Sizzler

It's not really the "long and short" of it. It's the "in and out". For the same (actually smaller) external dimensions, you can choose either 302 cubic inches (5.0) from the new modular, or you can have 500++ cubic inches. And you can have those 500+ cubic inches with an overhead cam and hemi heads. I'm sorry, but I'm guessing, based on sales and installations (not too many mods installed in rods), that most people would choose what's INSIDE the package. Like buying a huge box of cereal only to find that it's only half full when you open the box. 37 Buick and Mazda RX-7 get the big cubic inch blocks, huge little cubic inch mods were never considered... 60 Sunbeam Tiger and 32 Ford choose cereal over box size... 05 Mustang owner chose 500 cubic inch overhead cam hemi instead of 281 wimp. Imagine that... No fake plastic covers here... 427 in a Pantera, could you imagine trying to fit a modular in there? and I'm sorry, but the modular, while not ugly per se, just isn't in the same league looks-wise...

the reading comprehension abilities on this board are atrocious...where did I say I was impressed by the Lexus, or the modular. precisely the opposite this whole time I think. someone wanted examples of lumps of combustion that were as good as the modular, well, without too much effort, it appears they're littering the roads. I am impressed by the Fisker 100 mpg 402 HP (with electric motors, instant full-on torque at 1 rpm is a nice thing too). What's the torque output for the modular at 100 rpm? And the bus is cool too, and the Tango. Overstressed buzz-bombs like the Lexus and modular are dinosaurs though. Seriously, you guys need to read things instead of just skimming.

and where exactly did I ever say that I was interested in a small displacement fuel miser?? Where? and just because Ford doesn't want to mess with the complexity of cylinder deactivation, would rather ride the knock sensors ragged, that makes them right? Them with the twisty camshafts that they use to store energy in? TWISTY CAMSHAFTS is a good thing????? Good night all.

@ DeanH: Lexus currently has a 4.6l na V8 producing 380hp, which is the equivalent of a 5.0 making 412hp, AND IS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE TODAY. Then we have... Fisker hybrid using the Ecotech 2.0 as a generator powering two 201hp electric motors...100 mpg Tango all electric, 0-60 in under 4 seconds...no displacement, just batteries Talk about people being stuck in the past. It's the 21st century, and the internal combustion engine as a standalone powerplant is experiencing its last hurrah. For larger vehicles, trucks, buses, again, Ford is behind: "the Fisher GTB-40, a 40-foot transit bus with a nitrogen-strengthened stainless steel body and chassis and a diesel-electric hybrid power system that drives the bus mostly with stored energy. The resulting vehicle weighs about half as much as conventional buses and boasts double the fuel economy."

Show me proof, a CAD drawing would be nice, that the Boss block is TALLER and WIDER than the modular with all accessories. Talk is easy. The modular, before they moved the cams outboard, was bigger than the biggest big blocks Ford ever produced...

why would they need to go short deck? why not just smaller bore? you make things so complicated, no wonder you love the modulars... as for upcoming smog regs, when are we finally going to see a hybrid in a truck? a nice diesel electric with the hydraulic regenerative storage would be nice in a truck, and only 10 years or so after Ford started playing around with the ideas... Again, you're missing the simple solutions and following a rut.

Here's what it comes down to: The 5.0 is a nice modular. The modular doesn't do it for me. Why? Because it's just not a fundamentally good design. It has too many compromises made to cut costs; costs of itself and costs for the vehicles it's meant to be installed in. You love the modular. You dream of flatplane cranks and spinning those long rods to 9K...more power to you. I personally feel that the Boss engine is the better design overall. It has potential. Potential for the Ford of the future with the application of DI, PCM's developed for other engines, valve and cam controls designed ditto, and potential both for lower displacements, larger displacements and everything between. I see the modular as a dead end, with no potential. This is its last hurrah. Enjoy it.

Actually, Ford is depriving many people by forcing them to buy mod motors. The SBC (aka LS) is very similar in size to the old flathead V8. The mod motor is two or three times bigger than a flathead (no lie, for real). That's why you see so many 32 Fords with SBC's installed. Ford is destroying its legacy by forcing people to install engines with distributors on the wrong end in old Fords. But of course, on this board, everyone pays someone else for performance, either a shop or the factory. But if you have a pre-68 vehicle, Ford is letting you down big-time. And windsors are nice crate engines, but it would be nice if Ford, unlike NASCAR, got its nose out of the sixties and updated the crate engines it sells with some modern tech, ohc's, etc that will fit in the older vehicles without punching firewalls back, pulling shock towers out and installing monster hood bubbles.

Dialed down because the knock sensors were dying right and left? That's what you do when you get close to the limit, you back off a little. I will wait, but not hold my breath, for factory Ford to install a na 5.0l modular V8 in a production vehicle and claim more than 412hp. And I don't consider 413hp, or 415hp or even 420hp significant. Let's see 430 or 450hp from a na 5.0l in a production vehicle.

and 412hp is all you'll ever see from this engine. that's after the better part of a year of programming the PCM to ride the knock sensor spike by spike in order to survive on pump gas at 11:1 compression. The 5.? Boss COULD be bored out to 7L, it has, and it HAS produced over 700 HP. If you are satisfied with 412 hp and no potential for more, then the 5.0 is your engine. If you dream of what might be, what might have been, then mourn Ford's decision to prop up the modular for a few more years to keep a V8 in the Mustang. Because that's the only reason it's still around. As for durability? Large oil capacity is there to mask oiling issues. And what will the durability be for knock sensors that are constantly firing? And how does a knock sensor affect performance? It backs off on timing, reducing power output. Wonder how long 412hp will be available once you drive away from the dealer? 1,000 miles? Down the block? During cool days in Michigan? I'd rather have potential. The 5.0 is the very definition of being at death's door with no place to go.

parsing your post, it appears that the only reason for the continuation of the modular engine family is to fit a V8 into the Mustang? Is that right? Because the Boss will fit in any truck bay, whether it be light-duty or heavy-duty trucks. It is only the Mustang engine bay that is so short under its fake long hood that requires the narrow bearings and squeezed bore-spacing of the modular? Saleen managed to shorten up the Windsor block installation by relocating things like the alternator to the side of the block, gaining space in front, allowing it to be installed in a shorter engine bay than Ford thought possible. A Shelby aluminum block can be had with sleeves of various thicknesses. To slim down a bore to 4.05 instead of the normal 4.25" for example. The thicker sleeves do not add "substantially" more weight to the engine. And if the Boss block is cast in aluminum, the weight change would be minimal with the thicker sleeves, even though it is a longer block, it has less skirting, fewer cams and associated valvetrain components. Basically, all I'm hearing is Ford needs a little short V8 for the Mustang and the modular is it. Brag up the modular so that people don't realize what a compromise it is. Anyone know what the current, real-world valve lift limitation is for a DAMB head? For street use by people who don't want radical ramping?

Those dimensions define the limitations of the engine better than any other dimensions. Tell me the other dimensions that actually DO vary between the two, outside of standard tolerances (ie, +.07" bore is just a rebuild resizing...). What actual dimensions changed? By the way, you can't take a 302 Windsor to 427, you take a 351 (the tall-deck Windsor) out to 427. Now answer me this, since you're all about rpm's: if you put a thicker bore lining in the 6.2l, dropping its displacement down to 5.? something, you'd wind up with a stiffer block, more rigid cylinders, better ring sealing at high rpm's wouldn't you? What would be your objection to that if those thicker cylinder linings were in an ALUMINUM 6.2 block? Why spend the research and development time and dollars on a limited application engine family like a modular 2.0-deadend when for the same, and probably less, resources, you could have an engine that could easily range in size from 5.? to 7.0 liters, weigh the same and perform better? You'd have a better engine choice available for a wider range of installations without the increased equipment costs, supply costs, engineering costs and carrying costs of the modular.

Sheet metal changes never fooled me. It's always been the underpinings. All mobile homes fit on the same foundations, either double wide or single. A Cougar not sharing sheet metal with a Mustang doesn't mean they didn't share much of what was underneath. I bet you're fascinated by that plastic intake cover. Even though you know it's pure fake. As for "Yes. The 5.0 is Mod v. 2.0; it's the same approximate dimensions as the mod"???? the bore spacing and deck height is EXACTLY the same between the two.

well, yeah. I'm from a different era, but to me a Mustang was the same as a Cougar (I know I know, but...) just a different trim level. And a Taurus was the same as a Sable, and on and on and on... Your logic is flawed because it isn't the line they're built on or the wheelbase they may share, it's more. And unless you have fallen totally under the thrall of Ford Marketing to the point of insensibility, the "5.0" is basically an updated 4.6. All you really have to do is look at the engineering in the 6.2l, designed AFTER the modulars, which was just transferred over as engineering updates to this "new" 5.0. The problem with the mods has always been its overall outer dimensions, its severely limited displacement capability (even the old "5.0" Windsor could easily go out to 347 and the tall deck Windsor could hit 427 - 7 liters for the French out there), and its narrow rods. This "new" 5.0 doesn't really address any of those issues except maybe keeping those bandy rod ends oiled better. Whatever. Dring the Kool Aid Ford is pouring, or be a man and demand the good stuff. Hint: the 5.0 isn't the good stuff.

The "new" 5.0 has the exact same bore spacing and deck height as the 4.6 modular. This was spec'd to allow production to use the same transfer stations.

Take the 6.2l engine family, add cylinder deactivation capability. There you have the CID changes and one engine family. Isn't the overall size of the 6.2l smaller than the 4.6l? Especially now that the cams are located farther out towards the edges of the head castings? The 4.6l was a big engine to begin with, now it's even bigger.

This engine is basically an updated 4.6 mod. They're claiming all kinds of "improvements", but basically it is a 4.6 block, improved with what they designed for the 6.2l, including the windage improvements, block casting, oil squirters for the pistons, etc... Because they want to use the same production lines for this engine as for the 4.6, the bore spacing dimension is the same, meaning that exactly like the 4.6l modular, this update is pretty much maxed out at 5.0 liters. The issue I have with this "new" engine is that they went with camshafts that are sprawled out even more than they are on the mods, meaning that not only is this thing the same size height-wise as the modular, but it is even WIDER than the modulars, which means this engine is just plain HUGE...for not much displacement, and little potential for increasing displacement other than the modular's taller deck route. This thing's a pig. I'd rather have an ecoboost 3.7 with the turbos turned up. Better power, lighter weight, better mileage and a better platform...that or an ecoboost 6.2l. Remember, all this "info" is coming from Ford Marketing. It's their job to tout "new and improved". As a consumer, it's your job to wade through the B.S. And that intake cover is the purest B.S. away from the back end of a bull. Total fake. Like the fake Hilborn injector cover you can buy for your carb. It's supposed to look like the racing FR500 intake with its tuned runners but underneath it's just a ripoff of Chrysler's "sausages rolling out of a ham" hemi intake. Plastic and fake, not something I'd want to show off.

Do you know what S H O stands for? That's why. Not too many people go around calling things SUPER anymore. Sport is more the word today.

You're full of coprolitic material. There's a picture here of an Ardun chamber, it looks pretty hemispherical to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemi_engine Go troll your line somewhere else.

Is this really information you want to share? :shades:

Shouldn't someone Administrator-like fix the headline/link on the front page? http://www.blueovalnews.com/index.php?cate...2_articleid=575 "Verve" is misspelled "Verce".

cruise control switch?

People are lazy. Paying taxes, while not a good time, is a relatively easy thing to do. It's rolled into the price of a gallon of gas, you pay a little more when you fill up. It's good conversation, nice chance to rant. You want to affect usage? Try something that'll require a little effort from people, and less engineering from the car manufacturers. Instead of regulating mileage, regulate the size of a vehicle's gas tank. Limit gas tank sizes to 10 gallons max, all in, all tanks, and you'll see a mass migration to high-mileage fuel misers. Because what that would do is, make all the lazy drivers get off their barcalounger drivers seats and fill up the tanks more often. Make them trudge into the station to pay more often. American drivers would revolt. You'd have rioting in the streets and protests at the gas stations. And what would be needed from automakers? Smaller tanks. That's it. It would then be an incentive for them to engineer more efficient powertrains, ones that wouldn't require an SUV driver to make daily penitence at his local big oil shrine. It's all good. If nothing else, it would give American drivers a tiny bit more exercise (though they'd be hitting the Twinkie aisle more frequently ).

+1 Wasn't the war in Iraq supposed to MAKE us money. I'm still waiting for the first dollar of return on that investment. More taxes = More money for the government to waste. Waste not, need not. We seem to need a lot, must mean there's someone wasting a heck of a lot.

Another reason there's no money in the federal budget to fix our bridges. Wasting money trying to fight Mother Nature in New Orleans. The city is doomed. Throwing another penny at it is just more weight in the anchor that'll drag it into the gulf. Let it rot. Let it sink. Pull back to someplace where there's some actual land above sealevel. Sinking money into New Orleans is just bad precedent for when the waves start lapping up Wall Street. The ice caps are melting, and coastal cities all around the US are going to see the effects.