Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

[BigWillieStyle]

Alright this is a bit of an open ended discussion. I'm only scratching the surface but the Ford Modular Engine I'm most interested in is the 5.4L in the 2000 Cobra R and its similarities or what could be learned from the 97-2001 pre-coyote and forced induction Mustangs 2003-Present. I know a lot of people run Ford EDIS with Megasquirt, but that might be moving too far ahead as I haven't fully covered the fundamentals of why I think these two engines might have more in common than the M119 does with the Porsche 928 32V V8.

My thinking goes something like this, all Ford Modular Engines from 1965 onwards essentially are Cosworth derived Keith Duckworth designed technology. Twenty-years later Mercedes hires Cosworth for the w201 as we all know to further develop the cylinder head camshaft combination mantra so to speak... Then Mercedes ditches the SOHC M117 for a DOHC 32V, and does anyone know if the camshaft profiles on the 102.983/990 are anything similar to what is in any of the more aggressive m119 versions? Lastly, Mercedes goes back to the SOHC M113 technology circa-1998 because its 30% cheaper to build, more EPA friendly, and it plugs well with the Daimler-Chrysler bread-and-butter that looked so good on paper at that point in time.

For anyone who doesn't know Keith Duckworth + Mike Costin = Cosworth. Feel free to fill in any gaps if anyone here knew Mr. Duckworth OBE personally.

Any thoughts??? Bueller??? Is 7500rpm out of the question with the right top end breathing modifications?

I'm sort of babbling and this may belong in the Performance Modification Forums or it might not even be on topic, but is the Mercedes M119 really all that different, mechanically speaking, from a 2000 Mustang Cobra R engine outside of the 400cc in displacement, coil-on-plug ignition, and its obdii compatibility?

 

[BigWillieStyle]

If someone wants to say well "They only made 300 Mustang Cobra R's in 2000." I know this, it was a limited one off, but most of what is implemented on this version as performance enhancements can be readily implemented on other Modular Fords of the same period.

 

[gsxr]

Any thoughts??? Bueller??? Is 7500rpm out of the question with the right top end breathing modifications?

It's already been done on race engines. Sure, 7500+ is possible but it will sacrifice low-end torque. Great on the track, not so much on the street.

I'm sort of babbling and this may belong in the Performance Modification Forums or it might not even be on topic, but is the Mercedes M119 really all that different, mechanically speaking, from a 2000 Mustang Cobra R engine outside of the 400cc in displacement, coil-on-plug ignition, and its obdii compatibility?

The M119 is closer to the Coyote engine, IMO. As discussed here... start with post #'s 107 and 109.

 

[BigWillieStyle]

Re: Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

Thanks, I'll look into it. As a precursor though for some reason this is totally from physical appearance, I haven't looked into the details on the Coyote upper and lower intake manifolds but it appears to be a successor of the SHO Yamaha V6 & V8, more so than the traditional Modular Ford V8s. On the other hand supposedly those things can Rev like crazy according to two older gentlemen I know who drove the first gen SHO Taurus.

Nonetheless you make a good point with the 4-speed box 7500rpm and above provides limited advantages.

Sent from my Fire Phone using Tapatalk

 

[samiam44]

Re: Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

I think you'll encounter oil pump cavitation issues above 7 k.



Michael

 

[BigWillieStyle]

Re: Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

Michael,

Thanks for the knowledge. Bear with me I have a fin/acct background, and hadn't was unaware of cavitation but please let me know if my interpretation is correct or invalid:

Due to increased speed aka RPMs bubbles/vapor get into the oil therefore altering viscosity and traditional heat characteristics as a result causing increased wear and tear to mechanical components, possibly causing the engine to eat or consume oil requiring additional oil changes or adding an extra quart on a regular basis? Also vaporization, I know in a lot of turbo applications and even on LSX engines "I think" have an oil catch can, I'm aware of the location in turbo applications but for naturally aspirated engines is there an alternative location to implement such a device to counteract the engine oil cavitation and/or consumption, or is it strictly related to the current mechanical device aka oil pump? I wouldn't think it would be as simple as just changing the type of oil but if it is let me know if I'm way overanalyzing?

Thanks,
Ryan

Sent from my Fire Phone using Tapatalk

 

[Raffaelli]

I would think 7500 is very doable.

But, your not going to do it on a factory PCM and ignition system. And probably not on the factory intake either.

I wouldn't worry about oil issues till you see them.

Sort of related, I have a 1982 toyota truck. 22r 4 cyl motor. Thing has heavy pistons, a long stroke (89mm) crank. Mexican gardeners truck. Valve train work, head swap, ported, it spins over 7000 rpm easily. Sounds like a Chain saw. I'm sure a m119 can be uncorked to do better.

I would think 7500-8500 could be done on a factory m119 short block, with a little head work and of course the external supporting stuff. Only one way to find out...

 

[lowman]

for the record....the Cosworth name hails from Keith Duck WORTH, and Mike COStin......they formed the Company COSWORTH together..and both are Equal when it comes to havin their name in the Cosworth name.

They both worked for Lotus back in the late fifty"s

 

[BigWillieStyle]

Yeah the Queerbox, no pun intended was one of Duckworth's projects while still under the wings of Coin. BTW "oil cavitation" I like how someone drops a big word like cavitation, without any additional edification... Sounds like water cooler hee-haw. Found this article, read "Paragraph 12" I think it is about the oil pan. It'd be interesting to compare pans, also then see the evolution of Ford Pans from 1996 to the new Flat-Plane Duck Sauce on this week's Leno's webisode. http://www.motortrend.com/news/1996-305hp-ford-mustang/ Yes I called the new GT350 Ducksauce... Mike Costin from what I can gather, his biggest contribution to the evolution of Cosworth was a large helping of "political correctness" to offset Keith's poignant and belligerent moments of brilliance. Colin was there to provide motivational inspiration for the first 20 years. I know it was a seperate company but its all the same pub you know what I'm sayin'

 

[sheward]

The "someone" you are referring to is an engineer who I believe is employed in the aviation field and has been a valuable source of knowledge here for quite some time. Most likely he withheld edification due to the fact this topic has been discussed in depth previously. See GSXRs link provided.

drew

 

[BigWillieStyle]

Re: Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

I'm just saying... I put an open well thought out explanation on my understanding of cavitation out there to see if my thought process was correct looking for confirmation and/or to be corrected and it was radio silence.

Sent from my Fire Phone using Tapatalk

 

[BigWillieStyle]

Re: Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

Also this is just my experience US educated and employed Aviation Engineers are always under the direct or indirect scrutiny/oversight of DoD from public sector and NTSB in the private sector and both agencies are not very comfortable with all things related to the word "change" in my opinion. While I'm not an aviation engineer, I do know one relatively well. Academically he has a doctorate and professionally he has spent the past 15 years at Wright-Patterson, my opinions only stem from conversations with him and conclusions drawn leveraging my own education and business experience to draw a conclusion on what drives bottom line net income for various entities.

Sent from my Fire Phone using Tapatalk

 

[Klink]

Re: Duckworth Derivatives - M102 & M119 to Ford Modular Engines

Also this is just my experience US educated and employed Aviation Engineers are always under the direct or indirect scrutiny/oversight of DoD from public sector and NTSB in the private sector

And you'd better believe we keep a jaundiced eye on him, too...

 

[sheward]

Both of you are in possession of more knowledge than I on the subject. I just wanted to make it known that folks here deserve a certain level of respect. There is not much, if any, watercooler He haw here. It gets called out quickly. Carry on...

drew

 

[BigWillieStyle]

Interesting Read on Piston Speed

http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/SteveWmaxpistonspeed.html


Calculating maximum RPM limits, by SteveW (steve'66)

Why can a Ford 289 rev safely to over 7,000 rpm with the same stock
components as a Ford 351 that will grenade well below that rpm? The answer
is based on piston speed. In other words the rate at which the piston
travels up and down the cylinder, measured in feet per minute. At higher
rpms, the piston travels from 0 to over 100 mph and back to 0 during each
stroke. The longer the stroke the faster the piston has to travel to cover
the distance of its stroke during the engine's revolution. If piston speed
is higher than the limits of the crank, rods and pistons, the strain will
result in failure.

The formula for calculating piston speed is: STROKE times RPM divided by 6.

As an example , a 289 has a 2.87" stroke. To figure out the piston speed at
7000 rpm, multiply 2.87 by 7000, then divide divide by 6. The answer is
3,348 feet per minute.

A 351 has a 3.5" stroke. And its piston speed at 7000 rpm is 4,083 feet per
minute.

The pistons in the 351 will be travelling 735 feet per minute faster than the
289 at 7000 rpm. Creating much more load stress, and in this case failure.


The following maximum piston speeds are from the book, Performance Tuning in
Theory and Practice, by A.G.Bell.

Stock Motor - 3,500 fpm (cast crank, stock rods and cast
piston)
Heavy Duty Motor - 4,000 fpm (forged crank, peened rods w/ good
bolts, forged piston)
Drag Racing Motor - 5,000 fpm (forged crank, alum rods, lighweight
pistons, etc.)


Also

http://www.billzilla.org/2v4v.htm

 

[sheward]

Interesting stuff! I'll soon find time to read the rest of it. Thanks.

drew

 

[gsxr]

M119 factory rev limit = 6350 (brief governed limit), aftermarket chip bumps this to 6600. FPM's below, rounded to nearest 50:


M119 5.0L = 85mm stroke (3.35")
At 6350rpm, the fpm is ~3500. (6600rpm = ~3700)

M119 6.0L = 94.8mm stroke (3.73")
At 6350rpm, the fpm is ~3950. (6600rpm = ~4100)

M119 6.4L = 100mm stroke (3.94")
At 6350rpm, the fpm is ~4150. (6600rpm = ~4350)


I believe the M119 uses forged crank, rods, & pistons but I'm not 100% certain. Does anyone know the stroke on the 4.2L?

 

[BigWillieStyle]

I know the rods and crank are forged. I have it in German somewhere, not sure about the pistons. I think 7000rpm is safely doable under stock internals. I think Jono mention in one post somewhere the stock pistons are a bit antiquated, and technology has evolved significantly since the early 1990s. I apologize if I'm misquoting, this is off of memory.

Most dyno graphs I've seen show 6K as the cliffhanger. I think given the right top-end specifications an extra 1000rpm would provide substantial wiggle room to the typical 260-280whp dyno graphs of healthy relatively stock M119 engines.

 

[BigWillieStyle]

I know the rods and crank are forged. I have it in German somewhere, not sure about the pistons. I think 7000rpm is safely doable under stock internals. I think Jono mention in one post somewhere the stock pistons are a bit antiquated, and technology has evolved significantly since the early 1990s. I apologize if I'm misquoting, this is off of memory.

Most dyno graphs I've seen show 6K as the cliffhanger. I think given the right top-end specifications an extra 1000rpm would provide substantial wiggle room to the typical 260-280whp dyno graphs of healthy relatively stock M119 engines.

Here are some scribbles from the other day.

 

[gasers]

Pistons are cast....

 

[gsxr]

Stock 5.0L engines pull decently well to 6350rpm redline. The power does drop off after 6k but it doesn't fall off a cliff. My dyno testing shows the 92 engine falls off a bit more starting around 5800, likely due to the heavier internal components compared to the 93-up, but it's not a big difference.

I found M119.960 factory docs which confirm the 5.0 pistons are cast with iron-coated running surfaces. Does anyone know if the AMG 6.0 pistons were forged? Jono?

 

[jhodg5ck]

factory E60...got me. Our 6L pistons from Mahle etc, yes.

 

[BigWillieStyle]

A bit of a follow-up

http://www.gregraven.org/hotwater/calculators/valve-sizing.php


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3lzg4BEhW4NUnhwYzVIa1p2d1U/view?usp=sharing

 

[BigWillieStyle]

By the way, 4.2L M119.975 stroke is 78.9mm. Coincidentally if you destroke the M119.974 by using a 4.2L / .975 crankshaft, and bore it out to 100mm, your displacement specifications would theoretically be identical to the 1987-1991 Porsche 928 5.0L engine. Makes me wonder about rotating assemblies interchangeability.

Here's a good article about a success story of destroking a V8, granted its a pushrod LS, but the reasoning is the same thought process behind my idea of a destroked / big bore M119.

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/vemp-1203-de-stroked-ls7-short-stroke-of-genius/