Ford Prototype Twin Turbo Modular 4.6 found stored since 1999

HEMI LOL

Twin Screwed
Established Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
3,569
Location
Tacoma
I was invited to see an experimental TT V8 by Ford in a Mustang in 2013. The engineers said this was the future GT500 engine that would be released in the new model Mustang. What a disappointment.
I had a family member work on casting for a twin turbo coyote based motor that was suppose to power the current car. Ford feared in focus groups with current GT500 owners that a switch to turbos for this gen would alienate potential buyers.

I was bummed, from what I was told, it was going to be the first variable boost(ability to dial in a desired power level) production car with settings up to 850hp.
 

me32

BEASTLY SHELBY GT500 TVS
Moderator
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
18,457
Location
CA,NorCal
I was invited to see an experimental TT V8 by Ford in a Mustang in 2013. The engineers said this was the future GT500 engine that would be released in the new model Mustang. What a disappointment.
They couldn't get it to pass emissions on cold starts. But it was in the works. But honestly the 5.2 supercharged is no disappointment.
 

SecondhandSnake

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Columbus, IN
Finally got around to watching this. Could have done without some of the youtube nonsense (although that 68 Cutlass in the background was pretty nice), but my take from an automotive engineering standpoint-

I'm not surprised that this engine walked off and wasn't scrapped. This stuff happens a lot. The number of engines in storage is obscene, so you can imagine the tracking and management of it at a large company. There are a lot like it that do get scrapped though.

It's definitely not an Ecoboost precursor. Ecoboost relied heavily on direct injection and EGR technology- it wasn't just about having a turbo. Not to mention when you're that far out from engine development you have a mule engine that looks a lot rougher with a lot more rough fabricated parts. At that stage they would have had a more rough approximation of what the eventual platform would look like, and it would be downright messy. Instrumentation ports galore as well at that level.

I did also wonder if it had any connection to the GT90, based on some of the turbocharger packaging. The dates don't line up though- might have been something they learned from it, but that program was long defunct at that point. (Shame since I was really intrigued by that program and wish there was more to see.)

With all that said, what could it be? I think the clues are in the packaging. Look how tight and neat that packaging is. Intercooler in the manifold, turbos tucked down low, downpipes tight to the block up top. That looks like it's made to fit in an existing tight engine bay...like a Mustang. No other reason to make it that small and tight. If it was a development engine it would have had a lot more access. If it was another new platform, they could have had more room to play with, not to mention for air to air charge cooling. (Although it wouldn't be too far fetched to think this might have been contemplated for the GT.) But with the modified Cobra intake manifold, coolant ports, oil filter, intercooler ports...it looks like it's made to fit in a Mustang.

If I were to venture a guess, it would be that this may have been a pre-runner to the 03/04 program. That would have been right in the timeline of when they would be building an early prototype for it, and possibly evaluating different power adders. It could have been an early evaluation that they picked the roots option over due to cost, heat, performance, emissions, etc... To imagine a world where there was a turbo terminator is pretty wild.

If I had the money, it would be incredible to first document and inspect everything about it, and then install it into a Cobra to find out just what might have been in a parallel universe. Barring that, it would be pretty cool to replicate. After all, that plumbing is pretty impressive from an OEM perspective.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top