therealmrmustang Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Beating a dead horse is right. We have a Hurricane and a Coyote. The Mod will be history. Get over it and move on. I don't speculate! I like this guy!! :beerchug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The early MOD idea was flat out Ford jumping the gun in believeing gas prices were going to soar in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s. That's why the were fired up about FWD V8 applications with smaller than standard capacity. At the time, surface to volume ratio was considered important in controlling emissions, the smaller bore gives greater surface to volume ratio and allowed Ford to delete the air pump on V8s. Unfortunately, 90 cents/gallon made the decision look strange........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 And I do not endorse the Modular Engines in any way! Why not? They are reliable engines that in multi-valve form make power easily. I'm still amazed at how much misinformation exists regarding this engine family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Why not? They are reliable engines that in multi-valve form make power easily. I'm still amazed at how much misinformation exists regarding this engine family. When the Mods came out they served their purpose. They provided a variety of different multi-valve engines at a low cost. You look at what everyone else sells a 32 valve V-8 for, the Mods are a bargan. We can take what was learned from them, the good and the bad to make a better generation of engines. Besides, some people are arguing that I think the Mods are the best engine family in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Besides, some people are arguing that I think the Mods are the best engine family in the world. The Modulars are one of the best. Other than the LSx, I can't think of another engine family that accomplished so much in such a short time. The Modular's biggest weakness, IMO, was Ford's unwillingness to spend money on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the GM LS series of engines "accomplished so much in such a short period of time". The LS is an evolution of an engine design that has been in existence since 1955. Not exactly a clean sheet of paper when compared to the modular V8s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the GM LS series of engines "accomplished so much in such a short period of time". The LS is an evolution of an engine design that has been in existence since 1955. Not exactly a clean sheet of paper when compared to the modular V8s. The LSx is a clean sheet design, in fact, it really has more in common design-wise with SBFs and the Modulars than it does with the traditional small block Chevy. It has accomplished quite a bit in the last 12 years, in both production and in motorsports, as has the Modular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 The Modulars are one of the best. Other than the LSx, I can't think of another engine family that accomplished so much in such a short time. The Modular's biggest weakness, IMO, was Ford's unwillingness to spend money on them. They are now out of date. We are at the point that Ford needs a clean sheet design which is what they got woth the new 5.0L and 6.2L. The biggest fault was making a long stroke 4.6L that could fit in a FWD Continental. This limits the max size to near 5.4L. for a normal V-8. Had the Mod engines started at 5.0L it raises the max to 5.8 to 5.9. That is still assuming that you are starting with a long stroke. If the 5.0 had a shorter stroke and you maxed out the stroke, then the max size could be maybe 6.0L, 7.0L or more. The Mods had a fixed bore spacing to make it easier to build differnt engines in the same plant. Today, with flexible manufacturing, they can have different bore spacing, bore and stroke on different engines to achieve the ideal stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 They are now out of date. We are at the point that Ford needs a clean sheet design which is what they got woth the new 5.0L and 6.2L. The biggest fault was making a long stroke 4.6L that could fit in a FWD Continental. This limits the max size to near 5.4L. for a normal V-8. Had the Mod engines started at 5.0L it raises the max to 5.8 to 5.9. That is still assuming that you are starting with a long stroke. If the 5.0 had a shorter stroke and you maxed out the stroke, then the max size could be maybe 6.0L, 7.0L or more. The Mods had a fixed bore spacing to make it easier to build differnt engines in the same plant. Today, with flexible manufacturing, they can have different bore spacing, bore and stroke on different engines to achieve the ideal stroke. Doesn't really fly, some of the best engines in the world are on smaller bore centerlines (and bore diameters) than the Modulars. Honda S2000 BMW I6 Ferrari V8 to name a few. You can save the "but they are engines found in high end, expensive cars", heard it all before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 The 3.9 Jaguar V-8 is a beautiful engine still today, imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Doesn't really fly, some of the best engines in the world are on smaller bore centerlines (and bore diameters) than the Modulars. Honda S2000 BMW I6 Ferrari V8 to name a few. You can save the "but they are engines found in high end, expensive cars", heard it all before. These are all small engines. Small engines have small bores. Large engines have large bores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 The 3.9 Jaguar V-8 is a beautiful engine still today, imho. Is this based off the Mod engines? If so, then it would have a very short stroke compared to a 5.4L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Is this based off the Mod engines? If so, then it would have a very short stroke compared to a 5.4L. I don't believe it's based on the Mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Is this based off the Mod engines? If so, then it would have a very short stroke compared to a 5.4L. The old Jag V8 isn't based on the Mod because it has 98 bore centres, direct acting bucket valvetrain and an aluminium bedplate construction cylinder block. The latter design of this had a 90.3mm stroke. If you're feeling wealthy there is an SAE paper on the the first design: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/970914 The new Jaguar V8 is again not based off the Mod (again DA bucket valvetrain, high pressure die cast block, and very different cooling and oil system), BUT it does share the very basic dimensions of the Mod, 100mm bore centres and 99mm lateral headbolt pitch. http://blog.drivers-republic.com/wp-conten...ines/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealmrmustang Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) That's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the GM LS series of engines "accomplished so much in such a short period of time". The LS is an evolution of an engine design that has been in existence since 1955. Not exactly a clean sheet of paper when compared to the modular V8s. But it is a clean sheet design. There is no evolution from the LS to the first gen SBC. The LS actually has more in common with the SBF than a SBC. Not saying that they copied Ford in any way... Just saying that the design has more in common. (...oops! Someone already said this!! It would help if I read further ahead!) Edited February 2, 2009 by therealmrmustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 These are all small engines. Small engines have small bores. Large engines have large bores. Undersquare is undersquare, multivalve engines don't need large bores to make power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Undersquare is undersquare, multivalve engines don't need large bores to make power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Undersquare is undersquare, multivalve engines don't need large bores to make power. All things equal, displacement wise, an oversquare engine will displace more volume/crankshaft degree than an undersquare engine. The next need is to put a decent topside on said oversquare engine. The old 5.0 pushrod engine was an excellent oversquare design. The 3" stroke had lower ring friction than a 4.6 Mod. You should have seen the 4 valve push rod proposal for this engine. This thing made peak power and torque that would make a DOHC Mod green with envy. Only problem was it didn't fit well in a FWD application. They did some 1986 Taurus mules. It would have been excellent for that time period but would have needed some major redesign for today's need for VCT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Undersquare is undersquare, multivalve engines don't need large bores to make power. I didn't think of that. Multivalve engines are a little more flexible as to bore and stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) I didn't think of that. Multivalve engines are a little more flexible as to bore and stroke. You are mistaken. Edited February 3, 2009 by Blue II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Fit a steering wheel on the R/H side & sell it to the rest of the world and watch Mustang sales quadruple overnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 All things equal, displacement wise, an oversquare engine will displace more volume/crankshaft degree than an undersquare engine. The next need is to put a decent topside on said oversquare engine. Multivalve engines are a little more flexible as to bore and stroke. You are mistaken. Explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Head configuration and bore/stroke dimensions are not related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 All things equal, displacement wise, an oversquare engine will displace more volume/crankshaft degree than an undersquare engine. The next need is to put a decent topside on said oversquare engine. I know two guys who built 5.4 4Vs with the exact same cylinder heads (ported Ford GTs flowing close to 400 cfm on a 3.572" bore, ported by the same guy, at the same time, side-by-side). One guy built his 5.4 with a standard .020" overbore and stock 4.165" stroke, the other built his engine with a 3.700" bore and a 3.78x" stroke. Both fitted with the same intake manifold (ported Sullivan single plane) and turning 8000+ rpm. The final result? The big bore/short stroke engine made 9 more rwhp (at a higher rpm) and 30 lb-ft less torque. I've personally seen comparison after comparison where this same situation has played out, the end result is almost always the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) You are mistaken. How much power did the 4V 302 make? I would expect it to make more power than a 4.6 4V Mod, but less than a 5.4 4V Mod. Regarding the performance of undersquare/square/oversquare engines, those two N/A 5.4 4Vs (333 and 325 cid respectively) ran within tenths of Don Bowles' 777 powered car. One of them was running with 3400 lb race weight as well. Edited February 3, 2009 by White99GT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.