Fords new alloy 5.4 engine
 

Ford designed an all new aluminum 5.4 liter supercharged engine for the GT-40.

Get this.....

Horsepower: 500+ @ 6000
Torque: 500 lb-ft @ 4500 and 400 lb-ft @ 2000
Compression: 8.3:1
Bore: 3.55
Stroke: 4.165
Displacement: 330 ci
Main journal dia.: 2.66
Rod journal dia.: 2.09
Rod length: 6.66
Intake valve dia.: 1.46 X 2
Exhaust valve dia.: 1.26 X 2
Rocker arm ratio: 1.81
Intake lift: .441
Exhaust lift: .453
Int. duration: 242 deg.
Exh. duration: 247 deg.
Injectors: two 32 lb/hr injectors per cylinder
Supercharger: Lysholm type
Supercharger displacement: 2.3 liter
Supercharger RPM (max): 14,500
Weight: 694 lbs with clutch and oil tank

The oil system is a full dry sump with a 10 qt recovery tank.
Ford mandated that this engine must pass their 300 hour durability test. It passed on their third attempt. The test cycles the engine between peak torque and peak horsepower for 300 continuous hours. They also performed an exhaust manifold durabilty test where the engine is run at WOT for 150 straight hours.
The engine will have a full warrenty.

Ford to Build Marine Engines
12 Jun 2001


Ford Power Products
Press Release
12 June 2001
Ford Power Products Brings New Power to the Marine Industry
Ford Subsidiary Launches New Marine Division
DEARBORN, Mich., June 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Ford Power Products (FPP), a
subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), has announced plans to
introduce Ford engines as the new power alternative to the North American
marine industry.
"The boating industry is ready for a change in power leadership and Ford
is positioning to do just that!" said Jack Damron, President and CEO of Power
Products.
Ford plans to target markets with engines that range from a compact I-4 to
the brawny V-8 and V-10 Triton engines. For the serious performance boater,
Ford will also offer the 5.4L Supercharged version of the "Lightning" engine
that is featured exclusively in the Ford SVT Lightning pick-up truck. Ford
Power Products is also collaborating with Michigan-based Sterling Performance
Engines, a specialist in offshore and other high-performance engines, on
marinization packages.
Ford will be opening their new marinization and light assembly operation
in Kennesaw, Georgia in September. Plans call for the 42,000-sq. ft. facility
to house Ford's Marine Division offices, marinization operations, and
inventory for engine and parts fulfillment.
"The plant location and warmer Georgia climate are more conducive to
engine and boat testing, compared to the extended winters of Michigan, and
many of our market partners, suppliers and customers are nearby," Damron
added.
While FPP has maintained a marine presence over the past several years,
their return as a major engine supplier sends a clear message: The market is
ready for a competitive alternative, and Ford plans to meet that need.
Ford Power Products plans to offer a "Customer Bill of Rights" that will
reflect a program dedicated to making the selection of Ford engines a "best in
class" experience.
"We believe that boat builders and their customers will appreciate the
advantages offered with Ford marine power," said Damron. Ford manufactures
some of the finest engines available in their size and power segments, as
evidenced by the recent award received from Ward's AutoWorld magazine naming
the Ford 5.4 liter V-8 engine as one of the "10 Best" in the world for the
fifth consecutive year since its introduction in 1997.
Ford Power Products, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company,
sells Ford engines, transmissions and other powertrain systems to original
equipment manufacturers in the industrial, marine and vehicular markets.
Headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, FPP has locations in Kennesaw, Georgia,
Aveley, England and Cologne, Germany. Ford Power Products is ISO 9001
certified and holds the Ford Q1 quality award. For additional information
about FPP, visit its web site at http://www.fordpowerproducts.com .

SOURCE Ford Power Products
Web Site: http://www.fordpowerproducts.com

So Ford is going to "test the waters", eh?
I'll bet it's going to be a 351 Windsor all iron engine. Reason I say that is I don't think Ford has an iron head for the 4.6/5.4 series of modular engines. Otherwise it'll have to be FWC.
I'm not sure if Ford produces the 460 FE engine any more.
Maybe a marinized V-10 to compete with the Viper engine?

That article is from June '01....I heard that they already scrapped the marine projects.

Where do they come up with this stuff?
 

The 5.4 L Ford is another example of the people at Ford blowing money on an old design that will never amount to anything. The modular 4.6 and 5.4 V8 engine is about to be replaced because it can not be made bigger in displacement and Ford spends millions on it to make it into a GT 40 performance engine.

The bore size of the 5.4 is a ridiculously small 3.55 inches and can't be made any bigger. You simply can't put large enough valves (for a 5.4 liter engine) into a cylinder/combustion chamber that small.

The crankshaft stroke is a humongous 4.165 inches!

The bore-to-stroke is a miserable .85:1 ratio. Even the stock passenger car engine (5.0L/302) has a better bore-to-stroke ratio (4"bore X 3" stroke) at 1.33:1.

Although the 5.4L has long 6.66 inch connecting rods, with that long stroke crankshaft, the rod-to-stroke ratio is only 1.59:1 . Again, the old lowly 302 has a better rod-to-stroke ratio of 1.66:1.

Building a similar engine, only with the bore and stroke dimensions reversed (with a 4.165 inch bore and a 3.55 inch stroke) would kick the 5.4L GT 40 engines ass!

Good thing that weird engine has a supercharger because thats the only way its going to make any horsepower! Typical of shoddy engineering, if you can't design an engine that makes enough horsepower you install a supercharger on it.

Once again we can thank Ford for an American designed V8 that embarrasses our country in front of the European and Japanese engineers!

Too bad, the GT 40 deserves so much better.

Dennis Moore

Eaton Corp screw type supercharger...

540 hp or so on the dyno last time i saw one running.

the modular motors actually are capable of decent passenger car power numbers but ford is too wimpy to actually do much... unlike GM... the original pre-production 4.6 actually made some impressive numbers in 2V trim... and actually had decent fuel consumption numbers... but they felt it was too *hot* so they knocked the lobes off, shortened duration and tweaked the timing and fuel curves in the ECM

the 3 valve stuff is pretty interesting... good power numbers.. and even better capability if utilized...

i've seen the modulars run on the dyno during the ford severe durability test... one of the original pre production 4.6's went 5 full durability cycles (something like 100,000 miles / cycle) before she laid her cookies down... and ford's spec'd durability run is one of the toughest in the industry... severe beating to say the least.

i am not a great fan of the modulars but they are decent pieces... if only ford would grow some gonads...

Seems to me they are just to BIG outside for what's going on inside. I mean those suckers are bigger that a BIG block. So why not just do a big block and have some reliable HP instead of SCing it and spinning it to the moon:confused:
I'll never forget the first one I saw in a Mustang:eek: till I found out it was only 4.6 liters:(

Re: Where do they come up with this stuff?
 

:rolleyes: Dennis, What exactly is your experience with the 5.4L?

Truck engine/Caterpillar engine
 

The 5.4L Ford engine has some pretty discouraging engine specs. With a 4.165 inch stroke the piston speed and ring friction at 6,000 rpm (500 hp @6,000 rpm) must be stratospheric! The 454 and 502 big block Chevy has a shorter 4.00 inch stroke!

When most high performance engines have gone smaller on the main and rod bearings to reduce crankshaft friction (NASCAR 351 Fords are running engines with 302 sized main bearings of 2.25") the 5.4 has main bearings that measure 2.66 inches in diameter.

These engine specs are suitable for a ultra low torque/low speed truck engine or an industrial engine but not for a $150,000.00 sports car.

But no matter what Ford builds, there will always be somebody that thinks they are the greatest without question.

Dennis Moore

Re: Truck engine/Caterpillar engine
 

Dennis, My question was do you have any actual experience with the 5.4L?

Because I do, I have spent several thousand hours dynoing, developing and calibrating them, I would like to invite you to Dearborn to show us everything that we have been doing wrong you know all that "Typical of shoddy engineering" or maybe you should stick to what you know, 30yr old engines with points and a 2bbl carburator and I even doubt that would be a good move based on some of the poor advise that you have posted on this board which is usually accomptied by a sarcastic remark.

You are just the kind of person that embarrasses us in the automotive world. Do you ever read any automotive publications? (even have a subscription to an automotive magazine?) Know anything about the high performance aftermarket industry? Ever go to a car race? Car show? Build a hot rod? Do you even change your own oil in your own car? I doubt that you are even a car enthusiast! In short, I think you are someone who would be just as comfortable designing vacuum cleaners as automotive engines if the right job came along.

Don't give me this crap that you really care about the automotive performance industry. You must really be proud of yourself, turning that truck engine into a sports car engine!

You will never convince anyone in the automotive world that you fools are car enthusiasts, not with the 5.4L engine, thats for sure. You should be ashamed of yourself and all of the pompous fools that work for Ford.

Why don't you get going now, the cat show or flower show is starting and you don't want to miss any of it (every one knows you would never attend a car or boat show!)!

Dennis Moore

I'd have to say that the GT40 engine is an incredible piece, 500HP on pump gas and I guarantee you that is a conservative rating. Those that have driven the GT40 cannot rave enough about the power.

Along with Mercedes, Ford has seen the huge advantages of the screw compressor and I'm mighty proud to say that its the same 2.3L compressor we offer in our 500HP, 496, 454/502, etc. SC kits. Were currently developing our SC system for the 3V and 2V 5.4 and once again, I'm impressed. Especially with the 3V package, while meeting SULEV emission standards and still producing 475hp, that's pretty amazing. If you want to see them, just go to Fords booth at SEMA.

I'm impressed with the new versions of the 5.4L.

Dustin

Stock 500 HP NA engine
or
Stock 500HP supercharged engine

I would choose the NA in a boat every time. While SC has come along way, to me it makes common sense to keep things simpler.

I think it's good Ford and Chrysler are getting into the Marine industry, With added competition it can only benefit the consumer in the long run.

I have to agree that anyone can band aid a poorly designed engine by throwing a supercharger on it. Look what a BBC or SBC does with a supercharger on it. I don't think that that 5.4 is anything to be jumping up and down about. Lee seems to be proud of his work, but wouldn't you expect that since he spent several thousand hours to make supercharged 500 hp emission legal hp, out of a 340 cubic inch motor. Look at the bore and stroke combos from around the world and see how many of the other engineers agree with you Lee. Admit that you were handed a project to build within constraints to make existing Ford products work, and you did the best you could. Certainly don't try and feed us the line of crap that if you started form scratch this is where you would have gone, or maybe you would have, who knows. Look around at the best of the best, and take some tips from people who know high performance. Maybe you can talk some of the Ford nascar teams into switching over to this bore and stroke combination, maybe even add some more stroke, that would be awesome.

Wow Dennis,
Pretty unproffesional of you. I've watched some of your posts and replied to a few and have come to the conclusion that the only advice you give is what you have learned from other people or read not real world expierence.
Keep up the good work and watch that book circulation go up:rolleyes:

Who exactly do you think that you are?
 

Dennis Moore,

As time has passed I have watched you dispense mediocre (and sometimes entirely inaccurate) advice based upon your "expertise" and have I chosen to step away, as your comments more often then not demonstrate your own technical inexperience (and possible ignorance). Occasionally, I have read your answers to peoples questions where you completely contradict the advice you gave only a week before - often to the point that I wonder if you might not be better of signing your posts "Sybil".

When people have remarked on your technical inaccuracies with specific and "on point" comments, rather than concur, or even reply, you fade away without remark, rebuttal, or apology. As a "journalist" and a "master technician" I would assume that you would be either (a) be sure of your information before going on the record as a source of fact or (b) in the interest of helping answer the technical questions posted in this forum, be willing to admit that you were wrong.

I have watched you slam the engineering of excellent products because...honestly, to this day I do not know why. Your issues with Mercury Racing aside, your apparent disdain for almost any American built product is absurd and, all to often, is contradictory in itself.

Last month, you posted a scathing diatribe regarding Mercury Racings "old technology" (big inches, low rpm, big camshaft, too few valves) and remarked how you wished they would keep up with the Japanese/European engineers. Today, you complain that the Ford powerplant is antiquated and of poor design for the opposite reasons. I have begun to doubt that anything would satisfy you that did not come out of a box shipped from Germany or Japan.

Sorry for the rant, I am just fed up with so called experts or professionals who act like anything but while providing inaccurate advice to those who seek answers. To further act as a knowledgeable engineering source capable of providing usefule criticism is annoying. The fact that it is all done to increase book sales is ridiculous.

Heaven help the poor bastards that send you the twenty bucks in the hope that you can help them.

I've been a mechanic in the marine industry since 1972. Thirty years of working on boats and building Chevy engines. What is it that you do 40-50 hours a week? Sell life insurance? Medical supply's? I will put my practical experiences and professional training up next to anyones for comparison, especially the expertise of a weekend pleasure boater.

I have been reading press reports and advertising coming from these companies for as long as I can remember. In this day of powerful advertising and Japanese and European domination of the automotive performance world I find it pretty sad that people are still so fooled by everything the Ford Motor Company feeds to the media.

Ford needed an engine for the GT40 for their 100 year celebration and the only thing remotely resembling a world class sports car engine was the 5.4L truck engine.
500 horsepower for a world class sports car (double overhead cams and four valves per cylinder) should have been attained with a naturally aspirated engine. The Corvette LS6 small block 5.7 L engine with pushrods and two valves per cylinder makes 405 horsepower naturally aspirated. The Viper is a pushrod engine, NA and makes 500 horsepower!

Dislike Ford or Mercruiser? Not really, but I do question just about everything they do! Any American citizen that wants to get the leadership of technology back into the hands of the American automotive and marine industry should question the expertise of domestic engineering. They need to be held accountable for their own designs and motives!

Complaining that the bean counters are holding them back is getting pretty lame! The bean counters didn't make them design an engine with only a 3.937 bore spacing so the engine couldn't be expanded past a 3.54 bore! The bean counters didn't make them design an engine with a 10.078 deck height making the engine one of the largest (in outside dimensions) of all V8 engines ever built (and it is only 330 cubic inches)! That is poor planning and poor engineering!

Don't be bull****ted by Ford, the 5.4L engine passes extreme durability tests because it was designed as a truck engine, not as a performance engine! Lets install a supercharger on another brand of world class sports car and see the GT 40 race against it! Then we will see how good the 5.4L truck engine is!

Dennis Moore

Wow.

I, for one, am proud that Ford has the balls to make the GT40 and to drop 500 horses in it HOWEVER they decided to do it.

And given the constraints of basing it off of an engine they currently sell, I think the 5.4 is a better choice than the V10. Aside from those 2 motors, name one (that they currently build) that would be a better choice.

Given the target price point ($150k) and timeframe, I seriously doubt that they could have gone to a "ground up" engine design for the car - certifications and tooling and emissions testing and scads of other crap involved in a powertrain getting a DOT stamp of approval and all...

Should they be running a short stroke quadcam V12? No. The GT40 of "old" ran engines based on production engines and the "new" GT40 is entrenched in following the key points of the original. V8 was a MUST. 500 horsepower was the target. Easy to reach with a tweaked 5.4 and a screwcharger. To me it's a no-brainer.

An argument was made that they should not have based this motor on an outdated production layout. Would it have made more sense, then, to base it on a Windsor motor? Or maybe an FE? Not hardly.

Is this car a showcase for the latest engine technology? Only in the drivel we see printed in Ford propaganda on it. Any motorhead with sense knows that it is a 5.4 with a blower. No more no less.

The car is expected to run with Vettes and Vipers. Preliminary reports says that it will (maybe not on an 1/8 mile drag, but in a general street race it's supposed to rock).

Something to BRAG about? 5.4 liters, blower, 500hp, 500 ftpounds of torque? Mercedes brags about it. A lot.

Their AMG S55/SL55/CL55 Kompressor motor is 5.5 liters. Screw supercharger. 3 Valves per cylinder. 500hp. 500 ft lbs of torque. They brag about them quite extensively. (I am mighty fond of them, too).

Ford doing the same thing to their production motor sounds fine to me. I don't know why it is making Dennis so angry.

If Ford was to go from the ground up with a special powerplant aiming at 500hp and 500 ft pounds of torque, what foundation would one expect them to use? 500 ft pounds of torque means either giant cubic inches or soft low speed number unless you drop a pretty little blower on top of it.

Maybe they should have used a hopped up 5 liter copy of a Lexus motor? Other than a more comfortable oversquare bore/stroke ratio and good rod lengths, what's the beef???

Hey, if the cars hold up well, I'd like to be the second owner of one (let somebody else pay the initial depreciation).

Maybe if the 5.4 destroys itself, I can pay Dennis to build me whatever yanks his crank to replace it with.

WOW.. And to think, I paid good money for one of Dennis's books. I dont usually buy a$$holes ramblings..

Scott B

BTW Dennis, I do know a couple of the "insurance salesman" you blasted here, and they have forgotten more about engineering than you ever knew. They are just a bit too classy to rub your nose in it..

Hey Bobby Daniles, what do you think about the FORD motor? expected to see some input from you on contraversy like this one :D Rag's

DENNIS -- What is the biggest cube -- most HP engine that you have ever built by yourself???
I am not talking a rebuild here. I mean a complete build from design to run.
I am a so called back yard engine builder and I have built a mild 509 that puts out 600 HP.
I also built a 454 that put out 638HP
And a Ford 302 that put out over 500HP
All engines were natural asperated.

Hey guys......

I didn't mean to start an argument.
It almost sounds like a Ford vs Chevy debate. A little too much name calling going on too BTW.

I started this thread to pass on something I thought was cool. The original GT-40 is my all time favorite race car. I was excited when Ford announced it's comeback. When I found the article on the new engine in Hot Rod I thought you all would be interested.
Guess I was wrong. All it did was spark an argument, create hurt feelings, and bash some members opinions. And several members lost credibility in the process. One of which I had the highest regard for. Shame on you.


BTW
I'm a Ford man through and through. Always was and always will be.
Chevy builds a great engine too. I should know, I've built many small and big blocks, most of which were faster than my Ford.

Be cool everyone.

I read about this car this past weekend!
 

Very cool and very pricey!! Stellar performance, but IMO they should have done it NA. :cool:

IMO Ford used the superchager to build power the easy way. If it was NA it wouldn't be very steetable or user friendly at 500 hp.

IGGY
 

Iggy this is not a debate about Fords, Chevy's or Mercruisers. It is about people having the balls to question the quality and engineering of American made products. I am embarrassed as an American that the domestic car company's, and now Mercury Outboards, is losing huge market shares to foreign competition. The reason why? Because of the perception by the public that an American company can't compete in engineering and quality with foreign companies.

Any good American should be concerned. Bull**** from press reports and advertising won't get the job done!

Even if a person doesn't have the knowledge to understand some of this stuff it doesn't do any good to throw up your hands and pledge unwavering faith to the domestic companies! The only way improvements will come about is to get in their face and demand better products. I have this attitude because I only buy American products and I am getting worried about this countries ability to compete. Obviously, the status quo is not working.
Dennis Moore

I kind of like mcollinstns idea:
"to base it on a Windsor motor? Or maybe an FE?"
Bring back the 427. Didn't they stuff FE blocks in a few of the original GT40s?
Gary

Not to start a Chevy / Ford thing, but I really like what GM is doing with the Corvette. In the near future you may very well see the 427 badges showing up on production models of these cars and rumored HP is in the low 500's NA at the rear wheels which is 550 plus at the crank. I love it more because I am a genuine fan of the 427" 1966, and 67 vettes and bringing that badge back will be exciting!!! I am sure the same holds true for the Ford fans with this project, and I agree Ford took the easy path to 500 HP, but it is still a great performing car and a cool "blast from the past"!!:)

Hey now that should be good for a few "discussions".
427 Ford FE (Cobra) vs 427 Chevy BB (L88 Vette).
1969 L88 vs Cobra article at the following link.
http://www.corvettearchive.com/
Gary

Some positive news for GM fans.
The new Gen IV small block will debut at the SEMA show this November. GM will have a question/answer event at the show on the new GEN IV.
The GM Technical Seminars take place Wednesday, NOV 5, 7:30am., in the Las Vegas Convention Center, rooms N221-222; and Wednesday, NOV 5, 8:30am., in rooms N223-224.

GEN IV is 2 valve & 3 valve...
5.3 truck/suv 2 valve...
6.0 LS2 2 valve...
6.4 LS7 3 valve...

GEN IV will be in the 2005 Corvette & light duty trucks/suv.
GEN IV technology is all about MORE power, with better fuel economy...
The new 3 valve GEN IV engines are coming in 2006, & will fit in all cars/trucks that have the 2 valve engines.

It appears Herb Fischel was paying attention on the domestic front. Look for 450-480 from the LS7 N/A in production trim.
Bob

Dennis, you're right. The American manufacturers could compete...if they wanted. Corporate America is too bottom line oriented. Major corporations aren't willing to spend large sums on R&D projects that may never make any money. Their engineers are tasked with designing a new product but given a small budget to do it with. That's why so many vehicles share the same basic platform. One design will handle four models for several years and they make a fortune off it.
As for engines, the engineers have to design it for economy, ecology, longevity, productability, profitability. It's the profitabilty part that seems to dictate what we , the consumers, get. Look at how many examples of one basic engine power different vehicles.
European manufacturers are subsidized by the government. Maybe not all, but most I'll bet. Even their rail and power systems are subsidized.
In America we're on our own. There's no incentive.


Gary Anderson....The GT-40 started with the 289 then went up to the 302 then finished with the 427. Powered with the big FE engine it could go over 220 mph.
Ford sold all the casting patterns for the 427. I believe Carol Shelby bought them. There's one company building aluminum veresions of it too.

Hollman-Moody was one of the orignial manufacturers of the GT-40.
They are building new ones from the original drawings and tooling. They also have sequential serial numbers. Their cars don't use the Ford name, they're called Holman GT-40's.

Weren't the Corvette ZR1 engines made by Mercruiser? How come none of them ended up in boats?

I seem to remember a magazine (Powerboat?) that did a project boat (20-22 ft Baja ??) with a ZR 1 engine in the early / mid 90's. If I remember correctly it didn't take to water very well with a power curve like this. I don't think anyone wanted to invest the time or resources into an engine designed to run outside the power band necessary for a marine application.

Power: (s.1) 405hp@5800 rpm, est. Torque: (s.1) 385ft/lbs.@4800 rpm, est.
(s.2) 425hp@6800 rpm, est. (s.2) 400ft/lbs.@5200 rpm, est.

Bob

Here is a SAE tech brief that gives a look at GM 3V heads on page 5 of the PDF file. They are claiming the LS7 will rev to 8000 and be close to 500 HP. There are also some papers on the DI systems and the XV 16 engine. It also seems many American automotive manufacturers are taking an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to technological development due to the necessity of meeting the stringent pending CAFE requirements.

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-111-9-26.pdf

http://www.media.holden.com.au/divis...OHV_3valve.pdf

http://www.gminsidenews.com/xv82.htm

If you guys want to see something pretty cool. Wish I had the money to do this on our packages:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/m...EO&id=1&bhcp=1

I have no problem with American iron or aluminum.

The Can-Am cars of the 70's that ran the BBC aluminum engines were some of the fastest on the track. The SBC has been in more forms of racing than any other engine. Smokey Yunik built several overhead cam SBC's and even a splayed valve head (like the BBC head) for it.
Dan Gurney built a DOHC head for the SB Ford engine and ran Indy with it as well as F-1. The first GT-40's ran 289 inch SB's and beat almost everything on the track. The American racing teams went to europe and showed them what American iron can do. Even Ferrari gave up and refused to race against them. He couldn't win.

When I had my 66 Shelby it would (in it's day) outrun any other small block on the street. It would run door to door with 396's, 383's and 440's. And that was with a little ol' 289.
I had a friend that had a '71 Chevelle SS 454 that I built the engine for. On Baldwin-Motion's chassis dyno it pumped out 450 hp at the wheels and still got 15 mpg.

The pushrod engine is far from dead.
I never said it was or that we should look to the Japanese for technology.
The NASCAR engines do a remarkable job at staying together for the duration of a 500 mile race. No doubt about it.
I just think it's time to persue a new direction in technology. The SBC and BBC are based on a design that's over 50 years old. Even the europeans were running dual ovehead cams and four valves per cylinder almost 80 years ago.
With all the current knowlage on thermodynamics, electronic engine management and metalurgy the automakers could design a new engine.
But, like I said, they are too bottom line oriented. If they can't recoup the the money they spent in design and prototyping in, say, four or five years they won't do it.


This is my opinion and in no way reflects those of the managenment.

I assure you that ALL auto mfrs, regardless of the country of origin, are involved heavily in new engine designs. The US program is producing equivalent results and progress to the best of the world.

Unfortunately for us motorheads, the engine programs are not performance-based. They are emissions and economy based. We are talking about hydrogen motors, direct-to-motion fuel cell technology, incredible advances in electric and battery power density issues, and related fields. The thrust in those directions is so focused that it is amazing that ANY conventional performance advances are currently being made at ALL.

A truly new gasoline powered internal combustion motor anytime soon? Nope, just some repackaged stuff Nothing truly revolutionary.

If you start griping about 50 year old pushrod technology in domestic motors, it goes even further back than that - we are centering not only on pushrod distinction, but the entire realm of a piston-powered poppet-valve motor, which is technology that is not just 50 years old, but more like 125 years old. We have seen major improvements in fueling and sparking technology, as well as inrflow management and combustion efficiency. What we're doing, though, is STILL using pistons and poppet valves.

We've been shown many alternative configurations that showed initial promise. The Wankel is an example, but has its issues. The Stirling and Gatlin-style rotating vee motors were a brief flash of promise until their production problems were deemed hard to produce (read: expensive).

Given the requirements for longevity, reliability, and brand identification - there is nothing WRONG with a pushrod motor. Multivalve motors are indeed a significant performance advance for SMALLER engines. Multivalve technology will allow a motor to be tuned for high rpm power, yet still provide good airflow velocity and combustion efficiency (read: torque) at lower rpm. Small motors REQUIRE this edge over 2valve motors.
Many "high tech" euro motors are "small". This means they need to use high tech stuffto produce reasonable outputs.

A 500 inch V8 doesn't need a torque boost on the bottom end, and conventional limitations on piston speed from a reliability standpoint means that you don't need to cam for extremely high rpm since you won't be spinning it so high anyhow.

I LOVE high tech stuff. I THRIVE on it.
Have any of you really taken a hard look at the Northstar/Aurora V8? You guys got a problem with its technology OR are you just conveniently overlooking it?

And has the introduction of the wonderful Northstar motor caused domestic auto buyers to demand the powerplant in all of their cars? Nope. Caddy had to make a corporate decision to put the motor in ALL of their lineup to keep it from being cut due to lack of demand.

Domestic cars used to lead the performance pack. In the hotrod muscle days, power levels rose, and doestic autos were known the world over for huge levels of torque and tire melting performance. The emissions and fuel crisis of the early 70's turned all the domestic iron into huge barely-running boat anchors. During those times, euro and japanese imports still came to these shores with small, but high revving, cammers. True output was not necessarily that high, but the "feel" of performance was there. Consumers are essentially a bunch of idiots, so somewhere in there it was decided that imports were high tech.

GM repsonded at some point with the ZR-1 LT5 aluminum quadcam V8 Vette. Lackluster sales. Pricing was prohibitive, but GM had cut it to the bone, a loss leader to establish itself as a high tech manufacturer. Praises from all corners of motorhead-dom.

Here we are, though, a handfull of years later with a Z06 (old tech - 50yr old) motor that makes MORE of everything that the LT5 did, with ancient pushrod technology (nothing wrong with pushrods under 6500 rpm).

Tech tech tech.
We all got a different idea of what is high tech and what is low tech.

mcollinstn - very well said