Ford better wake up

[grbeck]

The Carlisle event (Ford Day) the car MUST be Ford powered to enter into the show. That is why you don't see any Chevy powered Mustangs there. But go to a drag race (non Ford sponsored event) and see how many of the Fox body Mustangs are Chevy powered I bet you see quite a few.

There is no such requirement for cars sold in the car corral at Carlisle events, if I recall correctly.

 

Also, if there weren't plenty of Ford-powered Mustangs of all generations, then there wouldn't be any cars for the show field. I work at these shows on a part-time basis, and attend them as well. Trust me, the show field is filled with Ford Motor Company products. The Ford Nationals are bigger than the GM Nationals in Carlisle held about three weeks later.

Edited November 13, 2013 by grbeck

[NickF1011]

The Carlisle event (Ford Day) the car MUST be Ford powered to enter into the show. That is why you don't see any Chevy powered Mustangs there. But go to a drag race (non Ford sponsored event) and see how many of the Fox body Mustangs are Chevy powered I bet you see quite a few.

 

I've seen a handful at the track ever. Out of thousands of Fords.

[NickF1011]

The facts are (and u know how much some are bothered by the use of facts)

 

But GM has "stuck" with the small block because they have had no reason to change. The modern Ford V8s are and were so uncompetitive they were laughable. There is a reason the mod V8s were nicknamed 'boat anchors'... Because that's what they did best.

 

And now, those small block V8s get better mileage than a Ford V6.

 

Ever since the modular family hit the market, GM has been lightyears ahead of Ford engines.

 

The small block is sunrise reliable, cheap to make, very efficient, compact, cheap to repair (rare), etc.

 

The only competition GMs engine family has had was from the 5.7 from Chrysler. And as good as the 5.7 is, the GM small block is a better engine.

 

I'll line up my "boat anchor" mod against most LS motors any time they'd like.

 

And yes, GM's new 5.3 gets better fuel economy than a Ford V6 (nevermind that that Ford V6 it beats makes more power and torque).

 

And stop kidding yourself on costs. There's nothing cheap about repairing (or modifying for that matter) the Gen IV small block compared to any other modern engine, especially considering the most common problems with any engines are typically electrical, which don't really give a hoot what kind of engine they are controlling.

[coupe3w]

 

And stop kidding yourself on costs. There's nothing cheap about repairing (or modifying for that matter) the Gen IV small block compared to any other modern engine, especially considering the most common problems with any engines are typically electrical, which don't really give a hoot what kind of engine they are controlling.

Cost is the primary reason for the swaps. For example to do a cam change in a Mod motor it take a min of 2 cams and an LS just 1. To do a cylinder head refresh, your looking at more money especially if it's a 3V or 4V Mod. Just saying it comes down to money.

[RichardJensen]

Cost is the primary reason for the swaps. For example to do a cam change in a Mod motor it take a min of 2 cams and an LS just 1. To do a cylinder head refresh, your looking at more money especially if it's a 3V or 4V Mod. Just saying it comes down to money.

 

Not buying that argument. You can buy Windsors all day long, at incredibly reasonable prices. But not "I'm going out to the junkyard and pulling an LS block out of a wrecked Tahoe" prices.

 

If I wanted a dirt cheap engine block, I could go to a local outfit with a bunch of tools and an engine hoist and get one for $35.

http://www.nordstromsauto.com/upullit/pricelist.pdf

 

That's your incentive to use an LS: The ability to pull whatever you need, dirt cheap, off a late model vehicle carcass.

Edited November 13, 2013 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

Cost is the primary reason for the swaps. For example to do a cam change in a Mod motor it take a min of 2 cams and an LS just 1. To do a cylinder head refresh, your looking at more money especially if it's a 3V or 4V Mod. Just saying it comes down to money.

 

It's easier to change the pushrods in a mod motor........

[NickF1011]

Cost is the primary reason for the swaps. For example to do a cam change in a Mod motor it take a min of 2 cams and an LS just 1. To do a cylinder head refresh, your looking at more money especially if it's a 3V or 4V Mod. Just saying it comes down to money.

 

Cams are but a small part of the equation. For the record, I'm still running stock cams in mine. Refreshed the heads with new seats and springs, but that costs no more to do than any other multi-valve engine.

[akirby]

 

Cams are but a small part of the equation. For the record, I'm still running stock cams in mine. Refreshed the heads with new seats and springs, but that costs no more to do than any other multi-valve engine.

 

You mean you haven't had to replace the pushrods?

[RichardJensen]

Nah. You don't have to replace pushrods anymore. They're lifetime parts. Just like the muffler belts.

[akirby]

Nah. You don't have to replace pushrods anymore. They're lifetime parts. Just like the muffler belts.

And blinker fluid (if you use synthetic)

[BB390fe]

Cost is the primary reason for the swaps. For example to do a cam change in a Mod motor it take a min of 2 cams and an LS just 1. To do a cylinder head refresh, your looking at more money especially if it's a 3V or 4V Mod. Just saying it comes down to money.

You know how that fox ends up with a chevy? I raced for years and a lot of buddies would blow the ford engine... or get a body with a dead engine.. and they would have this other gm engine in the back corner of the shop doing nothing...

Most racers could really care less who manufactured the engine under the hood. If you have a garage full of chevy parts - your racing with a chevy.

BTW... you can fit ANYTHING in a fox chassis... ANYTHING... remember when the 460 stroker 514 engines were commonly put in there?

[xr7g428]

BTW... you can fit ANYTHING in a fox chassis... ANYTHING... remember when the 460 stroker 514 engines were commonly put in there?

 

It isn't about putting Chevys in Fords, it is about the FOX platform. There is no equivalent GM platform that is lightweight cheap and easy to build.

[Project-Fairmont]

 

There is a reason why people use GM small blocks. They're very reliable, they're very cheap, they're compact (unlike any modern Ford motor) and can make great power for very low cost (unlike any modern Ford engine).

 

It's very simple really.

 

And you are very simple; really. Have you ever built an engine or put a more powerful motor in a car? You don't need to answer. The idea of supercharging or turbocharging a V8 is uniquely Ford hotrodders from early on. The reason; Ford motors are usually smaller in CC than GM. Yes, the LS resopnds well (as any internal combusion engine should with the right build and tune), and they can be built to a large CC. The great equalizer for a person that chooses to build a Mod motor is the efficiency of the four valve head. Yes an LS can yield a high CFM from the pushrod head, however the combustion chamber with its central located spark plug means a Mod motor can take more boost on pump or race gas. There are mod motors that have made over 2500 hp, this is a feat that an LS has yet to achieve to my knowledge - look it up.

 

A person that follows will go LS, and will be missing out on Mod motors that love boost, and can be built with stock blocks and heads to achieve what ever goal they have. I love it when people say LS this LS that and its compact etc. First of all the weight is comparable, secondly, if the car came with the Mod motor, well I guess it fits! It will also fit Fox bodies. Time has proven the SBF the better eqaul to the SBC, and the Mod is highly recognized for reliability, strenght, and responsiveness to mods.

 

BTW, guess which engine family is the basis for the most powerful OEM V8 in the world? I will say this though, 5.3 are cheap...l love beating them down (and 6.2's and Hemis) with my 5.4 SVT L.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Project-Fairmont

[NickF1011]

 

A person that follows will go LS,and will be missing out on Mod motors that love boost, and can be built with stock blocks and heads to achieve what ever goal they have.

 

Stock heads (not even ported) and cams on my mod putting close to 500 HP to the wheels on a modest 10 lbs of boost.

Edited November 20, 2013 by NickF1011

[Project-Fairmont]

 

Stock heads (not even ported) and cams on my mod putting close to 500 HP to the wheels on a modest 10 lbs of boost.

The 4.6 (especially Teksid block motors like yours) are simply overachievers, and the 5.4-5.8 with the long stroke act like a big blocks! It took me a long time before I became a believer in the mod, and its hard to shake the pushrod simplicty mentality. The first time I rode in a 4.6 terminator with a slingshot like 650hp yet idled like a Lexus I knew my facination with SBFs was coming to a close (I still build em though). My 2v .030 over 5.4 with stage II comp cams quakes like a mutha though - but oh the sound!

[NickF1011]

The 4.6 (especially Teksid block motors like yours) are simply overachievers, and the 5.4-5.8 with the long stroke act like a big blocks! It took me a long time before I became a believer in the mod, and its hard to shake the pushrod simplicty mentality. The first time I rode in a 4.6 terminator with a slingshot like 650hp yet idled like a Lexus I knew my facination with SBFs was coming to a close (I still build em though). My 2v .030 over 5.4 with stage II comp cams quakes like a mutha though - but oh the sound!

 

Only problem with the 96-98 4.6 DOHC's is that they are somewhat painful to tune compared to the later mods (like the Terminators). It took a couple weeks and 3 different tunes to finally get the idle dialed in so it wouldn't hang at 2000 RPM or stall under braking.

[RichardJensen]

 

The idea of supercharging or turbocharging a V8 is uniquely Ford hotrodders from early on.

 

That's the downside to all that 'compact LS' chatter.

 

The deck-height to stroke ratio on the Mod, and the Mod's cross-bolted mains give the Mod a pretty stout bottom end.

 

I'm curious what the parameters and goals were back in the 80s when they designed this architecture. I mean, there must have been some reason for them to make these motors so different from the Windsors.

[NickF1011]

The deck-height to stroke ratio on the Mod, and the Mod's cross-bolted mains give the Mod a pretty stout bottom end.

 

I don't believe any of the 2-valve mods have cross-bolted mains. (Not certain on the 3-valves either?)

[RichardJensen]

 

I don't believe any of the 2-valve mods have cross-bolted mains. (Not certain on the 3-valves either?)

 

Really? I thought all the mods were cross bolted.

 

3-valves were cross-bolted:

Linky

 

And it looks like at least some of the 4.6L 2-valves were cross-bolted:

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_0804_ford_4_6_engine/photo_09.html

 

Doesn't seem to be much point to have a deep skirt if you're not going to cross-bolt into it.

Edited November 20, 2013 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

 

Really? I thought all the mods were cross bolted.

 

3-valves were cross-bolted:

Linky

 

And it looks like at least some of the 4.6L 2-valves were cross-bolted:

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_0804_ford_4_6_engine/photo_09.html

 

Doesn't seem to be much point to have a deep skirt if you're not going to cross-bolt into it.

 

Perhaps I'm just thinking of some of the 4-valves having 6 bolts where the others are 4.

[RichardJensen]

That would make a lot of sense.

 

You have to change the block casting to accommodate cross-bolted mains, but you don't have to change block casting to accommodate four vertical bolts--just the much smaller bearing caps.

[Project-Fairmont]

 

I'm curious what the parameters and goals were back in the 80s when they designed this architecture. I mean, there must have been some reason for them to make these motors so different from the Windsors.

 

The Cylinder bore spacing was made compact (the biggest hurdle to large cubes while keeping the long stroke managable) to make sure it fit transversly in an engine bay for FWD apps (Linc Continental). Although GM was able to fit a 5.3 (traditional SBC cylinder spacing) in the GM-10 Grand Prix and Impala...

[RichardJensen]

 

The Cylinder bore spacing was made compact (the biggest hurdle to large cubes while keeping the long stroke managable) to make sure it fit transversly in an engine bay for FWD apps (Linc Continental). Although GM was able to fit a 5.3 (traditional SBC cylinder spacing) in the GM-10 Grand Prix and Impala...

 

That's the only part of the architecture I understand.

 

The decision to go with that deep skirt and the high deck height is what I wonder about, as it's a pretty noteworthy departure from the Windsors. The 5.4 variant seems to have almost the same deck height and skirt depth as the FE block. I almost wonder if Ford had intended to do an OHC variant of the FE, and then had to crunch it lengthwise to fit into that *one* FWD application....

[coupe3w]

Do you think Ford will do a bigger (4.38 -4.50) bore spacing block for racing?

[RichardJensen]

What's the bore spacing on the Boss?