Page 6 of 12
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:51 pm
by hpetew
Just in time for the highest oil prices in how many years?
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:39 pm
by peejay
Newold1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:38 pm
It seems as though the intake description provided would lead me to think Ford maybe following GM's lead and moving to a fairly simple pushrod OHV Direct injection big block along the lines of the newer GM LT truck engine.
As for free valve solenoid Koeniseeg valve train I don't think Ford or anyone has that technology or systems in the 250,000 mile durability area that these truck makers want or need to stay in premium warranty longevity. That could appear in the future but I don't know that they want to stretch that far now with the importance of their truck market.
How about a similar setup like Fiat's Multiair system. Technically there IS a camshaft for the intake valves, but the lobes only drive plunger styleoil pumps, and the valves are opened by oil pressure from those pumps, and high speed solenoids control when and for how long the valves open.
With a setup like that, it doesn't really matter where the actual camshaft is. Keep it in the vee, run oil passages through the deck if you don't want to plumb hardlines from hither to yon. You keep the nice compact profile and simple camshaft drive of a pushrod engine, while aquiring all the variable cam timing/lift you could ever want, and you shouldn't need to snake the intake ports past any pushrods either.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:42 pm
by peejay
PackardV8 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:08 pm
A 4 valve architecture is superior to a 2 valve in any rpm range.
For true, at WOT, but even light and medium trucks spend a small percentage of their operating hours at WOT.
The bean counters spend all their operating hours questioning ever cent of material, labor and warranty costs.
Chew on this.
All of the Big 3's Diesel engines are four valves per cylinder. Cummins, Duramax, and Powerstroke.
The breathing is good even for a low RPM application because with good flow you can run REALLY short valve events. But as hinted by the previous poster, the combustion chambers themselves are superior. Try to get a centrally located spark plug (or fuel injector on a Diesel) with a 2 valve engine, without hamstringing it with a relatively tiny intake valve, or valves so canted that you need huge domes to make any compression.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:03 pm
by mfdcar51
7X engine, every thing I read was 4 cam, 4 valve
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:47 am
by Truckedup
peejay wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:42 pm
PackardV8 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:08 pm
A 4 valve architecture is superior to a 2 valve in any rpm range.
For true, at WOT, but even light and medium trucks spend a small percentage of their operating hours at WOT.
The bean counters spend all their operating hours questioning ever cent of material, labor and warranty costs.
Chew on this.
All of the Big 3's Diesel engines are four valves per cylinder. Cummins, Duramax, and Powerstroke.
The breathing is good even for a low RPM application because with good flow you can run REALLY short valve events. But as hinted by the previous poster, the combustion chambers themselves are superior. Try to get a centrally located spark plug (or fuel injector on a Diesel) with a 2 valve engine, without hamstringing it with a relatively tiny intake valve, or valves so canted that you need huge domes to make any compression.
4 valve Diesels-are nothing new... Diesels have no throttle so the airflow is not restricted at light engine loads...
Again I'll ask, in real world truck use, does the Ford, Toyota and Nissan DOHC V8's perform better for the same rated power than the GM LS wedge or the Dodge Hemi?
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:05 am
by Newold1
96blackgt54 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:04 am
Lucky me, im associated with a manufacturer that is developing and producing the new 7.3l intake. Their is strong similarities like the 5.0l coyote intake and LS style intakes such as the low front entry throttle body.
What ive discovered, the 7.3l intake has the same port head width and port spacing as a 6.2l engine, but thats where the similarities end.
No injector bosses, no coil pack clearancing, no fuel rail mounts.
Underside clearancing does not match up to a 6.2l engine block.
Runner port entrance bottle necks down to head port shape, unlike any other intake ford has produced.
Port shape favors a single intake valve.
My conclusion is this...Ford pumping the brakes and reversing in technology, uhm NO! Although it is possible!
One possible scenario is Koenigsegg freevalve technology. Theve been running it for 5-6 years now and implimented the free valve technology with the Ford modular engines they used in their supercars. It only makes sense that Ford steps toward advancing technology rather than stepping backwards.
We might see actual camless engines!
My question with your input is when you say "discovered" do you mean that your company has produced some "one-offs" for testing and such or have they set up a production for manufacturing a lot of these particular manifolds? That makes a big difference in today's engine development programs at the OEM level.
MY other point from these comments is that if this manifold you are describing is the "real deal" production piece then 4 valve DOHC is out of the picture altogether because the intake port shape is not one used in almost all 4 valve OHC engines.
JUst from the standpoint of COST, EASE OF MANUFACTURE and PACKAGING, the simple single cam variable cam timing pushrod V8 would be my call for this new engine. Could Ford have learned something from GM's LS engine? I think so! JMHO
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:22 am
by Ron E
...or looking at NHRA FS/XX & EMC's maybe the new hemi was a positive influence.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:10 pm
by hoffman900
Truckedup wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:47 am
peejay wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:42 pm
PackardV8 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:08 pm
For true, at WOT, but even light and medium trucks spend a small percentage of their operating hours at WOT.
The bean counters spend all their operating hours questioning ever cent of material, labor and warranty costs.
Chew on this.
All of the Big 3's Diesel engines are four valves per cylinder. Cummins, Duramax, and Powerstroke.
The breathing is good even for a low RPM application because with good flow you can run REALLY short valve events. But as hinted by the previous poster, the combustion chambers themselves are superior. Try to get a centrally located spark plug (or fuel injector on a Diesel) with a 2 valve engine, without hamstringing it with a relatively tiny intake valve, or valves so canted that you need huge domes to make any compression.
4 valve Diesels-are nothing new... Diesels have no throttle so the airflow is not restricted at light engine loads...
Again I'll ask, in real world truck use, does the Ford, Toyota and Nissan DOHC V8's perform better for the same rated power than the GM LS wedge or the Dodge Hemi?
Throttle by wire changes all of that. Lots of newer set ups run around at part throttle with wipe open throttle blades to reduce pumping losses. The Superbike teams do the same under deceleration to control how much engine braking they have. They call it “dynamic deceleration”. Where allowed (like F1, some World Endurance stuff), they are doing the same. It obviously happens under acceleration for wheelie and traction control. When throttle opening, ignition, and fuel are decoupled, you can do all sorts of cool stuff.
If you talk to a Superbike team about it, you realize how archaic cable throttles are and how much you can do when you let the computer control them from a performance standpoint.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:30 pm
by Brian P
peejay wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:39 pm
Newold1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:38 pm
It seems as though the intake description provided would lead me to think Ford maybe following GM's lead and moving to a fairly simple pushrod OHV Direct injection big block along the lines of the newer GM LT truck engine.
As for free valve solenoid Koeniseeg valve train I don't think Ford or anyone has that technology or systems in the 250,000 mile durability area that these truck makers want or need to stay in premium warranty longevity. That could appear in the future but I don't know that they want to stretch that far now with the importance of their truck market.
How about a similar setup like Fiat's Multiair system. Technically there IS a camshaft for the intake valves, but the lobes only drive plunger styleoil pumps, and the valves are opened by oil pressure from those pumps, and high speed solenoids control when and for how long the valves open.
With a setup like that, it doesn't really matter where the actual camshaft is. Keep it in the vee, run oil passages through the deck if you don't want to plumb hardlines from hither to yon. You keep the nice compact profile and simple camshaft drive of a pushrod engine, while aquiring all the variable cam timing/lift you could ever want, and you shouldn't need to snake the intake ports past any pushrods either.
Makes total sense but won't happen for one simple reason: "not invented here". If anyone were to do that, it would be Chrysler.
My daily driver has the Fiat 1.4 Multiair engine. It is SOHC (the exhaust valves are operated by cam lobes, only intake uses MultiAir) and 4 valves per cylinder. Keeping that intake lobe plunger close to the valve actuators probably keeps fluid pumping losses down, compared to putting it someplace else on the engine.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
by Truckedup
hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:10 pm
If you talk to a Superbike team about it, you realize how archaic cable throttles are and how much you can do when you let the computer control them from a performance standpoint.
Yup,take the racing away from the rider's control.......Damn human's just get in the way
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:46 pm
by hoffman900
Truckedup wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:10 pm
If you talk to a Superbike team about it, you realize how archaic cable throttles are and how much you can do when you let the computer control them from a performance standpoint.
Yup,take the racing away from the rider's control.......Damn human's just get in the way
Hardly. The same guys would be winning regardless, the bikes still back in, they still twitch, they still wheelie. It helps that last 1%, but it takes skill to get there.
It always cracked me up when people complained about rules. The same people would be winning regardless.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:48 pm
by Newold1
If you are interested, there appears to be a pic of Ford's new 7X 427 engine over on Yellowbullet technical forum LSX section as Ford 7X. Can't quite tell from the pic but it has interesting valve covers.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:05 pm
by Keith Morganstein
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:07 pm
by Keith Morganstein
As usual with the 2 valve vs 4 valve, it’s like, everybody is correct, but still arguing.
Re: Ford goes pushrod?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:19 pm
by Truckedup
hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:46 pm
Hardly. The same guys would be winning regardless, the bikes still back in, they still twitch, they still wheelie. It helps that last 1%, but it takes skill to get there.
It always cracked me up when people complained about rules. The same people would be winning regardless.
We have a different opinion obviously.....