Ford Power alive and well!

[7Mary3]

Some of the things I don't like about the Mods are excessive width, the design of the 2 valve heads, too small bore spacing, and intake manifold design. Better than a Windsor? Yes, of course. Most durable gas engine in a light truck? No. I have worked in fleet maintenance for many years, and have seen all the Mods' problems. Intake manifolds, exhaust manifold studs, spark plug blow-out, repeated coil failures, timing chain tensioners, head gaskets and piston slap. Throw in the non-sensical differences between Windsor built and Romeo built Mods too. Ford addressed most all these problems eventually, but in cost of ownership the Mods are only average or slightly better than average. A bad engine? No, just not my favorite. What I have seen so far of the Boss I like. I know the design is quite similar to the Mod is several aspects, but I see lots of improvement.

[7Mary3]

I'll throw something else out there that's bound to start a fight: Whatever a current Mod. can do, a Chevy LS can do better. Ouch!

[RichardJensen]

Some of the things I don't like about the Mods are excessive width, the design of the 2 valve heads, too small bore spacing, and intake manifold design. Better than a Windsor? Yes, of course. Most durable gas engine in a light truck? No. I have worked in fleet maintenance for many years, and have seen all the Mods' problems. Intake manifolds, exhaust manifold studs, spark plug blow-out, repeated coil failures, timing chain tensioners, head gaskets and piston slap. Throw in the non-sensical differences between Windsor built and Romeo built Mods too. Ford addressed most all these problems eventually, but in cost of ownership the Mods are only average or slightly better than average. A bad engine? No, just not my favorite. What I have seen so far of the Boss I like. I know the design is quite similar to the Mod is several aspects, but I see lots of improvement.

The 1st 2v heads were pretty bad.

[RichardJensen]

I'll throw something else out there that's bound to start a fight: Whatever a current Mod. can do, a Chevy LS can do better. Ouch!

Where's the production 5.3LS with over 500hp? Zingggggg...........

[7Mary3]

Where's the production 5.3LS with over 500hp? Zingggggg...........

 

5.3L's a truck engine. How about a 505 h.p. 7.0L, no blower, go to the dealer right now any mortal can buy one, wrapped in a Corvette, pushrods and all ZO6? Va-Voooom......

 

Just to show I am not biased, I wouldn't even begin to compare any of those 4 cylinder tractor engines GM has blessed us with over the years with Ford's 4 cylinders. The Kent, the Colonge/Lima 2.0 and 2.3L OHC's, the late Zetec and Duratec. I'll forget about the 2.3 HSC!

[351cid]

The 6.8L V-10 is hands down the best heavy duty gas engine built. It will out pull the Dodge V-10 and the GM 8.1L and there are quite a few that have exceeded 300,000 miles. The 6.8L fuel mileage is better than the above listed engines and is leaps ahead of the 460 it replaced.

 

With that said, there were some issues with plugs popping out in the earliest version. That has been resolved.

 

I am a big fan of the older pushrod engines. I have several small blocks, a couple of 351 Clevelands, and a 460 (one day to be a 514) and will not deny that they are great engines. I will also state that the MODULAR series of engines will go down in history as one of Ford's greatest engines.

[MGallun]

looks like in stock group at NHRA race this week tom c. won in his cobra jet mustang... his last 3 races it seemed her scared them all, one guy didnt even stage.. the last 2 red lighted trying to get jump on him..

 

so, what kind of engine did that stang use?

Edited February 12, 2009 by MGallun

[Stray Kat]

Every performance thread seems to end as an anti Mod thread anymore. Just a few thoughts here. I see a trend where the Mod is faulted for some early problems not taking into account any issues that competing engine families suffer. The LS series is a good platform. Only through constant evolutions and improvements does it succeed at the performance levels it enjoys now.

 

I have to snicker at the physical size comparos because no one accounts for engine length in their comments. The Mods with their tight bore spacing are significantly shorter than either the LS GM's or the hemi Chryslers. In addition no one cares that on the Mods there are no component brackets, all accessories bolt directly to the block. I think that is a huge point when thinking in terms of NVH and durability and simplicity issues. Then we get to the supercharged debate. Since when are superchargers a bad thing in America? Anyone ever notice that the empty valley of the Modular engines happens to be a great place to packace a blower and intercooler? the blower drive pulley is in line with the stock FEAD system. They work very well. I know of no engine design which more readily accepts a positive displacement supercharger than a Ford Modular. The LS engines are pushing 7.0 liters of displacement with lots of specialized goodies to equal what a 3 or 4 valve mass produced Ford Modular can do with a supercharger. The Modular in most of the recent configurations can handle double or triple the factory power with a piston and rod upgrade. There is no more completely changing out factory components for aftermarket stuff. The Mods are great platforms as they are. Do they need to keep pace and continue upgrading....sure that's competition. When the big bore Hurricane engine equals the enemies displacement potential they will cry no fair "cuz Ford had to use OHC's" Historically that is true. Many different cyl head designs were handicapped or just plain outlawed in competition just to keep the wedge head Chevys in the game.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Stray Kat

[Stray Kat]

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.

 

 

 

This is malarky and I think written just to provoke reaction. For example: recently there was a thread on the HAMB in which one of the members sliced a Flathead Ford block open with a bandsaw to expose a horizontal cross section of the exhaust ports. The exhaust ports were thought to be a Flathead achillies heal. Suprisingly the reality showed that the exhaust ports were actually pretty nicely done especially for a sidevalve V8. The ports are smooth and fall gracefully away from the exhaust valve pockets. The point of this is I maintain that the Flathead Ford was an exquiste design for its time and price range.

 

I wonder if you've ever driven a V8 Ford back to back with other brand vehicles of that era? I believe if you did your outlook would be different.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Stray Kat

[White99GT]

I'll throw something else out there that's bound to start a fight: Whatever a current Mod. can do, a Chevy LS can do better. Ouch!

 

Ok, find me a stock displacement naturally aspirated 5.7 (LS1) that has run 9.2@144 mph in the 1/4. The 5.4 4V Mod at has done just that at stock displacement.

 

Good luck on the search, because such an LS1 doesn't exist.

 

Also, find me an LSx that has run better than low 6s at 220 mph in the 1/4. The 4.6 4V Mod has done just that. Good luck once again, because no LSx at any discplacement has done that.

 

Find me an LSx on a production block casting and production cylinder head castings that has made in excess of 2300 rwhp. Doesn't exist.

[therealmrmustang]

I'll throw something else out there that's bound to start a fight: Whatever a current Mod. can do, a Chevy LS can do better. Ouch!

 

On shear displacement alone... and for no other reason. If it were possible to have a 5.7l or a 6.0l 4v large bore Modular, the LS wouldn't stand a chance. Though the most advanced push rod engine ever, the LS was obsolete before the first one came off the assembly line.

 

The Boss and the Coyote will be everything that the current Mod is not... while the LS fades into the distance.

[therealmrmustang]

Ok, find me a stock displacement naturally aspirated 5.7 (LS1) that has run 9.2@144 mph in the 1/4. The 5.4 4V Mod at has done just that at stock displacement.

 

Good luck on the search, because such an LS1 doesn't exist.

 

Also, find me an LSx that has run better than low 6s at 220 mph in the 1/4. The 4.6 4V Mod has done just that. Good luck once again, because no LSx at any discplacement has done that.

 

Find me an LSx on a production block casting and production cylinder head castings that has made in excess of 2300 rwhp. Doesn't exist.

 

 

You are absolutely correct sir! John Mihovetz and his twin turbo Cougar own the door slammer et record (6.34@220mph)... 2300+hp with a stock block Modular. If it were an LS... it'd be a grenade.

[Project-Fairmont]

Every performance thread seems to end as an anti Mod thread anymore. Just a few thoughts here. I see a trend where the Mod is faulted for some early problems not taking into account any issues that competing engine families suffer. The LS series is a good platform. Only through constant evolutions and improvements does it succeed at the performance levels it enjoys now.

 

I have to snicker at the physical size comparos because no one accounts for engine length in their comments. The Mods with their tight bore spacing are significantly shorter than either the LS GM's or the hemi Chryslers. In addition no one cares that on the Mods there are no component brackets, all accessories bolt directly to the block. I think that is a huge point when thinking in terms of NVH and durability and simplicity issues. Then we get to the supercharged debate. Since when are superchargers a bad thing in America? Anyone ever notice that the empty valley of the Modular engines happens to be a great place to packace a blower and intercooler? the blower drive pulley is in line with the stock FEAD system. They work very well. I know of no engine design which more readily accepts a positive displacement supercharger than a Ford Modular. The LS engines are pushing 7.0 liters of displacement with lots of specialized goodies to equal what a 3 or 4 valve mass produced Ford Modular can do with a supercharger. The Modular in most of the recent configurations can handle double or triple the factory power with a piston and rod upgrade. There is no more completely changing out factory components for aftermarket stuff. The Mods are great platforms as they are. Do they need to keep pace and continue upgrading....sure that's competition. When the big bore Hurricane engine equals the enemies displacement potential they will cry no fair "cuz Ford had to use OHC's" Historically that is true. Many different cyl head designs were handicapped or just plain outlawed in competition just to keep the wedge head Chevys in the game.

 

You are quite right! The Mustang Mach III concept car of 1993 not only provided a glimpse of the Sn95 body style to come in '94. It also featured a intercooled SC 4.6 DOHC engine that would finally appear in the 2003-'04 Cobra. Indeed the Mod engine was designed from the get go to feature forced induction. Not as a bandaid as LS touters like to claim. Also - There are factory block (Nav 5.4) blown mods that have chassis dynoed 2000+ HP. The one true fly in the ointment in my opnion is the physical size - but if your car was designed for it - who cares?

 

A fully dressed alum bock Mustang 3v weighs 420 lbs. can be built to withstand incredible cylinder pressure (forged internals - scrap those cracked powdered metal conrods - LS has those too) that would make a factory block Windsor burst all with a smooth idle simply not possible with a Winsdor.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Project-Fairmont

[7Mary3]

This is malarky and I think written just to provoke reaction.

 

Well, now that you mention it! But, Flathead exhaust ports are terrible. The problem isn't their shape, it is that they run clear through the block to the outboard side, and the center cylinders share a port. Good for heating up the water, not much else. 3 main bearing crank?

 

I wonder if you've ever driven a V8 Ford back to back with other brand vehicles of that era? I believe if you did your outlook would be different.

 

Yes, I have. Going all the way back to '32, the Flathead was innovative for it's one piece block, and it was clearly the fastest low priced car available. But Henry Ford stubbornly stuck to transverse leaf spring suspension and mechanical brakes, which made his cars miserable compared to G.M. and Chrysler products. Ford's 6 cylinders usually bested the V-8's performance in later years, and when Oldsmobile debuted with a short stroke OHV V-8 in '49, it was over for the Flathead.

[therealmrmustang]

Yes, I have. Going all the way back to '32, the Flathead was innovative for it's one piece block, and it was clearly the fastest low priced car available. But Henry Ford stubbornly stuck to transverse leaf spring suspension and mechanical brakes, which made his cars miserable compared to G.M. and Chrysler products. Ford's 6 cylinders usually bested the V-8's performance in later years, and when Oldsmobile debuted with a short stroke OHV V-8 in '49, it was over for the Flathead.

 

Not completely...

 

The ol' Flatty managed to remain fairly popular until the small-block Chevy arrived in '55, mostly due to faithful hot-rodders and the aftermarket.

[RichardJensen]

5.3L's a truck engine.

Well, your words were along the lines of anything the Mod can do, the LS can do better. Sorry if I assumed that you were going to put any consistency to your contest :P

[Stray Kat]

Yes, I have. Going all the way back to '32, the Flathead was innovative for it's one piece block, and it was clearly the fastest low priced car available. But Henry Ford stubbornly stuck to transverse leaf spring suspension and mechanical brakes, which made his cars miserable compared to G.M. and Chrysler products. Ford's 6 cylinders usually bested the V-8's performance in later years, and when Oldsmobile debuted with a short stroke OHV V-8 in '49, it was over for the Flathead.

 

 

 

This is my stock 1941 Ford Coupe powered by a 221" Flatty. The photo was taken last Saturday. I had no problem keeping up with and yes even passing modern traffic. Transverse springs were well proven and durable and more important well up to withstanding the road surfaces of those days. If it were for that type of suspension Ford's would not have been the oval track racer's choice by far. I must remind you that that had beam axles on Indy cars well into the `60's. My car has juice brakes. They started in 1939 at Ford. The mechanical brakes work quite well until 1937 when they went from a rod system to a cable operated system. Those two years is where the trouble started.

 

The Flathead Ford had all eight intake ports located close to the fuel/air source. Contrast this with an inline 8 with the outer cyls very far from the f/a source. This was a great advantage. There are a mutitude of reasons why the Flathead V8 was great.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Stray Kat

[7Mary3]

I have to snicker at the physical size comparos because no one accounts for engine length in their comments. The Mods with their tight bore spacing are significantly shorter than either the LS GM's or the hemi Chryslers.............

 

That's a very valid point, and the only thing that really allowed Ford to ditch the Lima's in large pickups. The small bore spacing and short fan-to-flywheel dimension enabled Ford to add 2 cylinders to the 5.4L and create the 6.8L V-10. The early V-10's were hampered again by the early Mod's 2 valve cylinder heads, but once the 3 valve heads were added the output rose to a respectable level. Unfortunately, the high cost of producing the 3 valve V-10 will soon lead to it's replacement by the 6.2L Boss. In comparison to the G.M. 8.1L, the early 2 valve V-10 was not a contender, but the 3 valve beats the 8.1L, though at higher r.p.m.'s. The very robust design of the 8.1L has allowed G.M. to continue to offer it in heavy trucks over 30,000# GVW, while Ford has limited the V-10 to the F-550 at 19,000# GVW.

[Stray Kat]

A few more points about the Flathead vs. OHV at Ford.... OHV V8 engines were being experimented with as early as the late `30's at FoMoCo. Ford built a sophisticated aluminum V8 with DOHC and 4 valves per cyl to power tanks for WWII. Ford as a company was not in the greatest shape after the war and civilian production restarted. Henry's health was failing and to be fair he did cling to the past at this point. Henry II was recruited to save the company because there was a real need for Ford to survive and be a war equipment producer. When the war ended Ford had mucho work to do. They hired the "Whiz Kids" and that resulted in a new family of cars. The all new `49 Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. These were high watermark designs and to this day are customisers dreams. The unfortunate reality there were just not enough resources or time to intro the OHV V8's. Ford had OHVs on the drawing boards right after the war. Maybe an even bigger point is that by 1949 the Flathead Ford was highly evolved and was quite satisfactory to compete with the competition's OHVs initially. The Merc version produced 125hp with boatloads of torque and was a hot little performer. The Lincolns with the big block 337" Flathead were great as well and actually had a great deal of success in the annual Mexican roadraces.

[Blue II]

That's a very valid point, and the only thing that really allowed Ford to ditch the Lima's in large pickups. The small bore spacing and short fan-to-flywheel dimension enabled Ford to add 2 cylinders to the 5.4L and create the 6.8L V-10. The early V-10's were hampered again by the early Mod's 2 valve cylinder heads, but once the 3 valve heads were added the output rose to a respectable level. Unfortunately, the high cost of producing the 3 valve V-10 will soon lead to it's replacement by the 6.2L Boss. In comparison to the G.M. 8.1L, the early 2 valve V-10 was not a contender, but the 3 valve beats the 8.1L, though at higher r.p.m.'s. The very robust design of the 8.1L has allowed G.M. to continue to offer it in heavy trucks over 30,000# GVW, while Ford has limited the V-10 to the F-550 at 19,000# GVW.

 

Very disappointing to many that the 8.3 Lima didn't make it to production.

 

The Modular Mafia screwed that one. Good riddance to the V-10.

 

The Hurricane can go to 7 liters if need be.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Blue II

[351cid]

That's a very valid point, and the only thing that really allowed Ford to ditch the Lima's in large pickups. The small bore spacing and short fan-to-flywheel dimension enabled Ford to add 2 cylinders to the 5.4L and create the 6.8L V-10. The early V-10's were hampered again by the early Mod's 2 valve cylinder heads, but once the 3 valve heads were added the output rose to a respectable level. Unfortunately, the high cost of producing the 3 valve V-10 will soon lead to it's replacement by the 6.2L Boss. In comparison to the G.M. 8.1L, the early 2 valve V-10 was not a contender, but the 3 valve beats the 8.1L, though at higher r.p.m.'s. The very robust design of the 8.1L has allowed G.M. to continue to offer it in heavy trucks over 30,000# GVW, while Ford has limited the V-10 to the F-550 at 19,000# GVW.

 

I have a 2004 F-250 with a 2 valve V-10. 310 hp and 425 lb ft is not competitive with 320 hp and 435 lb ft? My truck will out pull my buddy's 2500 GMC with the 8.1L. Pulling in a truck is what really counts, you know. The V-10 has 2 more pulses per cycle and makes a very flat torque curve.

 

Just so you know...the 3V V-10 makes 362 hp and 457 lb ft. The early 2V motor (99-2000) made 260 hp and 410 lb ft.

 

By far from the slug you're portraying it to be.

[White99GT]

Very disappointing to many that the 8.3 Lima didn't make it to production.

 

The Modular Mafia screwed that one. Good riddance to the V-10.

 

The Hurricane can go to 7 liters if need be.

 

It seems the "Modular Mafia" created a lot of sour grapes within the walls of Ford Motor Company.

 

All I can say is thank God for the Modular Mafia, no matter how sinister they may or may not have been.

[Blue II]

It seems the "Modular Mafia" created a lot of sour grapes within the walls of Ford Motor Company.

 

All I can say is thank God for the Modular Mafia, no matter how sinister they may or may not have been.

 

Well the Morons are gone now and all the little fiefdoms like them. We could have had the Hurricane long ago if it wasn't for that crew. Hell they even held up the Cyclone because they thought some V-6 could be built off the miserable Mod architecture.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Blue II

[White99GT]

90 deg V6s are always failures in my book.

 

Nothing miserable about the architecture though.

[Blue II]

90 deg V6s are always failures in my book.

 

Nothing miserable about the architecture though.

 

It is being phased out. You can apply your own superlatives.