Heres a real nice article from Hotrod about the Ford GT.
I have heard that the new lightning would probably use a 3 valve supercharged motor, but Coletti suggests otherwise. He says that Ford wouldn't design an engine and then only stick it in one vehicle.
Heres the link
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0311_gt/
Jes

 

You mean like the SHO?

 

Not what I heard......

5.4 - 4 valve

--Joe

 

I have heard both. The 4V just makes alot more sense though. Using an existing powertrain and using it in the lightning.
Interesting article non the less.

 

Sal di dFord design the SHO or was it Yamaha? I am sure you would know for sure I dont

 

I think Ford and Yamaha did... But maybe I'm wrong..

 

With Ford moving the SVT vehicles upscale, and having a 'ST' version above the normal vehicles, they may build both. It's likely that you may have a 3-valve roots blown 'ST' version, and a full Monty 4-valve twin screw for the SVT. Either of the 3 or 4 valve heads with a 2.3L twin screw is capable of 450- 500 hp easily, depending on the drive ratio of the blower.

It will be interesting to see if they go to a dry sump system for the SVT vehicles. This would allow them to drop the engine a few inches, simplify emissions, and be more durable, but will cost much more than a pump in a pan.

 

my uncles SHO had Yamaha on the vlavle cover

 

I think the 89-95 was a 24V DOHC Yamaha V6 and the 96-99 was a 32V DOHC Ford/Yamaha V8... Correct me if I'm wrong though..

 

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the V-6 SHO used a Yamaha design, the parts were manufactured in USA, then shipped to Japan for assembly, and then complete engines were shipped back to US. or maybe vice versa? parts made in Japan and shipped here for assembly?

anyway it was a Ford/Yamaha collaboration.

later,
chris

 

All this talk of a SHO engine and no one mentions how nice of an engine it was

 

You are correct. The SHO was built by Yamaha. And a sweet little 6 banger it was.

 

The older SHO was a hard car to drive.I feel it was a better package than the contour SVT but still no a perfect concept.Yes it went good for a car of its use but it was weird.Its like the car did not like to be driven easy at all.For some reason if you were not driving it hard,It didnt drive well.I dont know if it was in the power curve or the transmission but it just felt like it was a mismatch.it wasnt a easy car to just putt around in.They all leaked oil pretty bad too.

 

The SHO engine was a joint effort between Ford and Yamaha. It was originally conceived in the late 80s to be put into a lightweight 2 seater, to compete with the Corvette. When that idea got scrapped, into the Taurus it went. It was an incredable engine. The redline was 7200rpms, and it was that LOW, only because the engine accessories started to come apart at the speed . That motor was well ahead of it's time, and is still a great performer to this day.

 

interesting that they use the the same crank as the navigator and had problems with it.

Engines

GT-5.4
Failure Analysis

Strengthening the theory that the GT's new 5.4L V-8 will soon find its way into other Ford products is the fact that it was mandated to pass the same battery of tests as any other production engine built by Ford, from the most mundane four-banger minivan engine to a grunting dump-truck mill. For one, that meant surviving Ford's grueling 300-hour engine-durability testing procedure, where the engine is cycled by a dyno through the rpm range between its torque and horsepower peaks for 300 hours to simulate the wear and tear of about 150,000 miles of in-car use. The GT's engine development team is proud of the fact that the 5.4 passed the 300-hour durability test on only its third attempt (typically engines need five or six tries), even after the first two tests revealed a hidden crankshaft problem that had the design team scrambling to quickly find a solution. A process that usually would take months to resolve and had the potential to descend into a bureaucratic morass was reduced to days, as experts at Ford's Vee Engine Engineering and materials testing lab traced the problem to an undercut fillet on the crankshaft snout (see photos), the design team proposed a change to the crankshaft machining process, and the staff at Ford's Engine Manufacturing Development Operations (EMDO), where the GT's block, heads, and crank are machined prior to assembly, confirmed they could implement the change into the production process. The speed with which the problem was identified, corrected, and successfully retested is a testament not only to the high-level importance assigned to the GT program within Ford, but also to the enthusiasm shown by all levels of labor and management for the project.

About 125 hours into the 5.4's first 300-hour durability test, the test engine failed when the beltdriven crankshaft pulley flew off, embedding itself in the roof of the dyno cell and setting off alarms that summoned the local fire department. Engineers traced the problem to an undercut fillet (arrow) that created a stress riser at the intersection of the machined flat that drives the internal oil pump on traditional Ford modular V-8s (inset photo). On unblown 5.4L Navigator engines, which use the same crank forging, the reduced stresses on the crank had not revealed any problems with this design.