Now that makes sense, with the big gains probably coming from closing the Romeo plant and consolidating two basic engine designs down to one. Though I am a little curious about there being only half a liter or so difference in the displacements either way.
It makes more sense to keep the 4.22 bore and shorten the stroke for more rpms. Otherwise, I can't see a reason for two engines with nearly the same displacement. But, I'm one of those guys who used to hop up GMC 6 bangers when everyone else was doing SBCs, so don't listen to me!
It’s not unusual in the Medium Duty Truck segment, which is where the F250/350 reside. In fact, it is not unusual to have low power / high power variants of the same displacement in that segment. This is really common with diesels in this segment, but not uncommon with gas engines. GM, for example, had high and low power 6.0L gas and high and low power 6.6L diesel on the same trucks for years. Half liter displacement difference is no big deal for this market.It makes more sense to keep the 4.22 bore and shorten the stroke for more rpms. Otherwise, I can't see a reason for two engines with nearly the same displacement. But, I'm one of those guys who used to hop up GMC 6 bangers when everyone else was doing SBCs, so don't listen to me!
.
I agree, as that'd be the more performance-oriented way to go. But I recognize that Ford is going to put a lot more emphasis on emissions, where a closer to 'square' configuration tends to hold the advantage. It's a surface to volume ratio and crevice volume above the top ring thing. The entire run of 4.6 and 5.0 modulars have been 'square', and the GT500 modulars were all significantly undersquare.It makes more sense to keep the 4.22 bore and shorten the stroke for more rpms. Otherwise, I can't see a reason for two engines with nearly the same displacement. But, I'm one of those guys who used to hop up GMC 6 bangers when everyone else was doing SBCs, so don't listen to me!
.
That's what I would have more expected. Half a liter out of 6.5 (average) is less than 8%. Barely over than 7% at the 7L point.
That's my guess too. It's the only early model Mustang they have not brought back in a tribute version in the newer model Mustang.
Thanks, I really appreciate your insights.
Thank you. So it went from undersquare (92.2 x 92.7) to oversquare (93.0 x 92.7), but barely in both cases. And from barely being 5.0L at 4,951cc, to solidly 5.0L at 5,038. Thanks again.
What's funny is that in the Mustang's Trans-Am racing history, 5.0 liters was the maximum displacement allowed for the ponycar class. Meaning that pasting a 5.0 badge on the car really amounted to saying that your engine actually displaced somewhat less than 5000 cc. Could be 4951, could be 4942, proper mathematical rounding was irrelevant in this situation.
