AM V12 vs Ford V6

GameboyRMH said:

LOL what's the problem, some snobs feel cheated that their Aston's engine has some internals from a common plebian's car in it?

None of the crazy super-hyper-car owners seem to care that their LS-engines share nearly everything with a common pickup truck motor.

Robbie said:

soooo - who makes the coupler to bolt the rear crank of a duratec v6 to the front crank of a duratec v6?

Dorman

I've come to appreciate the duratec v6s over time.  They really suffered from mostly being in things I didn't care to own back when they were newer. Now that those things are all nearly worthless some of them are more interesting to me. I really like the idea of the duratec into a miata as done by CarThrottle using the rwd version out of an LS/S-type. 

Also, the SHO V8 certainly was related to the duratec, although ironically perhaps less so than the AM V12. It shared the 2.5's bore, stroke, and probably bore spacing. The cylinder heads look pretty similar. At that point you're in similar territory to the duratec v6 > aston v12 relationship.

On a semi-related note, I've only recently realized you can swap the Volvo v8 (which shares some weaker lineage with the sho v8 and thus the duratec) into any p2 volvo, and now i kind of want a v8 first gen s80. Craigslist alerts have been set up. 

alfadriver said:

...and one that eventually ended up in a Town Car.  These were based on a 4.0l version of the modular 4.6l- so it was a 90 deg V12  The block and heads were cut and welded together, the crank and cams were custom made.

I really want that Town Car.

Vigo said:

I've come to appreciate the duratec v6s over time.  They really suffered from mostly being in things I didn't care to own back when they were newer. Now that those things are all nearly worthless some of them are more interesting to me. I really like the idea of the duratec into a miata as done by CarThrottle using the rwd version out of an LS/S-type. 

Also, the SHO V8 certainly was related to the duratec, although ironically perhaps less so than the AM V12. It shared the 2.5's bore, stroke, and probably bore spacing. The cylinder heads look pretty similar. At that point you're in similar territory to the duratec v6 > aston v12 relationship.

On a semi-related note, I've only recently realized you can swap the Volvo v8 (which shares some weaker lineage with the sho v8 and thus the duratec) into any p2 volvo, and now i kind of want a v8 first gen s80. Craigslist alerts have been set up. 

Like I said before the SHO V8 was all Yamaha, and no Ford.  And the Aston V12 is totally based on the 3.0l V6, and not the 2.5- they were different enough motors to not share anything- unlike the modern 4 cyl duratec family of 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, and 2.5l engines.  

alfadriver said:

It's not.  The K series isn't the same as the Duratec 2.5, which is also not the Duratec 3.0. And, ironically, the duratec 3.0l found it's way into many Mazdas.

Point of order, the 2.5 and 3.0 Duratecs weren't the same, but they were certainly closely related. To the point where the 3.0 was an easy swap for Contour SVTs. They could even use the CSVT's extrude honed intake on the 3.0 motors. IIRC, most of the Contour guys who did the swap used first-gen Escape engines, though I'm not sure why.

Jordan Rimpela said:

alfadriver said:

...and one that eventually ended up in a Town Car.  These were based on a 4.0l version of the modular 4.6l- so it was a 90 deg V12  The block and heads were cut and welded together, the crank and cams were custom made.

I really want that Town Car.

Sadly, it died a very quiet death.  As we rewired it to learn something about running two 6cyl engines on one crank, one of us missed a fuel rail hold down nut.  It ended up breaking one of the valves, which seized the motor during it's first crank.  When it was taken apart, they also found that some of the cylinder liners had slipped down into the block.  So the engine was effectively dead.  It did run sometime in the early 90's before I started working on it, though.

There was a second V12 town car, and it met its demise though rapid oxidation when the trans oil started spewing over an exhaust manifold.  That car was one of the duratec V12s and was part of the DB7 development cars- built 3 years after we trashed the first one.

Tom_Spangler said:

alfadriver said:

It's not.  The K series isn't the same as the Duratec 2.5, which is also not the Duratec 3.0. And, ironically, the duratec 3.0l found it's way into many Mazdas.

Point of order, the 2.5 and 3.0 Duratecs weren't the same, but they were certainly closely related. To the point where the 3.0 was an easy swap for Contour SVTs. They could even use the CSVT's extrude honed intake on the 3.0 motors. IIRC, most of the Contour guys who did the swap used first-gen Escape engines, though I'm not sure why.

Related, for sure.  Just not the same enough to share any parts internally.  Very close to the same size, and used the same transmissions.  And ran very similarly.  Just not the same engine.

An actual great comment on Youtube:

"I heard a rumor that the ford gt engine is actually just a ford v6."

Haha!

Like I said before the SHO V8 was all Yamaha, and no Ford.  And the Aston V12 is totally based on the 3.0l V6, and not the 2.5- they were different enough motors to not share anything- 

Not sure where your line in the sand is but i can sure see the sand!  Bore, stroke, bore center, deck height, hell the video on the v12 mentions actually sharing pistons, rods, rocker arms? Maybe the video is wrong on those details but these designs are highly derivative of a ford design and only happened because of the 'ford connection' in all cases. If there had been no ford connection these engines would have resulted in lawsuits. These engines are all MORE connected than the LS is to the original SBC, maybe we should have a thread debunking the 'myth' of their relationship instead!  

Or just stop using the word 'same', maybe. A 305 is not the same engine as a 350. A 318 is not the same as a 360, and a duratec 2.5 is not the same as a 3.0. What you got there is a lawyered-up sentence that states the truth while obscuring reality.

In reply to Vigo :

Again, the V12 shares the pistons, rods, valve train, cam profile with the 3.0 and not the 2.5.  Add to that- the base ECU was from a Taurus, the fuel system and ignition system was all from a 3.0l Taurus, too.  The ECU was eventually modified so that the right bank was directing things into the left bank ECU- so key parts were coordinated and made it run better.

While I know who were the engine development engineers of the 3.0, none of the SHO V8 dyno development took place in the US (at least that I can remember).  Calibration work was, but they were totally independent of the group doing the 3.0l Duratec and the 3.0l Vulcan.  

And my point on the video is that they were wrong about the base engine- but I suspect that it's more palatable that they think it came from a European based car vs. a US based car.  But I do find it interesting that it's even an issue to people.

My line in the sand was that I was part of the team who developed the powertrain.  Even got to drive the first car ever with that engine, the Indigo show car.  We learned some on that car that went into the Aston, actually.

can this please become a discussion about how the jag aj6 is in fact the same as the GM atlas?

please?

Knurled. said:

The SHO V8 was a really goofy engine not really related to anything else - it was a 60 degree V8!

 

Yeah at one point, Ford had something like five or six separate V8 architectures running at the same time, mostly for one-off models or lone platforms (the 3.9 was only ever used in the LS/S-type/Thunderbird)

Nope the Jag V8's are their own design. The AJ v8 were used in Lincoln LS, Ford T-Bird, Aston's, and Rover as well. 

yupididit said:

Knurled. said:

The SHO V8 was a really goofy engine not really related to anything else - it was a 60 degree V8!

 

Yeah at one point, Ford had something like five or six separate V8 architectures running at the same time, mostly for one-off models or lone platforms (the 3.9 was only ever used in the LS/S-type/Thunderbird)

 

Nope the Jag V8's are their own design. The AJ v8 were used in Lincoln LS, Ford T-Bird, Aston's, and Rover as well. 

That's kind of a stretch statement.  Most of the real resources were in the US for that V8.

alfadriver said:

yupididit said:

Knurled. said:

The SHO V8 was a really goofy engine not really related to anything else - it was a 60 degree V8!

 

Yeah at one point, Ford had something like five or six separate V8 architectures running at the same time, mostly for one-off models or lone platforms (the 3.9 was only ever used in the LS/S-type/Thunderbird)

 

Nope the Jag V8's are their own design. The AJ v8 were used in Lincoln LS, Ford T-Bird, Aston's, and Rover as well. 

That's kind of a stretch statement.  Most of the real resources were in the US for that V8.

From what I know, Jaguar designed the engine and it's not borrowed from someone else's engine. Yes, they're stacked with Ford parts all over the engine though and that it was build in Ford's Brigend plant in the UK . I've used a good amount of Ford part numbers when working on my XJR engine. 

Robbie said:

can this please become a discussion about how the jag aj6 is in fact the same as the GM atlas?

please?

Because transmissions!

In reply to yupididit :

What I saw was that most of the engineering development happened in the US.  Which is exactly why there are so many Ford parts on it.  Jag insisted that the Lincoln get a smaller engine, so that they can claim it was a different engine.

That whole program made me not like Jag what so ever.  Happy they were cast off.  

alfadriver said:

That's kind of a stretch statement.  Most of the real resources were in the US for that V8.

I know a starter isn't a core engine component, but I can say definitely that the starter for that engine was designed in the US. In Ypsilanti, MI, in fact. By me, in the late 90s. 

yupididit said:

Knurled. said:

The SHO V8 was a really goofy engine not really related to anything else - it was a 60 degree V8!

 

Yeah at one point, Ford had something like five or six separate V8 architectures running at the same time, mostly for one-off models or lone platforms (the 3.9 was only ever used in the LS/S-type/Thunderbird)

 

Nope the Jag V8's are their own design. The AJ v8 were used in Lincoln LS, Ford T-Bird, Aston's, and Rover as well. 

You sure about that?  I had to get some engine room parts for an S-type and Jaguar said nothing was available.  Called Ford and they refused/were unable to search with a Jag VIN.  Found a 3.9l LS on eBay and ordered the parts we needed with its VIN, magically everything fit the Jag just fine.

edit - Or were you just saying what I was saying?

In reply to Knurled. :

I quoted the wrong person. We're saying the same thing lol. 

GameboyRMH said:

LOL what's the problem, some snobs feel cheated that their Aston's engine has some internals from a common plebian's car in it?

The problem was that the engines were failing with few miles and no abuse yet Aston told customers to go pound sand.  About 9-10 years ago this one came out of an almost new car that hadn't been over 75 MPH. The owner retired from the New York city Fire department and moved to FL where he bought his dream car with his retirement savings. Aston wouldn't warranty it and told him a new block was 15 grand. He and his buds did a GRM thing and pulled the engine then brought it to the machine shop where I was working. Upon tear down we found all the Ford V-6 pistons etc. and he was furious. We repaired & resleeved the block and had to have custom pistons and connecting rods made because he refused to have us put new Ford parts back in and there were no aftermarket good quality pieces available at that time. Meanwhile he hired a small production crew to film the rebuild and put it up on you tube to warn potential buyers. Ya, he was reeeealy mad. Just imagine buying a new Aston Martin and then having to get the engine rebuilt.

Engine block on boring machine. Second pic is film crew taping my buddy Stewart during rebuild. I was building a car out in the bays and thought it was funny seeing a film crew with real equipment in the engine building room taping the rebuild so I took a pic.

[URL=http://s240.photobucket.com/user/NOTATA/media/015-3.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s240.photobucket.com/user/NOTATA/media/003-9.jpg.html][/URL]

Upon tear down we found all the Ford V-6 pistons etc. and he was furious.

Nothing against that guy's opinion of Ford but if it weren't for Ford, Aston probably either wouldn't have had a v12 at all, or wouldn't have existed. I think there were worse instances of part-bin construction on Astons in that era then a ford-derived v12.  Does suck that they screwed him on warranty coverage, though.  

Let's hope the XJR-15 owners don't figure out it has MX-6 tail lights.

Do Lamborghini owners have a stroke when they find out their 5 liter V10 shares many parts with a base model Jetta engine?

In reply to NOT A TA :

What year and car?  

15 years ago, the engine was assembled in Germany, when the production was taken away from Cosworth.  These days, I don't know.

Also, what failed?  How was that related to the Ford parts in the engine?  edit- it would be interesting to see the engineering in the new parts he put in, and compare it to the engineering that Ford put into them....  

And as I saw things develop, Vigo was right.  Aston's last self made engine was the V8 Vantage that dates back to the 60s.  When you put a huge blower on it, it was capable of impressive power, but there was no money in the system for them do design their own engine.  One needs to remember that the first DB7 motor was a supercharge Jag I6.  And that the DB7 was largely a Jag that was pre-F type.  Ford took a lot FROM Jag to restart Aston.  The V12 was made by for exclusively for Aston- nobody else got it.  And the Vanquish was a unique chassis JUST for Aston.  The only major shared component in Aston's line up is the V8, which kept going in Jag- but it's the same 4.0/3.9 from the S type and LS.  

Ford put a lot into Aston before letting them go.  And given where they are now, I'm quite pleased with that effort.