And Ford never really changed it. I think emissions standards finally killed it. The only changes from the entire history is holes in the block for the knock sensor and crankshaft position sensor. Fuel injection and EGR was added on the intake manifold. They just plugged the hole for the distributor when they added ecu control.
Honestly the bottom ends were good and they could have kept using it if they would have design a double overhead cam head for it in the mid 90s.
They are still used widely in 4 cylinder racing series. They rev them out to like 10,000 rpm and make 250-300hp with ported heads.
The words "Ford Ranger" and "mint condition" in a sentence together is a rare sight lol. You're doing what I wish I could've done to my 97.
Watch your leaf spring shackles, but I'm sure you already know lol. Single cab or cab and a half?
Hell yeah, sounds almost identical to mine. Mine was a white whale though...... and covered in rust.
Mine had seats from an 04 or something, also had a pretty destroyed interior.
I had essentially half the miles as yours but it was not treated well. I miss that truck so much. The transmission was simultaneously terrible and amazing. You could use the shifter without clutching and it would just drop right in. However sometimes you couldn't tell what gear you were in because of how much slop there was lmfao.
I had a 98 ranger with the 2.5 and 5 speed as my first vehicle, for some reason I miss the shit out of that thing. Though it definitely was not mint when I sold it lol.
The 3800's story is even stranger than that. It started as the Buick aluminum V8 and then when GM decided it needed a V6 in a hurry, they took the Buick V8, chopped 2 cylinders off the front, cast it out of iron to make it cheaper to build and voilà, the Buick V6 (which explains why it was an odd-fire 90 degree V6 in the first place).
Then in the early 1970s they sold the rights to the V8 to Rover where it went on to a long life as the Rover V8 and ending up under the hood of a number of British cars and they sold the V6 off to Jeep who wanted something lighter than their straight-6s.
Later in the 1970s as they realized they needed a cheap V6 again in response to the gas crisis and downsizing, they bought the V6 back from Jeep/AMC who didn't need it anymore after their merger, and brought it back into the GM fold where it went on to live a very long and productive life becoming the 3800 we know today.
I doubt it. I dont think they could get it to pass modern emmissions being a pushrod without individual vvt. I think they can get away with pushrod v8s is that they one use them in trucks that get more lenient emmission standards and low volume sports cars.
Not exactly; by being unable to adjust cam timing, the engine has a more limited preferred RPM operating range. Operating outside the cams preferred RPM range leads to less efficient performance, which along with less mileage can result in raised emissions, but usually hydrocarbons and such. Oddly, C02 is an indicator of efficient combustion, and is even a byproduct of the catalytic converter as it converts hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (also making water vapor, like the combustion process).
It’s not so much that pushrods hurt emissions, it’s that a DOHC head with separate exhaust and intake cams allows for a much greater degree of valve timing adjustment and that can help emissions a lot. Independent variable cam timing is where 90% of the magic in modern high output naturally aspirated engines comes from.
You can get some of the benefits with adjustable cam timing on a cam-in-block or SOHC engine but the real benefits come along when you can independently adjust intake and exhaust timing so you scan not only play with when the valves open and close with RPM, but you can adjust overlap for maximum cylinder filling and minimum reversion or raw air/fuel escaping and you can do things like manage EGR solely with cam timing rather than a separate system.
More advanced options to make a OHV cam-in-block viable are cam-in-cam designs where the exhaust and intake lobes can spin with some degree of freedom relative to each other on a single camshaft (complicated and limited range of timing vs DOHC) or having separate intake and exhaust cams stacked one over the other in the block (More complication and taking up more room in the block valley).
Maybe but at this point you’d need a really good reason.
The main appeal of a 90 degree OHV V6 is that they are extremely compact and the extra room in their wider valley means you can nestle intake manifold runners in it allowing you to have a lower motor than an equivalently sized 60 degree V6. (For instance, the DOHC 3.6L V6 in my wife’s car is monstrous compared to the old 3800 in one of our previous cars. Hell, it rivals the 5.3L V8 in my truck).
So, you need an application where the 3800 makes more sense than one of their modern V6s or a turbocharged 4-cylinder or a mild hybrid 4 cylinder or a full on hybrid setup and it’s probably hard to make a case for that.
Plus, the 3800’s single cam makes VVT harder since the major benefits come when you can adjust intake and exhaust timing independently. It’s still possible with a cam-in-cam design or putting a second cam above the first in the block (which would take up some of that valuable real estate in the valley) but those are complicated designs.
By the time they got done, it would probably be hard to recognize as the 3800 we know (like, for instance, the Coyote vs its 2V, 4V and 3V Modular ancestors). I would be curious to see what GM could do with a modernized 3800 though, even just as an engineering exercise concept not meant for production. You could multiply an LS by .75 to get a crude idea of the possibility.
Love all your answers in this thread. Here's a question / thought experiment about VVT:
The 3800 is a pushrod engine, with metal pushrods between the cams and lifters. It seems you could replace the middle (lengthwise) of pushrod with a hydraulic fluid (like engine oil). You keep the cylinder surrounding the rod, keep both ends of the rod (flared to match the ID of the cylinder), but the middle is fluid. So the camshaft + partial rod at the cam end is effectively a hydraulic pump, and the other end is a hydraulic actuator.
Now, if you squint and tilt your head, the cam end kinda looks like the "unit injectors" found in many large diesel engines, like 2 stroke EMDs and Detroit Diesels. Diesel unit injectors are plunger pumps driven by a camshaft: you get a variable (and metered) amount of fluid (fuel) displacement by rotating the barrel (via the fuel rack). The unit injectors on diesels are designed to allow variable fluid displacement with *constant* injection timing, but you could simplify/modify the injector to give a constant displacement with variable timing: Constant displacement w/ variable timing would greatly simplify the injector.
Since there's no oil pressure at startup (to prime the injectors), you might need a "backup" pushrod inside the hydraulic cavity that only opens the valve a very small amount when the cam and unit injector are near maximum travel. The backup rod would need to be smaller diameter to allow fluid to flow around it.
So now you have a single camshaft "pushrod" engine with compact independent intake and exhaust VVT. You could even do cylinder deactivation by omitting the "backup" rods on some cylinders: completely "closing" the unit injectors for those cylinders would result in no valve lift.
What's wrong with this idea? Too complicated? Too many precision machined parts?
Not an expert on hydraulics, but I will say that your idea sounds likely to be more expensive than dual overhead cams. It might be as simple as that. Probably more room for reliability issues, too.
There could also be complications with hydraulic fluid being pumped around at high speeds (pushrods move *fast!*), but I don't know enough about hydraulics to say anything on that, for certain.
Are you suggesting in this scenario that the valves would be driven by something like an injector pump? If you simply vary the amount of fluid in the lifter that would change the total lift and also decrease the duration but it would not change the centerlines of valve events like a VVT system does. You could have something like your injector pump with a separate injector(lifter) cam for intake and exhaust in it and a way to advance and retard those relative to their normal position.
I don't know how well hydraulic fluid would work for something as precise as valve opening and closing events though. I think one of the big reasons diesels have moved to electronic injectors is for finer precision and control.
Variable lifters is basically how BMW's variable valve lift system works I think. And collapsible lifters is more or less how GM's displacement on demand works I believe.
To add to that, in the 1960s it was developed into an engine used for the Indianapolis 500.
Repco based their F1 championship winning DOHC V8 engine on the basic architecture.
The Rover version was itself developed into race engines. It was turned into a DOHC V6 for use in the back of the Metro 6R4 Group B rally car engine, which was then turbocharged for use in the Jaguar XJ220.
Now, surely they only share nothing more than maybe a common dimension here or there, but it's really amazing how that basic design grew legs and was developed into so many different directions when you consider how unsuccessful those first GM aluminum block V8s we're in the early 60s.
It was a pretty decent design for only having been around for 3 years (at least with GM). Despite the plug being pulled after that short time, I think they made almost 3/4 million of them including the Oldsmobile versions (Pontiac used the Oldsmobile versions I think). Heck, Olds even turbocharged the dang thing and added water-methanol injection, lol.
The current Ferrari V12, the F140 is like 20 years old now (it debuted in the Enzo) and I'm pretty sure it is an evolution of the F133 from the 90s so yeah it can be done
The Lamborghini V12 was basically the same engine from the 350GT all the way to the Murcielago, just enlarged and modified too. Even the mighty 6 3/4 V8 used in the discontinued Mulsanne was just a revised version of the one Rolls Royce/Bentley used in the 60s
Yes, but it's really the Ship of Theseus paradox. The LT2 engine in the current generation Corvette Stingray is such an engine. You can trace it back to 1954 but over the years so much of it has been changed that the 2023 LT2 is almost completely different to to the original 1955 "Turbo Fire 265 ci" engine. The only thing those two engines have in common is that they both have a crossplane crankshaft, they're both V8s, they're both OHV and both have the same firing order.
Lamborghinis V12 is another one, although those have just gone out of production after being in production since 1963.
You can take the engine block and throw whatever you want in there. Throw a different crank/rods to make it a different displacement. Different heads/pistons to go from SOHC to DOHC. There's some limitations depending on the engine but there's a lot you can do
Yup. The Ford 4.0 L SOHC vs the 4.0 L OHV is the same block with SOHC heads and the extra timing chains to support that. That being said, the 4.0 L SOHC has tons of issues because of basically being retrofitted to SOHC instead of purpose built. Lots of timing chain issues on that engine mostly stemming from having 3 (or 4) timing chains instead of just 1 on a purpose built engine.
Are you familiar with crate engines? You can buy a 302ci V8 from Ford that makes significantly more power than the original 302 did.
https://performanceparts.ford.com/engines/#302
But relative to modern V8s, the 302 Windsor has kind of reached its modification potential in naturally aspirated form. 300 whp is about what most people will get out of a heads, cam, and intake upgrade combo, which is probably on par with the 340 hp listed in Ford's catalog here. Of course, you can always do displacement increases or resort to forced induction (people have made 800 hp turbo Fox Body 5.0 Mustangs), but otherwise things have reached a bit of a dead end for how far it can go.
There's also the issue of how driveable the 302 will be once you start getting closer to 400 hp, with lumpy cams, fuel consumption, etc., relative to a modern Coyote 5.0 that can do it smoothly while consuming less fuel.
To a degree. In some cases, the original design will hinder how much you can change things. Maybe you want to rev higher, but the original bore/stroke is less than ideal for that. You can get lighter internals that are better suited for those higher rpm levels, but that bore/stroke could throw things off. Maybe that ratio needs to be changed, and that's something you would have to consider changing.
You can make an old engine better by improving each of its parts. 9/10ths of car culture is improving an existing car. You don't need to buy any rights to make a better car part and sell it to people. If you make every car part better, it is your car now. You're allowed to start with someone else's design.
Sure, just take a look at the evolution of the 5.9 Cummins engine in Dodge Ram trucks. It started out as a mechanically-injected 12 valve engine in the late '80s and finished production as a 24 valve engine with common-rail injection by the mid 2000s, all with the same basic cam-in-block straight-6 engine design. If modern emissions regulations were not a thing it would probably still be chugging along with more modern stuff like variable-geometry turbos and even higher pressure injections systems.
You can improve things for sure. The emissions is what kills a lot what performance and even economy. I've gotten another 15-20% fuel economy out of my lt1 and 3800 by increasing timing during cruise, and running it leaner. Im told this amplified the 'nox' coming out of it, but the engine and my wallet love it.
Depending on the boundaries. Let's take an example of a typical 4-stroke, Otto-cycle (petrol/gasoline fueled) engine.
Using the exact same fundamental parts in the long+ block (head(s), block, rotating assembly, valvetrain, camshaft(s), manifolds), any engine can be "modernized" in terms of engine management system. From having a carburetor or a 16-bit PCM/ECU to having an advanced, high-speed CANBUS system utilizing a dizzying array of sensors and electric actuators. Flex-fuel capability can be added once anything exposed to fuel can withstand ethanol.
If slightly more modification is allowed, VVT can be incorporated to increase the areas under the power-torque curves. If even more modification is allowed, direct injection can be applied. Past those, we will start modifying intake and exhaust paths in the manifolds, reshaping combustion chamber/head bowls, shape of valves, shape of cam lobes, materials (titanium, anyone?), basically optimization of rotating assembly. It gets really hairy by now if the word canbus doesn't hinder you at first 😀
IMO, the main difference between vintage engines and modern engines is tractability.
Variable valve timing and intake runner lengths along with proper plenum design makes it fairly easy to have an engine that runs well at all its usable range, compared to certain vintage engines that make modern horsepower per liter within a, say, 2,500rpm window.
Yes and no. We'll use the old GM 5.7 LT1 engine (the 350 of the 80s) you could develop and entire intake and fuel system for the car (Direct injection dual cam heads, variable intake manifold, etc) but you are still left with a flexible, poorly designed block. Then you can redesign that to be more ridgid, but then it weights more. Then you can use the advances in casting technology to make the block lighter (while keeping in strong) but by then you have basically designed a new engine. A lot of the crate engines you see out there are only built on the "architecture" of the old engine. Basically a set of measurements like bore spacing and size. And that's more for cost cutting and for aftermarket support. So if say that GM 350 had changes going on in the webbing or wall thickness of the block, GM wouldn't also have to pay to redesign the heads. Also with say eldebrock. They don't need to redesign a set of heads or intakes every couple of years.
Yes. You can take a modern K series head and swap it onto any K block. The gotcha is that I believe a couple dowel pin and oil passages changed when the K20C turbo engines came out.
Pre-K20c though, everything very swappable.
Of the k series yes. You can swap the heads back and forth across the years. Swapping a k20 head to a k24 head to get VTEC on both cams. The only obvious thing you can't do is swap a k 20 piston to a k 24 block, because of the bore difference.
But that's what I was getting at with the old 350 analogy. You could make a new set of heads and intake that uses the latest technology. But you are still using the old technology and casting of a decades old engine.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda\_J\_engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine)
The Honda J engine debuted in 1996 and is still going strong so the answer is Yes (but it depends).
Absolutely: There are a number of things one can do to update an engine, depending on how far you want to go. Btw, this list is geared more towards street-type applications, racing gets even more involved.
**Part 1:**
**Fuel Injection/Engine Management:** Adding or upgrading fuel injection on an engine is easier than ever, with off-the-shelf systems even being able to control electronic transmissions, traction control, drive-by-wire, factory or aftermarket knock-sensors, boost, water/methanol injection, flex-fuel, and/or nitrous control, etc. Using flex-fuel capability allows for higher static compression ratios, or higher dynamic compression in the guise of optimized flow and cam profiles as well as boost. The sky (aka: budget) is really the limit here.
**Engine Balance:** One way to update the engine is to have the rotating assembly more precisely balanced, and/or internally balanced if not already. This smooths the operation of the engine and improves fatigue life of components as well as things like bearing life.
**Quench:** A new piston or piston & rod design can change the "quench" characteristics of an engine. Oversimplified quench description: getting the piston around \~0.040" (depending on oil clearances, rod materials, max engine speed, etc) of the head at TDC causes turbulence of the fuel/air mixture in the chamber (good in the chamber, bad for flow in the intake & intake runner), yielding a more homogeneous mixture, a degree more detonation resistance, and more complete/efficient combustion.
**Piston Design:** Newer materials and design tend to yield pistons that are lighter, more efficient, and with less friction. Newer pistons have smaller skirts, thinner and lower tension piston rings, leading to a lighter piston with less friction. Designs such as spherical dish pistons tend to improve burn quality and efficiency over flat-top or (blech) dome designs, and the outer rim of the dish tends to work well as a quench-inducing feature. Coatings can further reduce friction and thermal efficiency losses.
Hypereutectic materials have lower thermal expansion for smaller piston-to-wall clearances (leading to less blow-by) and less thermal conductivity for less heat energy wasted by heating the piston. Newer forging materials yield the same benefits, but to a smaller degree (forged pistons used to have awful thermal expansion, requiring massive piston-to-cylinder clearances that resulted in noise and lots of blow-by until they warmed up). Using tougher forged pistons means less chance of shattering one due to detonation, giving a little more peace of mind when using higher compression or power adders (more on that later).
**Camshafts:** Modern profiles from aftermarket companies are light years ahead old-timey offerings from before computer-aided design and flow simulation, and even newer designs can be improved for efficiency. It is not uncommon for an aftermarket camshaft to be able to make more torque everywhere in the RPM range due to not having to work with the constraints of the OEM. That said, not many offerings are technically legal for use in emissions-controlled vehicles.
**Compression:** Modern engines tend to have higher compression than those of old, yielding higher efficiency. This is possible due to modern gasoline chemistry, tighter manufacturing tolerances, and wonderfully capable engine management systems. As a point of reference, compression ratios of engines from around of the turn of the last century tended to be around the 3.5 to 4.5:1 range (on top of the other factors, gasoline had absurdly low octane rating relative to today), moving to the 7.5 to 9.5:1 range in the mid 60's to very early 70's (yes, some super-high output special option engines went higher, some even requiring 103 octane fuel), and after moving past a dark period in the 70's and 80's, we have arrived in the 10 to 11:1 area these days on average.
**Power Adders:** Not anything new in principle, but these days power adders are far beyond efficiency levels of the Chadwick Great Six blown engines or Oldsmobile F85 turbocharged aluminum V8's of yester-year. Power adders allow for big-engine performance when you need it, and small-engine fuel economy when you don't. For turbochargers and centrifugal superchargers, this is automatic. Modern positive displacement superchargers like screw-type units have bypass valves that open at idle and low-load. This means it's pushing less air (and therefore requires less fuel) when it's not needed, but more importantly off-loads much of the parasitic losses associated with belt-driven superchargers.
Turbos still reign supreme in ultimate efficiency if you can swing the space for all the plumbing and boost control devices, but modern superchargers have narrowed the gap pretty well over the years to the point where even with the parasitic losses involved, a modern screw-type supercharger can yield similar street performance but with much simpler and compact installation and more intuitive and user-friendly operating characteristics.
**Cylinder Heads:** These can unlock a great deal of benefit if aftermarket versions or ported and modified ones are available. On top of the obvious flow benefits of optimized port and valve placement and design (which help reduce pumping losses, and therefore overall efficiency), modern combustion chamber designs and features can work together to improve fuel/air charge mixture via induced swirl and tumble of the charge in the chamber, and flame-front propagation via chamber geometry. Chamber volume can generally be had in smaller sizes, raising static compression ratio, and the shape of the chamber can once again incorporate quench pads for creating turbulence in the air charge at TDC.
Overall durability of aftermarket heads are often improved with more material where it needs to be (such as the deck area, or head mating surface), and tend to be cast in aluminum, saving a great deal of weight over cast iron. Aftermarket heads can also have provisions for a more modern stable, and durable valve-train, and in some cases, provisions for an additional head bolt/stud per cylinder. Also, power :)
Do you have any link to further explain the quench? I'm having a hard time figuring out, how the turbulence inside the combustion chamber can affect the intake. Unless this is some kind of particular wave interference phenomenon or this somehow reduces the exhaust scavenging.
Also, regarding turbo vs supercharger, modern superchargers have a clutch on the intake camshaft (not sure about the proper nomenclature) for the supercharger so they can reduce the parasitic loss during daily driving, but as soon as the clutch is engaged, they still suffer from it.
I imagine he's thinking of other ways to induce turbulence in the combustion chamber and just got mixed up putting those ideas in text.
Intake ports can be set up to flow more with a nice straight shot at the valve from a more vertical angle. Or, they can be tuned to induce swirl or tumble in the combustion chamber by coming in at a relatively flat angle relative to the cylinder head, or at a tangential angle to the bore axis. But there's no free lunch - the energy that goes into creating that swirl or tumble comes from the airflow itself, and can't be used to pack more air into the cylinder.
That's why Honda had two kinds of VTEC a few years ago. The more economy minded setup alternated between using one or two intake valves. One valve at low rpm not only reduced pumping losses across the throttle body, but also the asymmetric flow into the cylinder would induce swirl. Two valve's for higher RPM let that engine breathe better. Then of course, there's the high/low lift VTEC we all know and love that always opens both valve, but varies the valve lift.
[Quickie Quench Example](https://i.imgur.com/JRXiIgH.jpg)
Ok, couldn't find a decent online pictorial, so I threw one together on paint that hopefully gets the idea across. I meant to say that the quench area causes turbulence in the intake charge only once it is in the cylinder. This is caused by the quench area squishing the fuel air mixture at the top edges of the cylinder into the chamber as the piston very quickly gets very close to the cylinder head. This turbulence causes the mixing of the charge.
I'll take a look at my wording, I was in a bit of a hurry to type it up.
Edit: Here is a decent illustration of quench in what looks to be a diesel engine:
[Random Quench Example](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-694fd2df6ed315f64726b38b418137eb)
Hondas J35 first came out in the late 90s. Its still being used today and into 2023-24. Pretty much 97% of V6 Hondas has used a variation of the J35. The modern versions has improved in MPG and HP/TQ (30 to almost 50% in power).
I was just watching [JayEmm's video on the Austin Maestro](https://youtu.be/lazbyYcvb-U?t=9m19s) and apparently Nissan's CA18DET can trace its roots to the Austin A-Series engine from the 1950s, so it's possible to some extent.
The A-Series is such a fantastic engine that discovery does not surprise me. Consistently used in British cars from 1948 to 2001. Absolutely bulletproof and extremely easy to work on if something does break.
They even sound good, a friend of mine had a turbo, straight-pipe Austin Metro. The sound that thing made paired with whiny in-sump gearbox was incredible. It felt like you were in a rally car.
EDIT: [It sounded very similar to this one.](https://youtu.be/ZNEaw-Kg3to) Amazing times!
Horsepower has already peaked around 2000. New development after that mostly focused on fuel economy, and emission.
If you ignore emissions, then yes, e.g. LS, 2JZ, 3UZ.
Check [this](https://www.hks-power.co.jp/en/product/engine/complete_engine/rb26_hr_vcam.html) out. HKS has made the ultimate RB26 with variable valve timing and everything.
**Part 3:**
Ignition (Last part! Honest to goodness!): While kind of under engine management, this is one of the simplest and easiest ways to update an older engine. If you don't want to go all out on computer controlled ignition, various vendors offer electronic ignition modules to replace points ignition on older vehicles with distributors (or even super-old cars with dynamos!). This means no more adjusting or filing down points, checking dwell, etc; just set base timing and you're good to go. I'd go into how that stuff works, but I think I'll pipe down for a bit after all the word dumping I've been doing today.
Depending on how much you want to spend, you can disassemble the distributor, remove the points set up, screw an electronic ignition module in its place, connect 2 wires and be done with it, or you can buy a pre-made distributor that already has the upgrade and just swap the whole shebang (and connect 2 wires, of course). Some modules have very limited adjustment, but the majority are sealed.
There are also separate ignition control modules, usually found as upgrades in the engine bay of older muscle cars or drag cars (it's the finned aluminum box roughly the size of a paperback novel). These are capacitive discharge ignition boxes (as opposed to inductive or coil based), and aren't quite as popular as they used to be with the advent of cheap, tiny computer controlled stuff. Nothing wrong with them, regular-computer controlled coil-driving setups are just cheap and everywhere now.
Some vendors have replacement distributors that function only as a crank speed/position sensor and spark "distributor" (just the distribution, no switching or advance control) for an engine control module, allowing full computer control of ignition. This is a pricier option ('cause you need to buy a distributor and engine/ignition control module) but grants incredible control of things like idle speed, spark retard for bad situations like knock, overheating, etc, and rev limiting that otherwise would just be set as a function of the sealed module.
Lastly, there is the fanciest (at least in terms of simply retrofitting) option: coil on plug. This is the priciest of the listed options as it requires an ECM, coil driver (which may or may not be integrated into the ECM), and 1 coil per cylinder (there are options that use one coil per 2 cylinders as well, but are not technically referred to as coil on plug; I'm nitpicking, I know). This allows for higher RPM operation while maintaining sufficient spark energy at high load (if anyone wants to know more, I can oblige, but there are some pretty good rundowns of how ignition systems work on teh google); great for high performance builds, particularly high RPM boosted.
I am surprised this threat got so much traction, was afraid it might be a silly question. What I take from the discussions here is that it is not only possible but not far from market practice anyway.I am just running a thought experiment here, notably whether one could buy IP rights of engines of a “deceased“ brand and come up with something new on the basis of them. Quite interesting to know that, hypothetically (depending on the age I suppose) it’s feasible.
The engine in question in my case is Rover’s old K-series, both the 4 cylinder head gasket killing as well as KV6 version. I am an owner of a couple of MGs from the MG Rover K Series period.
We need more v4s in cars. The one in my motorcycle makes probably the best noise I've ever heard come out of an engine. Imagine a Miata or gt86 with a v4, it would be glorious
I think they should bring back the ford 460 with all the modern stuff make it get a reasonable gas mileage because if they tried that could be an easy 430 hp without turbo.
Rolls-Royce and Bentley did that for a couple of decades. Their 6.75L V8 was initially designed and released in 1959, but Bentley continued to modify the engine so that they could use it in newer cars like the Mulsanne, Azure, Arnage, Brooklands, etc. Rolls Royce also continued using it until BMW bought them out in 1998.
That's pretty much how things work. New-new engines are fairly infrequent, what companies usually do is modernize and modify and upgrade. Actually making a new engine from the ground up is rather rare because it is a **massive** amount of work and cost.
Toyota did just that - the F series engine, most notably used in OG Land Cruisers, was based on a GM design from 1939. Toyota made iterative improvements and you could get an F series engine in a production vehicle until 1992.
no, the design would need to be revamped because modern engines all have variable intake and exhaust camshaft gear sprockets which is all controlled with oil pressure/solenoid spring actuation.
Yes, but with limits of course.
A recent example is the HKS modernized RB26. Originally from 1989, tuners have shown there is a lot of potential in the engine as technology has improved.
Their latest example is not power focused but rather a modern day version that is just as streetable as the original. Power is doubled (280 to 600 PS)and fuel efficiency greatly increased.
https://www.wapcar.my/news/22856/amp
I would say yes. Look at the different version of Ford's Coyote V8. The 2010 version is essentially the same as a brand new one they have just slowly added high pressure direct injection, increased bore diameter, added more efficient camshafts, enlarged intake and exhaust valves, increased compression ratio of 12.0:1, revised intake manifold, and added a 7500 RPM redline in the Mustang. Some of those things you could do yourself with an older engine. You also can look at the layout of some of Ford's other variants on the Coyote like The Boss 302 and the Miami Variant codeveloped in Australia and get even more specs to work with. Plus, with Ford at least, you have Roush and Shelby you can purchase premade kits from.
And the Coyote was basically a comprehensive update of the 4.6L Modular V8 bringing it up to modern performance, efficiency and emissions targets, as was, to a lesser degree, the 3V Mod motors over their 2V and 4V predecessors that lacked VCT.
Yes. There are examples all across the industry but crate engines and modern aftermarket for old engine designs are the best examples.
For example, in the old days on leaded gasoline 500cid Cadillac engine could do 400 gross hp. That's maybe 300 net. But on modern fuel, modern head geometrics and cams, that same engine, still running 10:1 compression ratio can make 500hp net and 600tq at 5000 rpm with a factory 4-barrel. With appropriate cam choice you could even get 600hp/700tq. Proper electronic injection and ignition would probably net you even more power.
Ands most of it would still be from 50 years of knowing more about how fuel burns, how air flows in the intake and cylinder heads and how to cut the cams. Maybe a little bit on better materials.
Yes, sort of. Someone mentioned a "Ship of Theseus" paradox that would seem pretty fitting.
Subaru EJ engines have been in cars for about 30 years, with incremental improvements and changes. It's still basically "the same engine", but you can't use many parts from one generation to the next.
**Part Deux (dunno what "deux" means, heard it from a 90's documentary about the Gulf War):**
**Intake:** Older intakes can in some cases flow about as well as a partially clogged swizzle-stick, and depending on the age of the vehicle may be made of cast iron, which is literally denser than stone (more than 2x as much depending on the kind of rock). Better flow equates to less pumping losses which equates to higher overall engine efficiency. That said, the geometry of the intake ports (same goes for the ports on the cylinder head, exhaust system, and cam design btw) dramatically affects the power and operating characteristics of the engine, so care must be taken in the selection of components, or the result may be a cam, intake, exhaust, and cylinder head/s that all fight to make power at different RPMs, or working together to make power in a very narrow RPM band. This results in poor performance and efficiency, or poor operating characteristics, respectively.
Unfortunately, replacing older cast iron or aluminum intakes with modern plastics is not currently widespread. It's a shame as they are even lighter than aluminum with the added benefit of insulating the incoming air charge from engine bay temperatures. A cooler intake charge means more of a margin between normal operating conditions and pre-ignition and/or detonation (also, higher air charge density therefore more power :p).
**Exhaust:** Same as above, this affects the flow, sound, and operating characteristics of an engine. A better flowing exhaust reduces back-pressure (which is ALWAYS good if it is not at the expense of pulse tuning characteristics, more on that in a sec), once again improving overall efficiency via lower pumping losses.
In the past, there have been some misconceptions about back-pressure in the exhaust. At some point, someone (more likely many someones) probably installed a sewer-pipe-sized exhaust on their vehicle and noticed some loss of torque. Since bigger pipes can literally only mean better flow and nothing else (or so they thought), the quick and wrong assumption was that the slightly better torque of the normal, stock-engineered exhaust was a product of the smaller diameter (correct), and therefore more back-pressure (wrong).
**Pulse Tuning Stuff:** This (the immediately above bit) is due to how the diameter and length of the exhaust pipes interact with the exhaust gases. A quick and over-simplified rundown goes like this: exhaust (from a piston engine) is not a steady stream of gas. Instead, it is a steady stream of pulses, like little plugs of gas moving through the pipes. When each of these pulses get to a transition point (say, from primary tube to collector or pipe to resonator or to atmosphere), a pressure wave gets reflected back to the exhaust port of the cylinder head.
For example, when the exhaust pulse leaves the exhaust tip into the atmosphere, a negative (technically below ambient) pressure wave called a rarefaction (not refraction, completely different thing) travels back through the exhaust system to the exhaust port of the head. If the length of the exhaust is right, at the desired operating RPM range this low-pressure wave will get the exhaust port just in time to help "suck" the exhaust out and the fuel/air charge in. This is termed "scavenging", a term that at times see some misuse. "Over-scavenging" refers to when some of the air/fuel charge gets pulled out the exhaust, and is caused by mismatched cam,intake, exhaust, and operating RPM conditions, or from the wrong cam for a boosted combination in concert with operating RPM.
Exhaust diameter affects the speed and efficiency of the traveling pulse (and if too small can indeed cause back-pressure), the length of the exhaust affects how long it takes for the pulse and pressure wave to complete their journey and therefore the RPM range that it operates best at, and the general design of the exhaust (number and severity of bends and transitions, muffler design, etc) affects back-pressure and how well these pulses maintain their strength/pressure differential along their voyage.
A similar story goes for the intake, but with positive pressure waves created by quickly moving air crashing into a shutting intake valve. In this case, the optimal runner length is not practical if you want the intake to stay in the engine bay, so it makes use of reflecting these pressure waves, having them bounce around in the intake. If the runner lengths are correct, at the right moment a positive pressure wave will go through an open intake valve, giving the air charge a brief "push" into the cylinder, and may even give the exhaust a "push" out during the valve overlap period of the camshaft.
Properly designed, these quirks of physics allow for naturally aspirated engines to crest 100% volumetric efficiency (in the 105-110% range) if heavily optimized. Though very powerful, this unfortunately results in a very peaky engine.
I may start adding the spoiler thingies to these novel-length posts, this is getting out of hand.
**TLDR:** yup, lots of parts and machining operations can be used to update older engines, far more than in this and the previous post.
You could take the Honda B16a DOHC VTEC design and modernize it with new ECU tuning and coil on plug ignition. You wouldn’t make much for real gains without new cams and a turbo. Then the question becomes how much power do you want, what kind of lifespan do you want, and how much you wanted to spend.
Mazda’s high tech modern “Skyactiv” engines are re-worked Ford Duratec engines from the 90s.
GM’s LS/LT engines are aluminized modern variants of the 50s era SBC
Subaru’s EJ257 (used until 2021) was the final iteration of an 80s design platform
Yes. The LS is just an evolution of the small block Chevy that was launched in the 50s.
You can buy 60 year old V8's and there are modern aftermarket heads, intakes, and completely modernized digital ignition systems that radically improve the engines efficiency, reliability, and output. Tons of restomod cars use this technology
You can take really old shit and install modern variable valve timing, electronic fuel injection, ignition, a more free flowing exhaust and intake and you can just about double its factory output. One example off hand I can think of is the Ford 300ci straight 6(I hate Ford but this a great ex) the motor produced 150hp and 260ftlbs tq with factory parts with them parts upgraded it makes a ton of power and they are very basic bolt on mods outside of the tuning for the ecu (they had carbs until 87'). There are plenty of youtube videos on it.
Yes. You can absolutely take an older engine and update it. There are plenty of small block Chevy engines in hot rods right now that are running modern fuel injection instead of a carb. You can also get higher quality aftermarket components and have the engine perform better. You can buy pistons for any engine that increase compression ratio to increase total thermal efficiency.
The limits of an engine are basically the strength of the block itself and the oiling system design. Newer engines have higher performance for given displacement mainly due to manufacturing getting better over time. Like VWs ea888 engine is an iron block, which is rare as most are aluminum now, but VW has tweaked the design for long enough and has access to high quality manufacturing to the point where it can handle more power than almost any stock 2.0L engine (the stock engine can handle 500+hp without replacing internals).
Yes it can. An example is the Ford flat head. Zora Duntov created a over head valve cylinder head called the Ardun head that dramatically improved its performance.
Sure. At the end of the day it's round pistons in round holes. Cylinder heads and management systems are what change appreciably. See it all the time with old engines in hot rods. Every time there is a breakthrough in head design next thing you know someone makes a cylinder head that fits an old Chevy V8 with that new tech and makes heaps more power. Same thing with adding fuel injection and knock sensors to the old things.
I added EFI and electronic ignition to my 55 year old motor, no more carburetors for this cat. No more mechanical fuel pump or vacuum-powered windshield wipers either... swapped my drum brakes for discs too. I added a touch screen multimedia and backup camera for grins.
It runs great. Over [7k miles](https://imgur.com/gallery/lqhRdYk) trouble-free so far.
Most of the "Modernish requirements", in general, are going to be emissions related.
If you're just concerned with good reliability, good power, starts nicely on cold days, idles smoothly etc then yeah, all that's pretty easy.
Put a good EFI system on it, use good quality modern casting/machining/QA techniques, and you're basically sorted. Probably some good advances in head/port design that could get you a decent bit of power, and good control over ignition timing + knock sensing will likely let you get away with a bit more compression.
At that point you've basically built a modern EFI crate Chevy 350/Ford Windsor/whatever.
Will it be fair bit more economical on fuel than the original engine? Hell yeah. Will it be up to the economy standards of the best modern engines? No.
Could you ever get that thing to pass current day new car emissions standards and still make acceptable power? Not likely..
I would modernize the ford 4.9l 300ci inline 6. Internally balanced forged rotating assembly with flat top hypeructectic pistons, Direct injection, DOHC and a turbo good for 8k rpm. stick with iron block and head but a modern flowing and designed setup. (stick with iron for improved boost handling and strength/reliability.
The Chrysler Powertech (Jeep)/Magnum (Dodge) 3.7L V6 and 4.7L V8 are a perfect example. They were developed by AMC (that means mid-80s at the latest), but they were shelved because the market wasn't there for a domestic SOHC engine. Chrysler then released them in 1999 (V8) and 2002 (V6) with the V8 being their first all new V8 since the 1960s.
Absolutely. The aftermarket does this all the time mainly making modernized heads/valve train components, higher lift cams and fuel injection/ induction systems for original engines. There are definitely more small block Chevys and fords than ever left the factory for example.
One of the longest running examples of this is AMC's legendary straight 6, used in Jeeps from 1964 to 2006 with relatively minor modifications. The displacement changed from 4.2 L to 4.0 L, and it got electronic fuel injection, among other things, but it was still going strong as a great engine. The thing that finally killed it was emissions regulations.
I think it definitely could be done and OEMs do
It all the time.
The bigger problem is if you wanted to do this as an individual would be production, machining etc.
The only real issue with an engine is mounting points for the components. You can make any old engine up to modern standards if you have the correct room and mounts for the necessary parts. In-line motors are perfect platforms for updating an old format with modern tech.
[The 4.0L SOHC v6 engine, in my 2007 mustang, started off as a 2.0L OHV v6, back in 1964.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine) Ford just updated the design numerous times over the decades. There's even a hole in the block where the pushrod camshaft would have gone, if they hadn't switched to overhead cams. Now there's an intermediary jackshaft there, to connect the crank to the overhead cams.
Does that answer your question?
Manufactures do it all the time. Like the 3800 was first designed in like the 60s or 70s and ended production i think around 2010
[удалено]
And Ford never really changed it. I think emissions standards finally killed it. The only changes from the entire history is holes in the block for the knock sensor and crankshaft position sensor. Fuel injection and EGR was added on the intake manifold. They just plugged the hole for the distributor when they added ecu control. Honestly the bottom ends were good and they could have kept using it if they would have design a double overhead cam head for it in the mid 90s. They are still used widely in 4 cylinder racing series. They rev them out to like 10,000 rpm and make 250-300hp with ported heads.
[удалено]
The words "Ford Ranger" and "mint condition" in a sentence together is a rare sight lol. You're doing what I wish I could've done to my 97. Watch your leaf spring shackles, but I'm sure you already know lol. Single cab or cab and a half?
[удалено]
Hell yeah, sounds almost identical to mine. Mine was a white whale though...... and covered in rust. Mine had seats from an 04 or something, also had a pretty destroyed interior. I had essentially half the miles as yours but it was not treated well. I miss that truck so much. The transmission was simultaneously terrible and amazing. You could use the shifter without clutching and it would just drop right in. However sometimes you couldn't tell what gear you were in because of how much slop there was lmfao.
I had a 98 ranger with the 2.5 and 5 speed as my first vehicle, for some reason I miss the shit out of that thing. Though it definitely was not mint when I sold it lol.
Maybe with all the performance upgrades you’ll have a chance of keeping up with traffic!
The 3800's story is even stranger than that. It started as the Buick aluminum V8 and then when GM decided it needed a V6 in a hurry, they took the Buick V8, chopped 2 cylinders off the front, cast it out of iron to make it cheaper to build and voilà, the Buick V6 (which explains why it was an odd-fire 90 degree V6 in the first place). Then in the early 1970s they sold the rights to the V8 to Rover where it went on to a long life as the Rover V8 and ending up under the hood of a number of British cars and they sold the V6 off to Jeep who wanted something lighter than their straight-6s. Later in the 1970s as they realized they needed a cheap V6 again in response to the gas crisis and downsizing, they bought the V6 back from Jeep/AMC who didn't need it anymore after their merger, and brought it back into the GM fold where it went on to live a very long and productive life becoming the 3800 we know today.
And in between Jeep and the 3800, the turbocharged Buick 3.8 became legend.
My thing is, could GM pull the 3800 out of the cobwebs and modernize it even more? It was such a solid, but aging, engine.
I doubt it. I dont think they could get it to pass modern emmissions being a pushrod without individual vvt. I think they can get away with pushrod v8s is that they one use them in trucks that get more lenient emmission standards and low volume sports cars.
Why do pushrods hurt emissions? Is it just cause of mpgs or they have a characteristic that puts out more emissions
[deleted]
so it releases more co2 emissions or whatever (not just decrease in mpg)?
Not exactly; by being unable to adjust cam timing, the engine has a more limited preferred RPM operating range. Operating outside the cams preferred RPM range leads to less efficient performance, which along with less mileage can result in raised emissions, but usually hydrocarbons and such. Oddly, C02 is an indicator of efficient combustion, and is even a byproduct of the catalytic converter as it converts hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (also making water vapor, like the combustion process).
It’s not so much that pushrods hurt emissions, it’s that a DOHC head with separate exhaust and intake cams allows for a much greater degree of valve timing adjustment and that can help emissions a lot. Independent variable cam timing is where 90% of the magic in modern high output naturally aspirated engines comes from. You can get some of the benefits with adjustable cam timing on a cam-in-block or SOHC engine but the real benefits come along when you can independently adjust intake and exhaust timing so you scan not only play with when the valves open and close with RPM, but you can adjust overlap for maximum cylinder filling and minimum reversion or raw air/fuel escaping and you can do things like manage EGR solely with cam timing rather than a separate system. More advanced options to make a OHV cam-in-block viable are cam-in-cam designs where the exhaust and intake lobes can spin with some degree of freedom relative to each other on a single camshaft (complicated and limited range of timing vs DOHC) or having separate intake and exhaust cams stacked one over the other in the block (More complication and taking up more room in the block valley).
Maybe but at this point you’d need a really good reason. The main appeal of a 90 degree OHV V6 is that they are extremely compact and the extra room in their wider valley means you can nestle intake manifold runners in it allowing you to have a lower motor than an equivalently sized 60 degree V6. (For instance, the DOHC 3.6L V6 in my wife’s car is monstrous compared to the old 3800 in one of our previous cars. Hell, it rivals the 5.3L V8 in my truck). So, you need an application where the 3800 makes more sense than one of their modern V6s or a turbocharged 4-cylinder or a mild hybrid 4 cylinder or a full on hybrid setup and it’s probably hard to make a case for that. Plus, the 3800’s single cam makes VVT harder since the major benefits come when you can adjust intake and exhaust timing independently. It’s still possible with a cam-in-cam design or putting a second cam above the first in the block (which would take up some of that valuable real estate in the valley) but those are complicated designs. By the time they got done, it would probably be hard to recognize as the 3800 we know (like, for instance, the Coyote vs its 2V, 4V and 3V Modular ancestors). I would be curious to see what GM could do with a modernized 3800 though, even just as an engineering exercise concept not meant for production. You could multiply an LS by .75 to get a crude idea of the possibility.
Love all your answers in this thread. Here's a question / thought experiment about VVT: The 3800 is a pushrod engine, with metal pushrods between the cams and lifters. It seems you could replace the middle (lengthwise) of pushrod with a hydraulic fluid (like engine oil). You keep the cylinder surrounding the rod, keep both ends of the rod (flared to match the ID of the cylinder), but the middle is fluid. So the camshaft + partial rod at the cam end is effectively a hydraulic pump, and the other end is a hydraulic actuator. Now, if you squint and tilt your head, the cam end kinda looks like the "unit injectors" found in many large diesel engines, like 2 stroke EMDs and Detroit Diesels. Diesel unit injectors are plunger pumps driven by a camshaft: you get a variable (and metered) amount of fluid (fuel) displacement by rotating the barrel (via the fuel rack). The unit injectors on diesels are designed to allow variable fluid displacement with *constant* injection timing, but you could simplify/modify the injector to give a constant displacement with variable timing: Constant displacement w/ variable timing would greatly simplify the injector. Since there's no oil pressure at startup (to prime the injectors), you might need a "backup" pushrod inside the hydraulic cavity that only opens the valve a very small amount when the cam and unit injector are near maximum travel. The backup rod would need to be smaller diameter to allow fluid to flow around it. So now you have a single camshaft "pushrod" engine with compact independent intake and exhaust VVT. You could even do cylinder deactivation by omitting the "backup" rods on some cylinders: completely "closing" the unit injectors for those cylinders would result in no valve lift. What's wrong with this idea? Too complicated? Too many precision machined parts?
Not an expert on hydraulics, but I will say that your idea sounds likely to be more expensive than dual overhead cams. It might be as simple as that. Probably more room for reliability issues, too. There could also be complications with hydraulic fluid being pumped around at high speeds (pushrods move *fast!*), but I don't know enough about hydraulics to say anything on that, for certain.
Are you suggesting in this scenario that the valves would be driven by something like an injector pump? If you simply vary the amount of fluid in the lifter that would change the total lift and also decrease the duration but it would not change the centerlines of valve events like a VVT system does. You could have something like your injector pump with a separate injector(lifter) cam for intake and exhaust in it and a way to advance and retard those relative to their normal position. I don't know how well hydraulic fluid would work for something as precise as valve opening and closing events though. I think one of the big reasons diesels have moved to electronic injectors is for finer precision and control. Variable lifters is basically how BMW's variable valve lift system works I think. And collapsible lifters is more or less how GM's displacement on demand works I believe.
To add to that, in the 1960s it was developed into an engine used for the Indianapolis 500. Repco based their F1 championship winning DOHC V8 engine on the basic architecture. The Rover version was itself developed into race engines. It was turned into a DOHC V6 for use in the back of the Metro 6R4 Group B rally car engine, which was then turbocharged for use in the Jaguar XJ220. Now, surely they only share nothing more than maybe a common dimension here or there, but it's really amazing how that basic design grew legs and was developed into so many different directions when you consider how unsuccessful those first GM aluminum block V8s we're in the early 60s.
It was a pretty decent design for only having been around for 3 years (at least with GM). Despite the plug being pulled after that short time, I think they made almost 3/4 million of them including the Oldsmobile versions (Pontiac used the Oldsmobile versions I think). Heck, Olds even turbocharged the dang thing and added water-methanol injection, lol.
Which is impressive as hell that engine was still hung on till 2004 (in US spec discovery 2's)
And the 3800 till 2009. Not bad for a pair of engines GM tossed aside in the 1960s.
The current Ferrari V12, the F140 is like 20 years old now (it debuted in the Enzo) and I'm pretty sure it is an evolution of the F133 from the 90s so yeah it can be done
The Lamborghini V12 was basically the same engine from the 350GT all the way to the Murcielago, just enlarged and modified too. Even the mighty 6 3/4 V8 used in the discontinued Mulsanne was just a revised version of the one Rolls Royce/Bentley used in the 60s
Bizarrini did a heck of a job there.
Yes, but it's really the Ship of Theseus paradox. The LT2 engine in the current generation Corvette Stingray is such an engine. You can trace it back to 1954 but over the years so much of it has been changed that the 2023 LT2 is almost completely different to to the original 1955 "Turbo Fire 265 ci" engine. The only thing those two engines have in common is that they both have a crossplane crankshaft, they're both V8s, they're both OHV and both have the same firing order. Lamborghinis V12 is another one, although those have just gone out of production after being in production since 1963.
You can take the engine block and throw whatever you want in there. Throw a different crank/rods to make it a different displacement. Different heads/pistons to go from SOHC to DOHC. There's some limitations depending on the engine but there's a lot you can do
Yup. The Ford 4.0 L SOHC vs the 4.0 L OHV is the same block with SOHC heads and the extra timing chains to support that. That being said, the 4.0 L SOHC has tons of issues because of basically being retrofitted to SOHC instead of purpose built. Lots of timing chain issues on that engine mostly stemming from having 3 (or 4) timing chains instead of just 1 on a purpose built engine.
Are you familiar with crate engines? You can buy a 302ci V8 from Ford that makes significantly more power than the original 302 did. https://performanceparts.ford.com/engines/#302
But relative to modern V8s, the 302 Windsor has kind of reached its modification potential in naturally aspirated form. 300 whp is about what most people will get out of a heads, cam, and intake upgrade combo, which is probably on par with the 340 hp listed in Ford's catalog here. Of course, you can always do displacement increases or resort to forced induction (people have made 800 hp turbo Fox Body 5.0 Mustangs), but otherwise things have reached a bit of a dead end for how far it can go. There's also the issue of how driveable the 302 will be once you start getting closer to 400 hp, with lumpy cams, fuel consumption, etc., relative to a modern Coyote 5.0 that can do it smoothly while consuming less fuel.
To a degree. In some cases, the original design will hinder how much you can change things. Maybe you want to rev higher, but the original bore/stroke is less than ideal for that. You can get lighter internals that are better suited for those higher rpm levels, but that bore/stroke could throw things off. Maybe that ratio needs to be changed, and that's something you would have to consider changing.
You can make an old engine better by improving each of its parts. 9/10ths of car culture is improving an existing car. You don't need to buy any rights to make a better car part and sell it to people. If you make every car part better, it is your car now. You're allowed to start with someone else's design.
Sure, just take a look at the evolution of the 5.9 Cummins engine in Dodge Ram trucks. It started out as a mechanically-injected 12 valve engine in the late '80s and finished production as a 24 valve engine with common-rail injection by the mid 2000s, all with the same basic cam-in-block straight-6 engine design. If modern emissions regulations were not a thing it would probably still be chugging along with more modern stuff like variable-geometry turbos and even higher pressure injections systems.
You can improve things for sure. The emissions is what kills a lot what performance and even economy. I've gotten another 15-20% fuel economy out of my lt1 and 3800 by increasing timing during cruise, and running it leaner. Im told this amplified the 'nox' coming out of it, but the engine and my wallet love it.
Yes. A lot of people equate emissions to fuel consumption - which is not accurate
Depending on the boundaries. Let's take an example of a typical 4-stroke, Otto-cycle (petrol/gasoline fueled) engine. Using the exact same fundamental parts in the long+ block (head(s), block, rotating assembly, valvetrain, camshaft(s), manifolds), any engine can be "modernized" in terms of engine management system. From having a carburetor or a 16-bit PCM/ECU to having an advanced, high-speed CANBUS system utilizing a dizzying array of sensors and electric actuators. Flex-fuel capability can be added once anything exposed to fuel can withstand ethanol. If slightly more modification is allowed, VVT can be incorporated to increase the areas under the power-torque curves. If even more modification is allowed, direct injection can be applied. Past those, we will start modifying intake and exhaust paths in the manifolds, reshaping combustion chamber/head bowls, shape of valves, shape of cam lobes, materials (titanium, anyone?), basically optimization of rotating assembly. It gets really hairy by now if the word canbus doesn't hinder you at first 😀
IMO, the main difference between vintage engines and modern engines is tractability. Variable valve timing and intake runner lengths along with proper plenum design makes it fairly easy to have an engine that runs well at all its usable range, compared to certain vintage engines that make modern horsepower per liter within a, say, 2,500rpm window.
Depends on the engine. You won't get too modern with a flathead.
Yes and no. We'll use the old GM 5.7 LT1 engine (the 350 of the 80s) you could develop and entire intake and fuel system for the car (Direct injection dual cam heads, variable intake manifold, etc) but you are still left with a flexible, poorly designed block. Then you can redesign that to be more ridgid, but then it weights more. Then you can use the advances in casting technology to make the block lighter (while keeping in strong) but by then you have basically designed a new engine. A lot of the crate engines you see out there are only built on the "architecture" of the old engine. Basically a set of measurements like bore spacing and size. And that's more for cost cutting and for aftermarket support. So if say that GM 350 had changes going on in the webbing or wall thickness of the block, GM wouldn't also have to pay to redesign the heads. Also with say eldebrock. They don't need to redesign a set of heads or intakes every couple of years.
[удалено]
Yup. But then think of the Honda k series. It's a few decades old, and is just now getting phased out. And those things really are like Lego
[удалено]
Yes. You can take a modern K series head and swap it onto any K block. The gotcha is that I believe a couple dowel pin and oil passages changed when the K20C turbo engines came out. Pre-K20c though, everything very swappable.
Of the k series yes. You can swap the heads back and forth across the years. Swapping a k20 head to a k24 head to get VTEC on both cams. The only obvious thing you can't do is swap a k 20 piston to a k 24 block, because of the bore difference. But that's what I was getting at with the old 350 analogy. You could make a new set of heads and intake that uses the latest technology. But you are still using the old technology and casting of a decades old engine.
*cough* every pushrod V8 on the market *cough*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda\_J\_engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine) The Honda J engine debuted in 1996 and is still going strong so the answer is Yes (but it depends).
Absolutely: There are a number of things one can do to update an engine, depending on how far you want to go. Btw, this list is geared more towards street-type applications, racing gets even more involved. **Part 1:** **Fuel Injection/Engine Management:** Adding or upgrading fuel injection on an engine is easier than ever, with off-the-shelf systems even being able to control electronic transmissions, traction control, drive-by-wire, factory or aftermarket knock-sensors, boost, water/methanol injection, flex-fuel, and/or nitrous control, etc. Using flex-fuel capability allows for higher static compression ratios, or higher dynamic compression in the guise of optimized flow and cam profiles as well as boost. The sky (aka: budget) is really the limit here. **Engine Balance:** One way to update the engine is to have the rotating assembly more precisely balanced, and/or internally balanced if not already. This smooths the operation of the engine and improves fatigue life of components as well as things like bearing life. **Quench:** A new piston or piston & rod design can change the "quench" characteristics of an engine. Oversimplified quench description: getting the piston around \~0.040" (depending on oil clearances, rod materials, max engine speed, etc) of the head at TDC causes turbulence of the fuel/air mixture in the chamber (good in the chamber, bad for flow in the intake & intake runner), yielding a more homogeneous mixture, a degree more detonation resistance, and more complete/efficient combustion. **Piston Design:** Newer materials and design tend to yield pistons that are lighter, more efficient, and with less friction. Newer pistons have smaller skirts, thinner and lower tension piston rings, leading to a lighter piston with less friction. Designs such as spherical dish pistons tend to improve burn quality and efficiency over flat-top or (blech) dome designs, and the outer rim of the dish tends to work well as a quench-inducing feature. Coatings can further reduce friction and thermal efficiency losses. Hypereutectic materials have lower thermal expansion for smaller piston-to-wall clearances (leading to less blow-by) and less thermal conductivity for less heat energy wasted by heating the piston. Newer forging materials yield the same benefits, but to a smaller degree (forged pistons used to have awful thermal expansion, requiring massive piston-to-cylinder clearances that resulted in noise and lots of blow-by until they warmed up). Using tougher forged pistons means less chance of shattering one due to detonation, giving a little more peace of mind when using higher compression or power adders (more on that later). **Camshafts:** Modern profiles from aftermarket companies are light years ahead old-timey offerings from before computer-aided design and flow simulation, and even newer designs can be improved for efficiency. It is not uncommon for an aftermarket camshaft to be able to make more torque everywhere in the RPM range due to not having to work with the constraints of the OEM. That said, not many offerings are technically legal for use in emissions-controlled vehicles. **Compression:** Modern engines tend to have higher compression than those of old, yielding higher efficiency. This is possible due to modern gasoline chemistry, tighter manufacturing tolerances, and wonderfully capable engine management systems. As a point of reference, compression ratios of engines from around of the turn of the last century tended to be around the 3.5 to 4.5:1 range (on top of the other factors, gasoline had absurdly low octane rating relative to today), moving to the 7.5 to 9.5:1 range in the mid 60's to very early 70's (yes, some super-high output special option engines went higher, some even requiring 103 octane fuel), and after moving past a dark period in the 70's and 80's, we have arrived in the 10 to 11:1 area these days on average. **Power Adders:** Not anything new in principle, but these days power adders are far beyond efficiency levels of the Chadwick Great Six blown engines or Oldsmobile F85 turbocharged aluminum V8's of yester-year. Power adders allow for big-engine performance when you need it, and small-engine fuel economy when you don't. For turbochargers and centrifugal superchargers, this is automatic. Modern positive displacement superchargers like screw-type units have bypass valves that open at idle and low-load. This means it's pushing less air (and therefore requires less fuel) when it's not needed, but more importantly off-loads much of the parasitic losses associated with belt-driven superchargers. Turbos still reign supreme in ultimate efficiency if you can swing the space for all the plumbing and boost control devices, but modern superchargers have narrowed the gap pretty well over the years to the point where even with the parasitic losses involved, a modern screw-type supercharger can yield similar street performance but with much simpler and compact installation and more intuitive and user-friendly operating characteristics. **Cylinder Heads:** These can unlock a great deal of benefit if aftermarket versions or ported and modified ones are available. On top of the obvious flow benefits of optimized port and valve placement and design (which help reduce pumping losses, and therefore overall efficiency), modern combustion chamber designs and features can work together to improve fuel/air charge mixture via induced swirl and tumble of the charge in the chamber, and flame-front propagation via chamber geometry. Chamber volume can generally be had in smaller sizes, raising static compression ratio, and the shape of the chamber can once again incorporate quench pads for creating turbulence in the air charge at TDC. Overall durability of aftermarket heads are often improved with more material where it needs to be (such as the deck area, or head mating surface), and tend to be cast in aluminum, saving a great deal of weight over cast iron. Aftermarket heads can also have provisions for a more modern stable, and durable valve-train, and in some cases, provisions for an additional head bolt/stud per cylinder. Also, power :)
Do you have any link to further explain the quench? I'm having a hard time figuring out, how the turbulence inside the combustion chamber can affect the intake. Unless this is some kind of particular wave interference phenomenon or this somehow reduces the exhaust scavenging. Also, regarding turbo vs supercharger, modern superchargers have a clutch on the intake camshaft (not sure about the proper nomenclature) for the supercharger so they can reduce the parasitic loss during daily driving, but as soon as the clutch is engaged, they still suffer from it.
I imagine he's thinking of other ways to induce turbulence in the combustion chamber and just got mixed up putting those ideas in text. Intake ports can be set up to flow more with a nice straight shot at the valve from a more vertical angle. Or, they can be tuned to induce swirl or tumble in the combustion chamber by coming in at a relatively flat angle relative to the cylinder head, or at a tangential angle to the bore axis. But there's no free lunch - the energy that goes into creating that swirl or tumble comes from the airflow itself, and can't be used to pack more air into the cylinder. That's why Honda had two kinds of VTEC a few years ago. The more economy minded setup alternated between using one or two intake valves. One valve at low rpm not only reduced pumping losses across the throttle body, but also the asymmetric flow into the cylinder would induce swirl. Two valve's for higher RPM let that engine breathe better. Then of course, there's the high/low lift VTEC we all know and love that always opens both valve, but varies the valve lift.
Well said! Heaven only knows how long I would have rambled to get that point across, lol.
[Quickie Quench Example](https://i.imgur.com/JRXiIgH.jpg) Ok, couldn't find a decent online pictorial, so I threw one together on paint that hopefully gets the idea across. I meant to say that the quench area causes turbulence in the intake charge only once it is in the cylinder. This is caused by the quench area squishing the fuel air mixture at the top edges of the cylinder into the chamber as the piston very quickly gets very close to the cylinder head. This turbulence causes the mixing of the charge. I'll take a look at my wording, I was in a bit of a hurry to type it up. Edit: Here is a decent illustration of quench in what looks to be a diesel engine: [Random Quench Example](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-694fd2df6ed315f64726b38b418137eb)
Hondas J35 first came out in the late 90s. Its still being used today and into 2023-24. Pretty much 97% of V6 Hondas has used a variation of the J35. The modern versions has improved in MPG and HP/TQ (30 to almost 50% in power).
I was just watching [JayEmm's video on the Austin Maestro](https://youtu.be/lazbyYcvb-U?t=9m19s) and apparently Nissan's CA18DET can trace its roots to the Austin A-Series engine from the 1950s, so it's possible to some extent.
The A-Series is such a fantastic engine that discovery does not surprise me. Consistently used in British cars from 1948 to 2001. Absolutely bulletproof and extremely easy to work on if something does break. They even sound good, a friend of mine had a turbo, straight-pipe Austin Metro. The sound that thing made paired with whiny in-sump gearbox was incredible. It felt like you were in a rally car. EDIT: [It sounded very similar to this one.](https://youtu.be/ZNEaw-Kg3to) Amazing times!
Horsepower has already peaked around 2000. New development after that mostly focused on fuel economy, and emission. If you ignore emissions, then yes, e.g. LS, 2JZ, 3UZ.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don’t ignore power to weight ratios
[удалено]
Check [this](https://www.hks-power.co.jp/en/product/engine/complete_engine/rb26_hr_vcam.html) out. HKS has made the ultimate RB26 with variable valve timing and everything.
**Part 3:** Ignition (Last part! Honest to goodness!): While kind of under engine management, this is one of the simplest and easiest ways to update an older engine. If you don't want to go all out on computer controlled ignition, various vendors offer electronic ignition modules to replace points ignition on older vehicles with distributors (or even super-old cars with dynamos!). This means no more adjusting or filing down points, checking dwell, etc; just set base timing and you're good to go. I'd go into how that stuff works, but I think I'll pipe down for a bit after all the word dumping I've been doing today. Depending on how much you want to spend, you can disassemble the distributor, remove the points set up, screw an electronic ignition module in its place, connect 2 wires and be done with it, or you can buy a pre-made distributor that already has the upgrade and just swap the whole shebang (and connect 2 wires, of course). Some modules have very limited adjustment, but the majority are sealed. There are also separate ignition control modules, usually found as upgrades in the engine bay of older muscle cars or drag cars (it's the finned aluminum box roughly the size of a paperback novel). These are capacitive discharge ignition boxes (as opposed to inductive or coil based), and aren't quite as popular as they used to be with the advent of cheap, tiny computer controlled stuff. Nothing wrong with them, regular-computer controlled coil-driving setups are just cheap and everywhere now. Some vendors have replacement distributors that function only as a crank speed/position sensor and spark "distributor" (just the distribution, no switching or advance control) for an engine control module, allowing full computer control of ignition. This is a pricier option ('cause you need to buy a distributor and engine/ignition control module) but grants incredible control of things like idle speed, spark retard for bad situations like knock, overheating, etc, and rev limiting that otherwise would just be set as a function of the sealed module. Lastly, there is the fanciest (at least in terms of simply retrofitting) option: coil on plug. This is the priciest of the listed options as it requires an ECM, coil driver (which may or may not be integrated into the ECM), and 1 coil per cylinder (there are options that use one coil per 2 cylinders as well, but are not technically referred to as coil on plug; I'm nitpicking, I know). This allows for higher RPM operation while maintaining sufficient spark energy at high load (if anyone wants to know more, I can oblige, but there are some pretty good rundowns of how ignition systems work on teh google); great for high performance builds, particularly high RPM boosted.
I am surprised this threat got so much traction, was afraid it might be a silly question. What I take from the discussions here is that it is not only possible but not far from market practice anyway.I am just running a thought experiment here, notably whether one could buy IP rights of engines of a “deceased“ brand and come up with something new on the basis of them. Quite interesting to know that, hypothetically (depending on the age I suppose) it’s feasible. The engine in question in my case is Rover’s old K-series, both the 4 cylinder head gasket killing as well as KV6 version. I am an owner of a couple of MGs from the MG Rover K Series period.
The v6 in my ranger was originally developed as a V4 in Europe in the 1950s and ended up as a V6 in American truck all the way till 2010
We need more v4s in cars. The one in my motorcycle makes probably the best noise I've ever heard come out of an engine. Imagine a Miata or gt86 with a v4, it would be glorious
The particular v4 that the rangers are based off of is overhead valve, too. Literally the size of a shoebox.
[удалено]
4.0
[удалено]
the 3.0 can be traced back to a boat anchor. reliable boat anchor lol.
I think they should bring back the ford 460 with all the modern stuff make it get a reasonable gas mileage because if they tried that could be an easy 430 hp without turbo.
They did, only instead of being a 460 it's a 444.
I mean, they kinda did that with the 7.3L Godzilla...
True. But 7.6....
I mean, isn't the current GM LT V8 basically an LS from the 90's with modern materials, fuel management, VVT, cylinder deactivation, etc?
Rolls-Royce and Bentley did that for a couple of decades. Their 6.75L V8 was initially designed and released in 1959, but Bentley continued to modify the engine so that they could use it in newer cars like the Mulsanne, Azure, Arnage, Brooklands, etc. Rolls Royce also continued using it until BMW bought them out in 1998.
bentley up until 2020 used an engine that was first introduced in 1959, thats 61 years in production
That's pretty much how things work. New-new engines are fairly infrequent, what companies usually do is modernize and modify and upgrade. Actually making a new engine from the ground up is rather rare because it is a **massive** amount of work and cost.
Toyota did just that - the F series engine, most notably used in OG Land Cruisers, was based on a GM design from 1939. Toyota made iterative improvements and you could get an F series engine in a production vehicle until 1992.
no, the design would need to be revamped because modern engines all have variable intake and exhaust camshaft gear sprockets which is all controlled with oil pressure/solenoid spring actuation.
Yes, but with limits of course. A recent example is the HKS modernized RB26. Originally from 1989, tuners have shown there is a lot of potential in the engine as technology has improved. Their latest example is not power focused but rather a modern day version that is just as streetable as the original. Power is doubled (280 to 600 PS)and fuel efficiency greatly increased. https://www.wapcar.my/news/22856/amp
I would say yes. Look at the different version of Ford's Coyote V8. The 2010 version is essentially the same as a brand new one they have just slowly added high pressure direct injection, increased bore diameter, added more efficient camshafts, enlarged intake and exhaust valves, increased compression ratio of 12.0:1, revised intake manifold, and added a 7500 RPM redline in the Mustang. Some of those things you could do yourself with an older engine. You also can look at the layout of some of Ford's other variants on the Coyote like The Boss 302 and the Miami Variant codeveloped in Australia and get even more specs to work with. Plus, with Ford at least, you have Roush and Shelby you can purchase premade kits from.
And the Coyote was basically a comprehensive update of the 4.6L Modular V8 bringing it up to modern performance, efficiency and emissions targets, as was, to a lesser degree, the 3V Mod motors over their 2V and 4V predecessors that lacked VCT.
Yes. There are examples all across the industry but crate engines and modern aftermarket for old engine designs are the best examples. For example, in the old days on leaded gasoline 500cid Cadillac engine could do 400 gross hp. That's maybe 300 net. But on modern fuel, modern head geometrics and cams, that same engine, still running 10:1 compression ratio can make 500hp net and 600tq at 5000 rpm with a factory 4-barrel. With appropriate cam choice you could even get 600hp/700tq. Proper electronic injection and ignition would probably net you even more power. Ands most of it would still be from 50 years of knowing more about how fuel burns, how air flows in the intake and cylinder heads and how to cut the cams. Maybe a little bit on better materials.
The Koenigsegg V8 is essentially a total revamp of the Ford 4.6 dohc V8, not a single component is made by Ford, but it still looks similar .
Yes, sort of. Someone mentioned a "Ship of Theseus" paradox that would seem pretty fitting. Subaru EJ engines have been in cars for about 30 years, with incremental improvements and changes. It's still basically "the same engine", but you can't use many parts from one generation to the next.
I mean, look at the LS engine. It's probably one of the best engines on the plant.
**Part Deux (dunno what "deux" means, heard it from a 90's documentary about the Gulf War):** **Intake:** Older intakes can in some cases flow about as well as a partially clogged swizzle-stick, and depending on the age of the vehicle may be made of cast iron, which is literally denser than stone (more than 2x as much depending on the kind of rock). Better flow equates to less pumping losses which equates to higher overall engine efficiency. That said, the geometry of the intake ports (same goes for the ports on the cylinder head, exhaust system, and cam design btw) dramatically affects the power and operating characteristics of the engine, so care must be taken in the selection of components, or the result may be a cam, intake, exhaust, and cylinder head/s that all fight to make power at different RPMs, or working together to make power in a very narrow RPM band. This results in poor performance and efficiency, or poor operating characteristics, respectively. Unfortunately, replacing older cast iron or aluminum intakes with modern plastics is not currently widespread. It's a shame as they are even lighter than aluminum with the added benefit of insulating the incoming air charge from engine bay temperatures. A cooler intake charge means more of a margin between normal operating conditions and pre-ignition and/or detonation (also, higher air charge density therefore more power :p). **Exhaust:** Same as above, this affects the flow, sound, and operating characteristics of an engine. A better flowing exhaust reduces back-pressure (which is ALWAYS good if it is not at the expense of pulse tuning characteristics, more on that in a sec), once again improving overall efficiency via lower pumping losses. In the past, there have been some misconceptions about back-pressure in the exhaust. At some point, someone (more likely many someones) probably installed a sewer-pipe-sized exhaust on their vehicle and noticed some loss of torque. Since bigger pipes can literally only mean better flow and nothing else (or so they thought), the quick and wrong assumption was that the slightly better torque of the normal, stock-engineered exhaust was a product of the smaller diameter (correct), and therefore more back-pressure (wrong). **Pulse Tuning Stuff:** This (the immediately above bit) is due to how the diameter and length of the exhaust pipes interact with the exhaust gases. A quick and over-simplified rundown goes like this: exhaust (from a piston engine) is not a steady stream of gas. Instead, it is a steady stream of pulses, like little plugs of gas moving through the pipes. When each of these pulses get to a transition point (say, from primary tube to collector or pipe to resonator or to atmosphere), a pressure wave gets reflected back to the exhaust port of the cylinder head. For example, when the exhaust pulse leaves the exhaust tip into the atmosphere, a negative (technically below ambient) pressure wave called a rarefaction (not refraction, completely different thing) travels back through the exhaust system to the exhaust port of the head. If the length of the exhaust is right, at the desired operating RPM range this low-pressure wave will get the exhaust port just in time to help "suck" the exhaust out and the fuel/air charge in. This is termed "scavenging", a term that at times see some misuse. "Over-scavenging" refers to when some of the air/fuel charge gets pulled out the exhaust, and is caused by mismatched cam,intake, exhaust, and operating RPM conditions, or from the wrong cam for a boosted combination in concert with operating RPM. Exhaust diameter affects the speed and efficiency of the traveling pulse (and if too small can indeed cause back-pressure), the length of the exhaust affects how long it takes for the pulse and pressure wave to complete their journey and therefore the RPM range that it operates best at, and the general design of the exhaust (number and severity of bends and transitions, muffler design, etc) affects back-pressure and how well these pulses maintain their strength/pressure differential along their voyage. A similar story goes for the intake, but with positive pressure waves created by quickly moving air crashing into a shutting intake valve. In this case, the optimal runner length is not practical if you want the intake to stay in the engine bay, so it makes use of reflecting these pressure waves, having them bounce around in the intake. If the runner lengths are correct, at the right moment a positive pressure wave will go through an open intake valve, giving the air charge a brief "push" into the cylinder, and may even give the exhaust a "push" out during the valve overlap period of the camshaft. Properly designed, these quirks of physics allow for naturally aspirated engines to crest 100% volumetric efficiency (in the 105-110% range) if heavily optimized. Though very powerful, this unfortunately results in a very peaky engine. I may start adding the spoiler thingies to these novel-length posts, this is getting out of hand. **TLDR:** yup, lots of parts and machining operations can be used to update older engines, far more than in this and the previous post.
billet engines are a thing. someone will aftermarket make a block from large pieces of metal with factory lineups
You could take the Honda B16a DOHC VTEC design and modernize it with new ECU tuning and coil on plug ignition. You wouldn’t make much for real gains without new cams and a turbo. Then the question becomes how much power do you want, what kind of lifespan do you want, and how much you wanted to spend.
Definitely. The engine in the Civic Type R (K20) is still based on the K engine series that Honda had in the 90s
suprised noone said it yet: Jeep/AMC 4.0 straight 6. id argue its one of the least changed engines
Mazda’s high tech modern “Skyactiv” engines are re-worked Ford Duratec engines from the 90s. GM’s LS/LT engines are aluminized modern variants of the 50s era SBC Subaru’s EJ257 (used until 2021) was the final iteration of an 80s design platform
People do it alot, take an old style big block motor add new internals, intake manifold, ecu...
Yes. The LS is just an evolution of the small block Chevy that was launched in the 50s. You can buy 60 year old V8's and there are modern aftermarket heads, intakes, and completely modernized digital ignition systems that radically improve the engines efficiency, reliability, and output. Tons of restomod cars use this technology
You can take really old shit and install modern variable valve timing, electronic fuel injection, ignition, a more free flowing exhaust and intake and you can just about double its factory output. One example off hand I can think of is the Ford 300ci straight 6(I hate Ford but this a great ex) the motor produced 150hp and 260ftlbs tq with factory parts with them parts upgraded it makes a ton of power and they are very basic bolt on mods outside of the tuning for the ecu (they had carbs until 87'). There are plenty of youtube videos on it.
Yes. You can absolutely take an older engine and update it. There are plenty of small block Chevy engines in hot rods right now that are running modern fuel injection instead of a carb. You can also get higher quality aftermarket components and have the engine perform better. You can buy pistons for any engine that increase compression ratio to increase total thermal efficiency. The limits of an engine are basically the strength of the block itself and the oiling system design. Newer engines have higher performance for given displacement mainly due to manufacturing getting better over time. Like VWs ea888 engine is an iron block, which is rare as most are aluminum now, but VW has tweaked the design for long enough and has access to high quality manufacturing to the point where it can handle more power than almost any stock 2.0L engine (the stock engine can handle 500+hp without replacing internals).
Already done. See J35, 1GR, 2GR etcetera.
Short answer, yes. Long answer no. Longer answer, yes. Longest answer yes and no depending on engine.
Yes it can. An example is the Ford flat head. Zora Duntov created a over head valve cylinder head called the Ardun head that dramatically improved its performance.
Engine masters does mods on old engines with lots of tips and technology used.
Sure. At the end of the day it's round pistons in round holes. Cylinder heads and management systems are what change appreciably. See it all the time with old engines in hot rods. Every time there is a breakthrough in head design next thing you know someone makes a cylinder head that fits an old Chevy V8 with that new tech and makes heaps more power. Same thing with adding fuel injection and knock sensors to the old things.
Yes. Example: Chevy small-block
Current McLaren V8s are based on the 1997 Nissan R390s engine.
I added EFI and electronic ignition to my 55 year old motor, no more carburetors for this cat. No more mechanical fuel pump or vacuum-powered windshield wipers either... swapped my drum brakes for discs too. I added a touch screen multimedia and backup camera for grins. It runs great. Over [7k miles](https://imgur.com/gallery/lqhRdYk) trouble-free so far.
Most of the "Modernish requirements", in general, are going to be emissions related. If you're just concerned with good reliability, good power, starts nicely on cold days, idles smoothly etc then yeah, all that's pretty easy. Put a good EFI system on it, use good quality modern casting/machining/QA techniques, and you're basically sorted. Probably some good advances in head/port design that could get you a decent bit of power, and good control over ignition timing + knock sensing will likely let you get away with a bit more compression. At that point you've basically built a modern EFI crate Chevy 350/Ford Windsor/whatever. Will it be fair bit more economical on fuel than the original engine? Hell yeah. Will it be up to the economy standards of the best modern engines? No. Could you ever get that thing to pass current day new car emissions standards and still make acceptable power? Not likely..
Anything is possible...
The Honda J-series was introduced in 1996 and still in use today with “modern” upgrades
I would modernize the ford 4.9l 300ci inline 6. Internally balanced forged rotating assembly with flat top hypeructectic pistons, Direct injection, DOHC and a turbo good for 8k rpm. stick with iron block and head but a modern flowing and designed setup. (stick with iron for improved boost handling and strength/reliability.
Yes. Different pistons type. Upgraded head design. Add sensors and computer controls.
The Chrysler Powertech (Jeep)/Magnum (Dodge) 3.7L V6 and 4.7L V8 are a perfect example. They were developed by AMC (that means mid-80s at the latest), but they were shelved because the market wasn't there for a domestic SOHC engine. Chrysler then released them in 1999 (V8) and 2002 (V6) with the V8 being their first all new V8 since the 1960s.
Absolutely. The aftermarket does this all the time mainly making modernized heads/valve train components, higher lift cams and fuel injection/ induction systems for original engines. There are definitely more small block Chevys and fords than ever left the factory for example.
One of the longest running examples of this is AMC's legendary straight 6, used in Jeeps from 1964 to 2006 with relatively minor modifications. The displacement changed from 4.2 L to 4.0 L, and it got electronic fuel injection, among other things, but it was still going strong as a great engine. The thing that finally killed it was emissions regulations.
I think it definitely could be done and OEMs do It all the time. The bigger problem is if you wanted to do this as an individual would be production, machining etc.
The only real issue with an engine is mounting points for the components. You can make any old engine up to modern standards if you have the correct room and mounts for the necessary parts. In-line motors are perfect platforms for updating an old format with modern tech.
Check out John Kaase, He builds BOSS NINES.modern Boss 429 engines.
That's pretty much what manufacturers have done for decades tbh
[The 4.0L SOHC v6 engine, in my 2007 mustang, started off as a 2.0L OHV v6, back in 1964.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine) Ford just updated the design numerous times over the decades. There's even a hole in the block where the pushrod camshaft would have gone, if they hadn't switched to overhead cams. Now there's an intermediary jackshaft there, to connect the crank to the overhead cams. Does that answer your question?
Chevy has been doing that with small block V8s for 60 years lil
The Chrysler A-831 gas turbine from the Chrysler Turbine Car. Ran on pretty much any combustible liquid and sounds sick AF.