Engineers: Old vs new engine tech

[pjtoledo]

FE


Finally extinct.



385......

4 bolt mains?

 

[Eddo Rogue]

My youth was spent in an '85 bronco with a 351W. Its sucked, but I thought it was awesome, because I built it and it ran. Then after y2k, in my 20's, I wanted something more modern and comfortable, so I got a '93 ranger lol (not the one I have now). Back then anything with fuel injection and air conditioning was modern to me. And to pull 65mph up the I5 grapevine loaded with bikes and gear was my litmus test. the 5.4 triton in my '08 F150 cruises 75mph+ in cruise control up that grade, while steering around Prius going 55mph in the fast lane. Modern engines. I'm much more experienced in driving slow cars fast than vice versa...

 

[bobbywalter]

My youth was spent in an '85 bronco with a 351W. Its sucked, but I thought it was awesome, because I built it and it ran. Then after y2k, in my 20's, I wanted something more modern and comfortable, so I got a '93 ranger lol (not the one I have now). Back then anything with fuel injection and air conditioning was modern to me. And to pull 65mph up the I5 grapevine loaded with bikes and gear was my litmus test. the 5.4 triton in my '08 F150 cruises 75mph+ in cruise control up that grade, while steering around Prius going 55mph in the fast lane. Modern engines. I'm much more experienced in driving slow cars fast than vice versa...

Ahhh... I know the grapevine....spent a bit of time at Hollister over the years...

It is a worthy test....

 

[Eddo Rogue]

Ahhh... I know the grapevine....spent a bit of time at Hollister over the years...

It is a worthy test....

Yep, as are the downhills. Test engine braking power lol. Its nice up there. I got friends in lake Nacimiento, but usually just drop off the Gorman exit to go play in the Hungry Valley OHV park.

 

[bobbywalter]

4 bolt mains?

Hell ..cross bolt mains on a few designs..think 427 nascar . .

FE....many people think it's the ford Edsel series....because it got the big dawg 361

Or ford engineering I hear alot.

It's seriously...ford engine....then the FT is ford truck.

If your a ford guy....they are the model to follow....like the Windsor .... The 390 is the most available of the series.

331..or 332....335?? 352...360... 361...390... 406.. 410....427... and 428...I think those are the FE family...

The truck engines ..330..HD and a MD 359....361... 389...and 391ci...I might be fawking that up....the sizes avoid the car call outs like that though.


Of course...finally extinct is definitely a kick in the ballz for such awesome engines. They are both a high rpm and lowish rpm big block...

The philosophy behind them should have been carried into the modular platform.

The Windsor...385 and 335 platforms are what most people know.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

The only FE i owned, for a short time in my youth, was a 352 in a Galaxy 500. This was before i knew much about anything. The only thing i really remember is the oil bath air cleaner. Most everything else was small block ford and 385 and 335. Both BB i had in my 68 Torino. It was a fun car for me at 18 thru my 20's.

 

[pjtoledo]

Hell ..cross bolt mains on a few designs..think 427 nascar . .

FE....many people think it's the ford Edsel series....because it got the big dawg 361

Or ford engineering I hear alot.

It's seriously...ford engine....then the FT is ford truck.

If your a ford guy....they are the model to follow....like the Windsor .... The 390 is the most available of the series.

331..or 332....335?? 352...360... 361...390... 406.. 410....427... and 428...I think those are the FE family...

The truck engines ..330..HD and a MD 359....361... 389...and 391ci...I might be fawking that up....the sizes avoid the car call outs like that though.


Of course...finally extinct is definitely a kick in the ballz for such awesome engines. They are both a high rpm and lowish rpm big block...

The philosophy behind them should have been carried into the modular platform.

The Windsor...385 and 335 platforms are what most people know.

actually I was referring to the 385 series, with 4 bolt mains.
I'll save the FE engines for the nostalgic guys.

this isn't to continue the "debate", it's because I have access to a 460 4 bolt

 

[G8orFord]

Fun fact: If you put 352 rods on a 360 crank you fix the problem of the piston not reaching the top of the deck, or at least most of it. However, if someone has already done that and you rebuild that 360 and stick a 390 crank in it you will need some really thick head gaskets or some piston milling. The end result though is VERY strong 390 that needs aviation fuel to stop the detonation. A lesson I learned as a youth.

 

[don4331]

Watch your language, young man. We'll have none of those hoity-toity, hi-falutin cuss words around here.

Can we add fancier words like Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)?

@Chapap: Not sure if you got your question answered, so the below is slightly generalized but you get the trend:

The 1.5L engine in your Honda makes 192hp@5,500/190 ftlb@5,000 with 10.3:1 compression/20.2 psi boost! To do so, it needs direct fuel injection and turbocharger.

Direct fuel injection allows for the high compression/significant boost - There is no gas in the cylinder until the injectors cycle, so no chance of premature combustion (detonation).​

​

If you pull off the turbocharger, the naturally aspirated version of 1.5 Honda makes 130hp@6,600/114ft-lb@4,600. So, you can see the massive difference (62hp/76ftlb or 47%/67% respectively) that adding boost contributes. But you still need direct injection to allow the 11.5:1 compression and 4 valves/cylinder to allow the 6,600 rpm power peak.

The next step back is the Duratec 1.6 which makes 99hp@6,000/107ft-lb@4,000. Still 4 valves/cylinder, but you can see the loss in power because port fuel injection isn't as precise as direct, as a result the Duratec only had 11.0:1 compression. The Honda also revs 10% higher = 10% more power. To take advantage of the higher revs, the Honda engine would need lower gears 4.56:1, not 4.10:1 and then it needs a double overdrive 6th gear to slow it down at highway speeds.

But 107ft-lb torque isn't enough for Ranger, so Ford installed the 2.3 Duratec. Which being 42% bigger makes 44% more torque (154ft-lbs) - enough for Ranger.

Going all the way back to Lima, by only having 2 valves/cylinder, reduces volumetric efficiency, reducing both peak torque and power numbers. But there is another significant difference - the Honda and Duratecs are aluminum engines - they cost more, but aluminum transfers heat better. So, you can run higher compression numbers. And the higher compression, the more torque (there are diminishing returns, and material limits).

HotRod did a test a number of years back now, where they took 2 Chevrolet engines of equal displacement: one with largest bore and short stroke, one with smallest bore and long stroke. Heads and cam were the same, mid pack ones for more engines. And the resulting torque numbers were within instrument error on the dynamometer they were using. And power is just torque * rpm/5252.

So, we could make an aluminium 4 valve/cyl. head with direction injection for the Lima, add variable cam timing and a turbo. We'd get about 270hp@5,500/310fl-lb@3,000. (Ecoboost Ranger numbers). There is still the disadvantage of the cast iron block (weight) compared to Duratec/Ecoboost/Honda.

With the fancy head/turbo and associated programming your Lima engined Ranger with a 7 speed manual pinched from @85_Ranger4x4 's Bronco would get fuel economy numbers similar to @sgtsandman's new Ranger - better than your old, but not Accord numbers. The issue is you now have a 270hp engine in place of a 100hp one. And you really need to swap the Lima for a smaller engine to get better economy.

And as noted, you need to changed from rear wheel drive to front wheel drive to increase efficiency/lose weight. Then you need to clean up the aerodynamics of the brick you are pushing down the road.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Can we add fancier words like Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)?

@Chapap: Not sure if you got your question answered, so the below is slightly generalized but you get the trend:

The 1.5L engine in your Honda makes 192hp@5,500/190 ftlb@5,000 with 10.3:1 compression/20.2 psi boost! To do so, it needs direct fuel injection and turbocharger.

Direct fuel injection allows for the high compression/significant boost - There is no gas in the cylinder until the injectors cycle, so no chance of premature combustion (detonation).​

​

If you pull off the turbocharger, the naturally aspirated version of 1.5 Honda makes 130hp@6,600/114ft-lb@4,600. So, you can see the massive difference (62hp/76ftlb or 47%/67% respectively) that adding boost contributes. But you still need direct injection to allow the 11.5:1 compression and 4 valves/cylinder to allow the 6,600 rpm power peak.

The next step back is the Duratec 1.6 which makes 99hp@6,000/107ft-lb@4,000. Still 4 valves/cylinder, but you can see the loss in power because port fuel injection isn't as precise as direct, as a result the Duratec only had 11.0:1 compression. The Honda also revs 10% higher = 10% more power. To take advantage of the higher revs, the Honda engine would need lower gears 4.56:1, not 4.10:1 and then it needs a double overdrive 6th gear to slow it down at highway speeds.

But 107ft-lb torque isn't enough for Ranger, so Ford installed the 2.3 Duratec. Which being 42% bigger makes 44% more torque (154ft-lbs) - enough for Ranger.

Going all the way back to Lima, by only having 2 valves/cylinder, reduces volumetric efficiency, reducing both peak torque and power numbers. But there is another significant difference - the Honda and Duratecs are aluminum engines - they cost more, but aluminum transfers heat better. So, you can run higher compression numbers. And the higher compression, the more torque (there are diminishing returns, and material limits).

HotRod did a test a number of years back now, where they took 2 Chevrolet engines of equal displacement: one with largest bore and short stroke, one with smallest bore and long stroke. Heads and cam were the same, mid pack ones for more engines. And the resulting torque numbers were within instrument error on the dynamometer they were using. And power is just torque * rpm/5252.

So, we could make an aluminium 4 valve/cyl. head with direction injection for the Lima, add variable cam timing and a turbo. We'd get about 270hp@5,500/310fl-lb@3,000. (Ecoboost Ranger numbers). There is still the disadvantage of the cast iron block (weight) compared to Duratec/Ecoboost/Honda.

With the fancy head/turbo and associated programming your Lima engined Ranger with a 7 speed manual pinched from @85_Ranger4x4 's Bronco would get fuel economy numbers similar to @sgtsandman's new Ranger - better than your old, but not Accord numbers. The issue is you now have a 270hp engine in place of a 100hp one. And you really need to swap the Lima for a smaller engine to get better economy.

And as noted, you need to changed from rear wheel drive to front wheel drive to increase efficiency/lose weight. Then you need to clean up the aerodynamics of the brick you are pushing down the road.

Gonna have to pinch hard, our Bronco will have the 10spd

 

[RonD]

Google: low speed pre-ignition

Not common but now a known issue for direct injection turbo charged small displacement engines
Its the oil that can pre-ignite, well certain additives in the oil

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Can we add fancier words like Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)?

@Chapap: Not sure if you got your question answered, so the below is slightly generalized but you get the trend:

The 1.5L engine in your Honda makes 192hp@5,500/190 ftlb@5,000 with 10.3:1 compression/20.2 psi boost! To do so, it needs direct fuel injection and turbocharger.

Direct fuel injection allows for the high compression/significant boost - There is no gas in the cylinder until the injectors cycle, so no chance of premature combustion (detonation).​

​

If you pull off the turbocharger, the naturally aspirated version of 1.5 Honda makes 130hp@6,600/114ft-lb@4,600. So, you can see the massive difference (62hp/76ftlb or 47%/67% respectively) that adding boost contributes. But you still need direct injection to allow the 11.5:1 compression and 4 valves/cylinder to allow the 6,600 rpm power peak.

The next step back is the Duratec 1.6 which makes 99hp@6,000/107ft-lb@4,000. Still 4 valves/cylinder, but you can see the loss in power because port fuel injection isn't as precise as direct, as a result the Duratec only had 11.0:1 compression. The Honda also revs 10% higher = 10% more power. To take advantage of the higher revs, the Honda engine would need lower gears 4.56:1, not 4.10:1 and then it needs a double overdrive 6th gear to slow it down at highway speeds.

But 107ft-lb torque isn't enough for Ranger, so Ford installed the 2.3 Duratec. Which being 42% bigger makes 44% more torque (154ft-lbs) - enough for Ranger.

Going all the way back to Lima, by only having 2 valves/cylinder, reduces volumetric efficiency, reducing both peak torque and power numbers. But there is another significant difference - the Honda and Duratecs are aluminum engines - they cost more, but aluminum transfers heat better. So, you can run higher compression numbers. And the higher compression, the more torque (there are diminishing returns, and material limits).

HotRod did a test a number of years back now, where they took 2 Chevrolet engines of equal displacement: one with largest bore and short stroke, one with smallest bore and long stroke. Heads and cam were the same, mid pack ones for more engines. And the resulting torque numbers were within instrument error on the dynamometer they were using. And power is just torque * rpm/5252.

So, we could make an aluminium 4 valve/cyl. head with direction injection for the Lima, add variable cam timing and a turbo. We'd get about 270hp@5,500/310fl-lb@3,000. (Ecoboost Ranger numbers). There is still the disadvantage of the cast iron block (weight) compared to Duratec/Ecoboost/Honda.

With the fancy head/turbo and associated programming your Lima engined Ranger with a 7 speed manual pinched from @85_Ranger4x4 's Bronco would get fuel economy numbers similar to @sgtsandman's new Ranger - better than your old, but not Accord numbers. The issue is you now have a 270hp engine in place of a 100hp one. And you really need to swap the Lima for a smaller engine to get better economy.

And as noted, you need to changed from rear wheel drive to front wheel drive to increase efficiency/lose weight. Then you need to clean up the aerodynamics of the brick you are pushing down the road.

Just for fun i looked up thunderbird supercoupe 2.3L lima turbo numbers...

190hp and 240ftlbs.

That beats your honda

 

[racsan]

if only it was as simple as changing a manifold to add a turbo to my 2.3 Id do it, Im not sure what would fail first, esp since the bottom end of mine is over 150K miles.

 

[snoranger]

Just for fun i looked up thunderbird supercoupe 2.3L lima turbo numbers...

190hp and 240ftlbs.

That beats your honda

You mean Turbo Coupe...
The SuperCoupe was V6 supercharged.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You mean Turbo Coupe...
The SuperCoupe was V6 supercharged.

I didnt think that sounded right when i typed it. My bad.