I think Ford's performance vehicles will become more affordable
and numerous. SVT always tried to put that exclusive, low production
spin in their marketing so they could charge premium dollars for what
are really entry/mid level cars. I'd like to see them go back to the
low-buck LX 5-liter concept: top dog motor available in the no/low
frills model.

> I like the idea. I just don't see the incentive for Ford to make it
> happen. Yet .

The incentive is market share. Ford has had two perenial segment
leaders: F150 & Mustang. At this point in time they really can't
afford to let either slip. They must keep them both competitive in
every way. With the horsepower wars showing no sign of letting up, a
bigger inch motor is the way to do it.

Patrick

Joe wrote:

> >> > Oh ye, of little faith...
> >
> >> > Let's go back 10 years ago. Back then did we think there was a
> >> > snowball's chance in hell we'd ever see a new:
> >
> >> > Bullitt Mustang
> >> > Mach 1
> >> > Supercharged Cobra Mustang, and one putting out 400 HP
> >> > GT-40 (Ford GT)
> >> > True retro-style Mustang ('05)
> >> > 300HP in the standard GT Mustang
> >> > Shelby Mustang (GT-500)
> >
> >> > C'mon, Joe. Give Ford some credit. Yeah, financially they're
> getting
> >> > their butt kicked right now, but at least they're fighting back. A
> >> > lucky us, part of their fight is for us enthusiasts.
> >
> >> Frankly, I'm tired of the rhetoric I keep hearing. Ford is like the
> boy
> >> who cried wolf. As I've always said, show me the product. What
> >> happened to the Adrenaline and Lightning as a couple of examples?
> >> Excuses abound...
> >
> > Here are my thoughts:
> >
> > A new Lightening wouldn't have been able to compete with Dodge's Viper
> > truck. The new F150 platform was heavier than the previous design,
> > making it too heavy for the blown undercubed 5.4 to reliably make the
> > necessary horsepower. So instead of playing second fiddle to Dodge in
> > a very small niche market Ford decided to pull out.

> And Ford didn't realize this before they let the cat out of the bag?
> Either way, it's the SOS - a day late and a dollar short.

They kind of got caught with only a having a 5.4 to play with, like
they did back in '93 when GM upped the ante with the 275 HP, LT1
powered F-bodies and Ford only had the smaller 302/5-liter available
for the Mustang.

> > I'm also ****ed about the Adrenaline. I loved the concept model! That
> > would have been one kick-ass little truck! The only thing I can think
> > of was timing. I think when the decision came to either do it or not
> > do it was about the time gas prices were starting to soar. I think
> > those $2-$3 a gallon prices scared a few execs into playing it safe and
> > wait and see where prices were going to stabilize at.

> That logic holds true for any hipo vehicle, let alone the sport truck. If
> anything, trucks are more popular than ever.

Yes, in hindsight the choice was clear.

> So why can GM put out something like the Trailblazer SS and Ford stumbles
> over the Adrenaline faux pas?

> > At least this is what I hope happened. Anyways, if this doesn't soothe
> > it over for you stay positive and imagine a new 6.2 liter Mustang in
> > your driveway. ;-)

> I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. Right now I can
> wander over to my Dodge dealer and look at a 6.1 liter Charger or Magnum.

Yes, that's a good thing... those are neat cars! But just remember
Chrysler wasn't doing much of anything for us in the 80s and 90s. At
least Ford has carried the performance torch, maybe not brightly all
the time, but I have to give them credit for never losing grip of it
during those times.

Patrick

wrote in
oups.com:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> >> > Oh ye, of little faith...
>> >
>> >> > Let's go back 10 years ago. Back then did we think there was a
>> >> > snowball's chance in hell we'd ever see a new:
>> >
>> >> > Bullitt Mustang
>> >> > Mach 1
>> >> > Supercharged Cobra Mustang, and one putting out 400 HP
>> >> > GT-40 (Ford GT)
>> >> > True retro-style Mustang ('05)
>> >> > 300HP in the standard GT Mustang
>> >> > Shelby Mustang (GT-500)
>> >
>> >> > C'mon, Joe. Give Ford some credit. Yeah, financially they're
>> getting
>> >> > their butt kicked right now, but at least they're fighting back.
>> >> > A lucky us, part of their fight is for us enthusiasts.
>> >
>> >> Frankly, I'm tired of the rhetoric I keep hearing. Ford is like
>> >> the
>> boy
>> >> who cried wolf. As I've always said, show me the product. What
>> >> happened to the Adrenaline and Lightning as a couple of examples?
>> >> Excuses abound...
>> >
>> > Here are my thoughts:
>> >
>> > A new Lightening wouldn't have been able to compete with Dodge's
>> > Viper truck. The new F150 platform was heavier than the previous
>> > design, making it too heavy for the blown undercubed 5.4 to
>> > reliably make the necessary horsepower. So instead of playing
>> > second fiddle to Dodge in a very small niche market Ford decided to
>> > pull out.
>
>> And Ford didn't realize this before they let the cat out of the bag?
>> Either way, it's the SOS - a day late and a dollar short.
>
> They kind of got caught with only a having a 5.4 to play with, like
> they did back in '93 when GM upped the ante with the 275 HP, LT1
> powered F-bodies and Ford only had the smaller 302/5-liter available
> for the Mustang.
>
>> > I'm also ****ed about the Adrenaline. I loved the concept model!
>> > That would have been one kick-ass little truck! The only thing I
>> > can think of was timing. I think when the decision came to either
>> > do it or not do it was about the time gas prices were starting to
>> > soar. I think those $2-$3 a gallon prices scared a few execs into
>> > playing it safe and wait and see where prices were going to
>> > stabilize at.
>
>> That logic holds true for any hipo vehicle, let alone the sport
>> truck. If anything, trucks are more popular than ever.
>
> Yes, in hindsight the choice was clear.
>
>> So why can GM put out something like the Trailblazer SS and Ford
>> stumbles over the Adrenaline faux pas?
>
>> > At least this is what I hope happened. Anyways, if this doesn't
>> > soothe it over for you stay positive and imagine a new 6.2 liter
>> > Mustang in your driveway. ;-)
>
>> I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. Right now I
>> can wander over to my Dodge dealer and look at a 6.1 liter Charger or
>> Magnum.
>
> Yes, that's a good thing... those are neat cars! But just remember
> Chrysler wasn't doing much of anything for us in the 80s and 90s. At
> least Ford has carried the performance torch, maybe not brightly all
> the time, but I have to give them credit for never losing grip of it
> during those times.
>
> Patrick

History is great and all, but the bottom line is this: What do I see when
I walk into a Ford, GM, and DC showroom this weekend? Which showroom
would I linger in the longest? I don't think it would be Ford...