Ford Power alive and well!

[Stray Kat]

Hey whats going on here? Out of nowhere Ford Motor and Ford tuners and enthisiasts are staging a mini coup'. Lots to cheer about this year. First despite a bug that caught all but one of the Ford Powered Daytona Prototypes the one remaining finished a strong 4th on the lead lap. Nearly a podium finish. A Mustang won the Grand Am supporting race to the Rolex 24.

 

Now I open up BON and there's Dave McClelland talking to Carrol Shelby and Don Prudhomme about an 800 hp Shelby Super Snake Prudhomme edition Mustang. This is complete with a supercharged Mod tilt front end and injector "hat" poking through the hood. Prudhomme says something about being able to do the 1/4 mile in less than 10 seconds then drive it home. What!!!

 

At Pomona Fords are well represented in Stock and Super Stock, including the new Cobra Jet Mustangs with their `68 throwback paint jobs. Looks like Pro Stock will get interesting with the Cunningham team and Erica Enders. Ford will have the new pro stock block and heads out to help them soon. Team Force seems to be using the new Boss 500 nitro engine in more if not all of their team cars this year.

 

Ford has a new NASCAR F9 engine almost ready. This will help Ford teams immensely in trying to compete with their competition's race only non- production based designs.

 

For those that doubt the Modular engine family I submit that it is one of the greatest engines Ford ever built. Just like the Total Performance `60's with the 427 Ford F engines, the Mods are competing and winning in all forms of racing.

 

I'm really happy with Ford's new car lineup and it looks like they are leading in the responsible performance/safety/economy categories. Fords look very balanced and solid to me these past few years.

 

I'm optimistic about the future in spite of the times.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Stray Kat

[White99GT]

No, the Mods clearly suck.

 

The were designed for use in FWD vehicles and the narrow bore spacing means these engine can never perform.

 

Never mind actual results.

[FoMoCobra]

I'm really happy to see this as well.

I guess this is the Re-birth of Ford. Racing has always helped Ford compete for customers on the showroom floor. Its the original formula and probably the one that works best.

 

American car manufacturers have had a severe identity crisis lately. If you think about it they will always be known for Stock Cars & Dragsters in my opinion. Even if those cars share no parts whatsoever with a mainstream fusion, focus, taurus or even a cobalt. The image is there, its patriotic and it sells.

 

As for the Mod family motors. It only became a good motor once Ford figured out how to shove more air down its throat (read: forced indcution). That became apparent with the 1999-2001 Cobra Fiasco. This... I think was the turning point for the motor.

[White99GT]

As for the Mod family motors. It only became a good motor once Ford figured out how to shove more air down its throat (read: forced indcution). That became apparent with the 1999-2001 Cobra Fiasco. This... I think was the turning point for the motor.

 

That must be why my little N/A Modular regularly smacks down bolt-on '03 Cobras. That must be why N/A Mach 1s regularly run with (and out-run) 346 ci LS1 F-Bodies. That must be why N/A Modulars have proven successful in Grand Am cup and Daytona Prototype.

 

That must be why the N/A 2000 R made every bit as much power as the 03/04 Cobra stock-for-stock. That must be why race prepped N/A 5.4 4Vs at roughly 330 ci have hit 600 rwhp and run low 9s at ~145 mph (at 3,400 lbs no less), more power and quicker ETs than any stock displacement LS1 ever has (or likely ever will), and better than all but a handful of unstreetable race-built N/A 420+ ci LSx based engines have. That must be why Modular Performance ran 9.3s@143 with a 304 ci "big bore" 4.6-based N/A 4V way back in 2003.

 

Modulars need FI no more than any other engine, in fact, they have more than proven their outstanding N/A capabilities if you step away from the dealer brochures.

Edited February 8, 2009 by White99GT

[blksn8k2]

A Mustang won the Grand Am supporting race to the Rolex 24.

 

If you are referring to the Koni Challenge race at Daytona I hate to burst your bubble but that race was won this year by a BMW. Mustangs finished 2nd, 3rd and 5th.

 

http://www.grand-am.com/koni/schedule/results.cfm

Edited February 8, 2009 by blksn8k2

[Stray Kat]

If you are referring to the Koni Challenge race at Daytona I hate to burst your bubble but that race was won this year by a BMW. Mustangs finished 2nd, 3rd and 5th.

 

http://www.grand-am.com/koni/schedule/results.cfm

 

 

 

Sorry my bad, but 2,3 and 5th is not shabby. Mustangs regularly win in this series none the less.

[Edstock]

Plus FIA GT 3 & 4

 

http://www.matech-concepts.ch/

 

Their Ford GT won GT 3

 

Turn the speakers up, great guitar.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Edstock

[FoMoCobra]

That must be why my little N/A Modular regularly smacks down bolt-on '03 Cobras. That must be why N/A Mach 1s regularly run with (and out-run) 346 ci LS1 F-Bodies. That must be why N/A Modulars have proven successful in Grand Am cup and Daytona Prototype.

 

That must be why the N/A 2000 R made every bit as much power as the 03/04 Cobra stock-for-stock. That must be why race prepped N/A 5.4 4Vs at roughly 330 ci have hit 600 rwhp and run low 9s at ~145 mph (at 3,400 lbs no less), more power and quicker ETs than any stock displacement LS1 ever has (or likely ever will), and better than all but a handful of unstreetable race-built N/A 420+ ci LSx based engines have. That must be why Modular Performance ran 9.3s@143 with a 304 ci "big bore" 4.6-based N/A 4V way back in 2003.

 

Modulars need FI no more than any other engine, in fact, they have more than proven their outstanding N/A capabilities if you step away from the dealer brochures.

 

Whoa....

 

Dont get me wrong Mr. White99GT, you're the one who said "the Mods Clearly Suck". All I said was that 1999+ (as you so clearly proved above) was when the mod motor came alive and really started to dominate. And by Forced Induction, I ment both Super Charged and aggressively tuned intake porting.

 

Just for the record: The 2000 Cobra R cost $54,995 and was only equal in performance to the underrated $34,595 03/04 Cobra... and that's with the CD player and A/C running.

 

BTW, I hope your not accusing me of Brochure Shopping.... I have bought, sold, raced, and studied plenty of cars on my own... dude.

[F250]

That must be why my little N/A Modular regularly smacks down bolt-on '03 Cobras. That must be why N/A Mach 1s regularly run with (and out-run) 346 ci LS1 F-Bodies. That must be why N/A Modulars have proven successful in Grand Am cup and Daytona Prototype.

 

That must be why the N/A 2000 R made every bit as much power as the 03/04 Cobra stock-for-stock. That must be why race prepped N/A 5.4 4Vs at roughly 330 ci have hit 600 rwhp and run low 9s at ~145 mph (at 3,400 lbs no less), more power and quicker ETs than any stock displacement LS1 ever has (or likely ever will), and better than all but a handful of unstreetable race-built N/A 420+ ci LSx based engines have. That must be why Modular Performance ran 9.3s@143 with a 304 ci "big bore" 4.6-based N/A 4V way back in 2003.

 

Modulars need FI no more than any other engine, in fact, they have more than proven their outstanding N/A capabilities if you step away from the dealer brochures.

 

Yea! Damn right!

That's also why the top dog 5.4L N/A Modular has class leading Horsepower and torque and kicks Toyota, Dodge and GMs ass!

That's why the N/A Modular in the Mustang GT kicks Dodge Challenger's N/A Hemi butt!

 

oh...

 

never mind...

 

You have to realize very few new vehicle buyers (which Ford needs right now) care how successfull the guy down the street is racing his modular. What those buyers do care about is a durable, high quality, efficent, engine that provides good power with low maintenance which is exactly what the modular does.

The race record is just icing on the cake.

[Stray Kat]

Yea! Damn right!

That's also why the top dog 5.4L N/A Modular has class leading Horsepower and torque and kicks Toyota, Dodge and GMs ass!

That's why the N/A Modular in the Mustang GT kicks Dodge Challenger's N/A Hemi butt!

 

oh...

 

never mind...

 

 

I don't think your examples take into account displacement differences, nor do they account for the peak HP #'s requiring premium fuel to get there. Fords do not use cyl deactivation to my knowledge to get the mileage either.

[White99GT]

Not to mention that the Mods mentioned by F250 are 3Vs, which haven't accomplished much of anything (of significance) without boost or in the racing world.

[F250]

I don't think your examples take into account displacement differences, nor do they account for the peak HP #'s requiring premium fuel to get there. Fords do not use cyl deactivation to my knowledge to get the mileage either.

 

They take into account what Ford and the competition offers right now.

 

And if displacement is the only excuse well Toyota gets one hell of a lot more torque and HP from their huge .3L displacement advantage. Before someone jumps up and says Toyota uses 4-V heads, well Ford used them to on the 5.4L Navagator and switched to the new 3-valve keeping the same HP and gaining low RPM torque.

[RichardJensen]

How long them Toyota motors gonna last, though?

 

I can just about imagine those engineers skimping on the rods, pistons, and crankshaft to lower the reciprocating mass and juice the performance numbers.

 

Near as I can figure Toyota manages a stated 10% increase in torque off a 6% advantage in displacement, so your torque per cubic inch isn't all that much better------and I'd toss out the negligible difference that's left to margin for error between testing methods.

Edited February 10, 2009 by RichardJensen

[F250]

Not to mention that the Mods mentioned by F250 are 3Vs, which haven't accomplished much of anything (of significance) without boost or in the racing world.

 

But those 3-valve engines have provided more torque than the 4-valve N/A engines.

Again, believe it or not very few new car buyers care about weekend drag racers.

 

All '09 F-150's and most gas SuperDutys (for example) have automatic transmissions and a lot of weight to get moving off the line and that's before adding payload or towing. High flow heads are not going to help make max torque at 2500 RPM to get the weight moving from a stop.

 

The 4-valve N/A mods, especially the 4.6L reminded me of the original '69-70 Boss 302s, excellent high RPM race engines that were lacking the low RPM torque needed for a daily driven street vehicle. High flow cylinder heads and small displacement killed the torque so Ford tuned the intake/exhaust to get some low RPM torque back and in the process limited the high RPM HP (example-Navigator 4V 5.4L).

Edited February 10, 2009 by F250

[F250]

How long them Toyota motors gonna last, though?

I don't know...you buy one and let me know.

 

I can just about imagine those engineers skimping on the rods, pistons, and crankshaft to lower the reciprocating mass and juice the performance numbers.

 

Prove it. Stats?

 

[RichardJensen]

Prove it. Stats?

I don't believe I asserted anything as a fact. I merely speculated that--given the shoddy engineering in the rest of the Tundra--the engine ain't too high test either.

 

It's a debatable proposition: I've stated the basis of my argument--that is, if the rest of the truck is so poorly designed, why should one expect great things from the engine?

 

----

 

Furthermore, I suspect the 4V heads breathe better at higher RPMs which would explain the higher HP numbers. If memory serves the 5.7 & 5.4 have similar strokes.

[wildosvt]

I don't believe I asserted anything as a fact. I merely speculated that--given the shoddy engineering in the rest of the Tundra--the engine ain't too high test either.

 

It's a debatable proposition: I've stated the basis of my argument--that is, if the rest of the truck is so poorly designed, why should one expect great things from the engine?

 

----

 

Furthermore, I suspect the 4V heads breathe better at higher RPMs which would explain the higher HP numbers. If memory serves the 5.7 & 5.4 have similar strokes.

 

Wasn't it this V8 that had its development cut by 16 months or so? :shades:

[RichardJensen]

Wasn't it this V8 that had its development cut by 16 months or so? :shades:

Well, hey, you don't need an extra 16 months to DESIGN an engine. Only to test it.

 

And if you designed it PERFECTLY (as some at Toyota seem to believe is the default setting for all Toyota products), well then you don't need to test it at all......

 

You know, like the steering systems and front suspensions on the Tundras and Tacomas that have been recalled at near Focus like levels.

[J-150]

You know, like the steering systems and front suspensions on the Tundras and Tacomas that have been recalled at near Focus like levels.

 

 

but how can that be Richard?

 

Everyone knows that Toyota last forever. They never get old, they never die, they never break. And they have 500hp and 75mpg on everything they sell.

[White99GT]

But those 3-valve engines have provided more torque than the 4-valve N/A engines.

Again, believe it or not very few new car buyers care about weekend drag racers.

 

Even with CMRC and VCT, the 3Vs still don't quite match the torque of the N/A 4V Machs which have no such advantages.

 

The 4-valve N/A mods, especially the 4.6L reminded me of the original '69-70 Boss 302s, excellent high RPM race engines that were lacking the low RPM torque needed for a daily driven street vehicle. High flow cylinder heads and small displacement killed the torque so Ford tuned the intake/exhaust to get some low RPM torque back and in the process limited the high RPM HP (example-Navigator 4V 5.4L).

 

4V heads killed torque? Only in the 93-98 split port 4V cylinder heads which had 220cc combined intake runner volume. 03/04 Machs regularly make around 300 rwtq completely stock...from 281 inches. Machs have heads that outflow the old 220cc B-heads but use runners with only 177cc volume to do it. You must realize that not all 4Vs were created equal.

 

Regarding the Navi 5.4 4V versus the 5.4 3V, you're comparing an engine first produced in 1999 versus 2004.

 

The Navi 4V had between 12 and 14 degrees less duration on the intake cams versus the 3V (at .050), no VCT, 0.3:1 less compression, not to mention that rat's nest of an intake manifold.

 

Yet it still managed to match the 3V on peak horsepower (at the same RPM), and although it made 10 lb.-ft. less at peak, it's peak occurred at 1,000 lower rpm than the 3V. Drive the two back-to-back, even though the 4V Navis were handicapped with a 4-speed auto, they still feel peppier than than the 3V Navis.

 

Also, don't kid yourself into thinking the Navi engine was an example of what Ford was fully capable of achieving with the 5.4 4V in a truck application. It wasn't even close.

Edited February 10, 2009 by White99GT

[atomaro]

stop wasting your breath, white99GT will defend the mods till the end of time.

 

while I am a fan of the MOD, Ford's anal, conservative nature kills them

Edited February 11, 2009 by atomaro

[F250]

Even with CMRC and VCT, the 3Vs still don't quite match the torque of the N/A 4V Machs which have no such advantages.

 

 

 

4V heads killed torque? Only in the 93-98 split port 4V cylinder heads which had 220cc combined intake runner volume. 03/04 Machs regularly make around 300 rwtq completely stock...from 281 inches. Machs have heads that outflow the old 220cc B-heads but use runners with only 177cc volume to do it. You must realize that not all 4Vs were created equal.

 

Regarding the Navi 5.4 4V versus the 5.4 3V, you're comparing an engine first produced in 1999 versus 2004.

 

The Navi 4V had between 12 and 14 degrees less duration on the intake cams versus the 3V (at .050), no VCT, 0.3:1 less compression, not to mention that rat's nest of an intake manifold.

 

Yet it still managed to match the 3V on peak horsepower (at the same RPM), and although it made 10 lb.-ft. less at peak, it's peak occurred at 1,000 lower rpm than the 3V. Drive the two back-to-back, even though the 4V Navis were handicapped with a 4-speed auto, they still feel peppier than than the 3V Navis.

 

Also, don't kid yourself into thinking the Navi engine was an example of what Ford was fully capable of achieving with the 5.4 4V in a truck application. It wasn't even close.

 

At what RPM was that 4-valve 4.6 making that peak torque stat and what percentage was available just off-idle speed?

 

The 3-valve 4.6 in the Mustang pulls 320 lb.fl torque at 4500 RPM but Ford gave up 8 peak HP to pull the same 320 at a much lower 4000 RPM for the F-150 and the truck engine makes 80% of it's torque from 1500 RPM through the entire range.

 

The 3-valve 5.4 torque stats are of course even better.

 

Like I said to get the low RPM torque such a heavy vehicle needs, the intake and cam timing were all part of the compromise of the 4V Navi 5.4L.

Edited February 11, 2009 by F250

[White99GT]

At what RPM was that 4-valve 4.6 making that peak torque stat and what percentage was available just off-idle speed?

 

The 3-valve 4.6 in the Mustang pulls 320 lb.fl torque at 4500 RPM but Ford gave up 8 peak HP to pull the same 320 at a much lower 4000 RPM for the F-150 and the truck engine makes 80% of it's torque from 1500 RPM through the entire range.

 

The 3-valve 5.4 torque stats are of course even better.

 

Like I said to get the low RPM torque such a heavy vehicle needs, the intake and cam timing were all part of the compromise of the 4V Navi 5.4L.

 

The Mach made peak torque at 4200 rpm.

 

Once again, the 4V Navi 5.4 didn't have any form of VCT like the 3V do.

 

You're talking about an engine first in production in 1999 versus one that wasn't seen in the US until the 2004 MY.

 

What would have happened had Ford chose to continue with the 5.4 4V, used twin independent VCT and an intake comarable to the 3Vs? Remember, the 5.4 4V was already matching the 3V on peak power and provided more low end torque.

[7Mary3]

I am not a Mod fan. When I see one going fast (and there are some), I give most of the credit to whomever built that particular engine. It's like the old Flathead. A piss-poor design from the 1930's that through the ingenuity of people like Vic Edelbrock, Jazzy Nelson, Ed Iskenderian and a whole bunch more did become a legend on the race track, no thanks to Ford. Well, maybe the Mod isn't quite that bad, but I think it is clear that high performance was not on the agenda of those that designed the first 4.6L's. I have high hopes for the Boss.

[RichardJensen]

Well, maybe the Mod isn't quite that bad, but I think it is clear that high performance was not on the agenda of those that designed the first 4.6L's. I have high hopes for the Boss.

I just can't figure out the mod haters---you've got an engine that delivers over 300hp out of less than 4.6L while meeting ULEV II emissions regulations that flat out scorch the emissions profile of the old Windsor block engines....

 

It's got enormous upside potential for tuners.

 

It's probably the most durable engine available in a pickup truck

 

It's been used on cars that list for over $100,000 (and not just Fords) and on trucks that cost less than $25k

 

You can't find a more versatile V8......

 

IMO, a lot of mod disdain comes from objections over its displacement to weight ratio.... Or its displacement to exterior dimension ratio.

 

In other words, disdain over something that is purely a matter of taste. Or snobbery, if you will....

 

Sort of an "oh, 315hp from 4.6L? Doesn't matter because it's soooo big.... Oh.... the only V8 with more power from similar displacement is an Audi? In a $60k car? Oh, well, that doesn't matter because the mod is just soooooooo big..."

Edited February 12, 2009 by RichardJensen