Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

[7Mary3]

Not exactly. The LS is still alive and well, powering GM's HD pickups and vans, along with a host of other OEM's commercial vehicles. The new direct injection 'Gen. V' is replacing the LS in high performance cars and 1/2 ton pickups (the 'LT' was the second generation small block made in the mid 90's, and nothing to write home about I might add). GM will likely keep at least the heavy duty LS engines in production for the foreseeable future for commercial use (UPS has over 12,000 in service at last count, and they are still buying Freightliner package cars with those engines), so it will be quite economical for GM to keep offering various LS 'crate' engines. And even so, GM has never had a problem offering 'crate' versions of engines long out of production vehicle use (Gen. 0 Small Blocks and Mark VI Big Blocks for 2 examples). Ford on the other hand has for the most part only offered 'crate' versions of engines in current production, and as soon as an engine is no longer offered in a vehicle it is gone as a 'crate' engine as well (there was one exception I remember- there must have been a load of left over 5.0L Explorer engines, those were around for some time). I think this has discouraged other OEM's from using Ford engines (AM General recently had to redesign the MV-1 because the 4.6L is now out of production). Ford has also offered some 'crate' versions of out-of-production 'muscle car' engines (LIma's and Windsor's) but these are made from recycled parts. And one thing both Ford's current production 'crate' engines have with the rebuilds- they are VERY EXPENSIVE!

 

It even carries over to service replacement engines. I have seen Ford vehicles less than a year old get rebuilt replacement engines installed under warranty after engine failures, because new engines were out of production already. Of course it really isn't an issue, a quality rebuilt should last as long or longer than a new engine.

[RichardJensen]

The other cool thing about the Coyote Ford is that it is very asthetically pleasing with very little effort.

 

That's the thing about the mods, generally, that you touched on earlier, I think: The long block is really ungainly looking, but when the engine's fully dressed w/accessories, it's so well packaged--nothing sticks out past the serpentine belt.

[coupe3w]

Not exactly. The LS is still alive and well, powering GM's HD pickups and vans, along with a host of other OEM's commercial vehicles. The new direct injection 'Gen. V' is replacing the LS in high performance cars and 1/2 ton pickups (the 'LT' was the second generation small block made in the mid 90's, and nothing to write home about I might add). GM will likely keep at least the heavy duty LS engines in production for the foreseeable future for commercial use (UPS has over 12,000 in service at last count, and they are still buying Freightliner package cars with those engines), so it will be quite economical for GM to keep offering various LS 'crate' engines. And even so, GM has never had a problem offering 'crate' versions of engines long out of production vehicle use (Gen. 0 Small Blocks and Mark VI Big Blocks for 2 examples). Ford on the other hand has for the most part only offered 'crate' versions of engines in current production, and as soon as an engine is no longer offered in a vehicle it is gone as a 'crate' engine as well (there was one exception I remember- there must have been a load of left over 5.0L Explorer engines, those were around for some time). I think this has discouraged other OEM's from using Ford engines (AM General recently had to redesign the MV-1 because the 4.6L is now out of production). Ford has also offered some 'crate' versions of out-of-production 'muscle car' engines (LIma's and Windsor's) but these are made from recycled parts. And one thing both Ford's current production 'crate' engines have with the rebuilds- they are VERY EXPENSIVE!

 

It even carries over to service replacement engines. I have seen Ford vehicles less than a year old get rebuilt replacement engines installed under warranty after engine failures, because new engines were out of production already. Of course it really isn't an issue, a quality rebuilt should last as long or longer than a new engine.

 

Your wrong on the crate engines. These are brand new engines not re manufactured.

https://fordperformanceracingparts.com/crateengine/main.asp#smb

[bifs66]

"The other cool thing about the Coyote Ford is that it is very asthetically pleasing with very little effort. I don't know if that can be said about the appliance like appearance of the GM engine, especially the new LT. Plastic covers not withstanding."

This is a issue that never seems to be addressed. I personally believe that GM created their version of the "engine cover" to disguise that fact that under that big chunk of plastic is an engine that looks just like one did in the 1950's. Now I know all the wonders of the LS/LT engine family; but when you are trying to compete world-wide against the best players, you need some modern looking hardware under the hood. When you only have a push-rod engine; you cover it with a plastic cover that hints there is something more complex residing there. The same holds for hot rods or sportscars. The Coyote simply makes a better visual statement. The new issue of Car and Driver actually mentioned this in their Mustang/Corvette shootout by complimented Ford for not covering up the engine.

Edited January 3, 2016 by bifs66

[matthewq4b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

 

Seriously Richard passive aggressive much come on what are you 6? If that is the best you can bring to the conversation......

 

Fact The mods in trucks have had issues with bottom end failures and to a lesser degree in the Mustang GT. Fact Cylinders 4 and 8 are the guilty suspects 99% of the time due to being at the end of the oil feed and the load carrying capability of the bearing is so marginal they will be the ones to fail first. Fact Ford has revised the bearing material and dimensions, the cranks, and the oil pump in the mods to combat this issue. And not just doing those changes for fun as you are trying to imply. And you seem to have forget that back in that day I knew powertrain development engineers with Ford. And even commented when they got retried early during the Nasser era engineering purge. So I may just have a bit more insight on this than you realize.

 

Like it or not Richard your attempt at deflection and mis-direction does not change the facts.

 

 

So you can

[Stray Kat]

Not exactly. The LS is still alive and well, powering GM's HD pickups and vans, along with a host of other OEM's commercial vehicles. The new direct injection 'Gen. V' is replacing the LS in high performance cars and 1/2 ton pickups (the 'LT' was the second generation small block made in the mid 90's, and nothing to write home about I might add). GM will likely keep at least the heavy duty LS engines in production for the foreseeable future for commercial use (UPS has over 12,000 in service at last count, and they are still buying Freightliner package cars with those engines), so it will be quite economical for GM to keep offering various LS 'crate' engines. And even so, GM has never had a problem offering 'crate' versions of engines long out of production vehicle use (Gen. 0 Small Blocks and Mark VI Big Blocks for 2 examples). Ford on the other hand has for the most part only offered 'crate' versions of engines in current production, and as soon as an engine is no longer offered in a vehicle it is gone as a 'crate' engine as well (there was one exception I remember- there must have been a load of left over 5.0L Explorer engines, those were around for some time). I think this has discouraged other OEM's from using Ford engines (AM General recently had to redesign the MV-1 because the 4.6L is now out of production). Ford has also offered some 'crate' versions of out-of-production 'muscle car' engines (LIma's and Windsor's) but these are made from recycled parts. And one thing both Ford's current production 'crate' engines have with the rebuilds- they are VERY EXPENSIVE!

 

It even carries over to service replacement engines. I have seen Ford vehicles less than a year old get rebuilt replacement engines installed under warranty after engine failures, because new engines were out of production already. Of course it really isn't an issue, a quality rebuilt should last as long or longer than a new engine.

 

Hey while technically you're correct, HD pickups and medium duty bigger trucks DO NOT have performance tuned engines. They are tuned for relatively slow turning revs and heavy duty cycles. This includes internal items like camshafts and combustion chamber volumes and designs.

 

Now as far as GM being able to offer out of production engines at competitive prices well in the past I do believe they could tap into some magic. GM certainly had something special or at least they were willing to sell at a very low profit margin. For quite some time the sbc's were made in Mexico. The big block stuff I don't know. In fact the big block Chevy's running around today are made mostly of aftermarket parts including the blocks and heads. The BBC's are not cheap.

 

Now the only ways I can think of for the LS to maintain that trend is for its production to move to a place like Latin or South America or maybe Asia to supply their overseas need for replacement LS engines. These will not be performance engines if that is the case.

 

Secondly GM I think really has some soul searching to do in the wake of their bankruptcy and bailout. I am amazed at how much cash GM has to spare for racing and other frivolous toys. I'm suspicious that GM had to subsidize their performance arm in order to undercut the competition on price.

[RichardJensen]

 

So I may just have a bit more insight on this than you realize

 

Your arguments are the following:

 

"The mods were not designed for use in trucks because the bearings are too narrow. The bearings are too narrow because the mods were not designed for use in trucks."

 

This is the very definition of circular reasoning.

 

Your argument against my various published sources from 1986-1993 can be summarized thus:

 

"Ford employees doing something that they said they were going to do is complete coincidence. In reality, they were going to do something else, which they did not do. My proof of this is that they didn't do it"

Edited January 3, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

You have no insight. You have a "fact" about bearing modifications that you've never substantiated (just what were these "umpteen" bearing modifications), and you've got anecdotal evidence which might very well stem from your fleet manager ignoring Ford's maintenance specs.

 

Your "facts" consist of a pile of false logic, faulty memory, wishful thinking and willful ignorance.

[7Mary3]

 

Your wrong on the crate engines. These are brand new engines not re manufactured.

https://fordperformanceracingparts.com/crateengine/main.asp#smb

Those are Ford's 'competition' engines. Did you notice the pricing?

[7Mary3]

 

Your wrong on the crate engines. These are brand new engines not re manufactured.

https://fordperformanceracingparts.com/crateengine/main.asp#smb

Those are Ford's 'competition' engines. Did you notice the pricing?

 

These are Ford's service replacement engines. Reman. only:

 

http://www.fordparts.com/Products/PowertrainProducts.aspx

Edited January 3, 2016 by 7Mary3

[matthewq4b]

 

Your arguments are the following:

 

"The mods were not designed for use in trucks because the bearings are too narrow. The bearings are too narrow because the mods were not designed for use in trucks."

 

This is the very definition of circular reasoning.

 

Your argument against my various published sources from 1986-1993 can be summarized thus:

 

"Ford employees doing something that they said they were going to do is complete coincidence. In reality, they were going to do something else, which they did not do. My proof of this is that they didn't do it"

 

The narrow bore mods were not meant for trucks The bottom end was never designed to take the loading experienced in the trucks. The narrow bore mods were not designed for low RPM torque or the High loading low at RPM's that trucks see. The short compacted block served no practical purpose in the trucks.

Simple as that. Ford knifed the the crank throws squished the cylinders as much as they could with out actually siameseing them to get length down as short as possible. Which is not a design consideration in trucks.

 

Also dimensional changes were listed.

 

As for the fleet Manager who do you think he reported to ?. Come on Richard you are grasping again. And not following Ford recommended service intervals seriously. Really any company that services their own fleet generally exceeds manufacturers recommended service intervals and generally does oil analyses to spot issues before they become problems when equipment can not afford to break down on the job. The cost of losing a piece of equipment on job can cost more than piece of equipment it's self.

 

This has been state here before but to recap, there were to be 3 configurations of Mods. Smaller displacement engines for things like a 3.5L V8 and V6's Mid displacement 4.6 Etc. And a series of truck V8's up to 7.0L the truck engines were not partially siamesed bores like the smaller mods to promote even cooling of the cylinders offered better deck support for head gasket retention and had 385 width bearing shells.. Saleen even played with 7.0L Mod in the mid late 90's before opting for the SBF based 7.0L for their SL but the SL has enough engine bay width to take a mod motor.. You think the 6.2L liters Bore of 4.015" is a mistake? Couple that with the V10's 4.165" stroke and you basically get 7.0L

 

All mods were to share common design elements and as many parts as possible. That was whole premise of the mods and it was stated over and over and again common design elements and common architecture across all engines. Sort of like the 6.2L is a mod just on a larger bore spacing.

 

This is where Auto CAD which at the time just recently could be used with out a dedicated math co-processor allowed this to be done. As you could increase and decrease dimensions with a couple clicks with out having to manually redraft the whole piece. That is in part why the mods were developed as they could have dimensions changed using common building blocks. Individual or paired cylinder assemblies could be configured any way you desired with relative ease as an individual building block. That was the whole premise behind the mods. It was designed so it could fully utilize the advances in Autocad and reduce the labour involved in designing new engine assembles as all the base dimensional work was already done, it was just a matter of assembling what you wanted in the dimensions you desired with a few clicks in auto cad that is what made the mod so revolutionary. Get off this there was to be only be one mod BS. That was never ever the intention of the Mod program and this has been stated from numerous sources. But that is what it ended up being due to cost cutting.

 

A fact you have conveniently chose to ignore, Ford under went some pretty drastic cost cutting in the mid nineties and piles of projects were shelved during the era with personnel cuts even exceeding the projects being shelved including most of the mod program and it led to platforms that languishing long past their best before date.

[Stray Kat]

Let me give an example of something that is playing out right now that I think supports my point very well.

 

A couple years ago the folks at the NMRA (National Mustang Racers Association) introduced a class aimed at the budget minded "heads up" racer. It is called Coyote Stock. Basically this is a even start class where any Ford bodied passenger car built from 1954 on with stock type suspension is allowed to compete. There is one minimum weight for all cars and no power adders. The only legal engine is a factory sealed bone stock first version Coyote. This engine you will remember is rated from the factory at 412hp. Ford wisely allocated plenty of engines for this program knowing that the 2015 version would be revised and more powerful, thus not obsoleting the guys who got in at the beginning. Most of the cars are Mustangs and run in the 10.20 range at 125 or so mph. There is a factory electonics control package with a specific tune for this class.

 

Since this class has become a huge hit the folks at GM along with the NMCA (National Muscle Car Association) has created a similar class featuring a modified LS3 GM engine. These engines are disassembled and rebuilt by a niche line and feature a hotter cam and a few other mods. In a true example of typical GM one upsmanship the LS is trimmed to deliver 525hp.

 

Now here is the rub: the best GM cars are not running faster than the best Coyote Stock cars. Furthermore the factory stock and sealed Coyotes sell for about $6000 while the GM version are priced about $1000 more. Almost certainly this is because of the extra tear doe and rebuild applied to the GM engine.

 

Now a thousand bucks one way or another might be no big deal to a big dollar professional racer but to a grassroots guy that is huge.

 

Now tell me again how Ford is behind in any way that matters.

[RichardJensen]

 

there were to be 3 configurations of Mods.

 

HAH!

 

"Ford wasn't going to do what they said they were going to do, even though they actually did it. They were going to do something else, and the proof of that is that they didn't do it."

[RichardJensen]

 

Ford under went some pretty drastic cost cutting in the mid nineties

 

Which of course would mean something except the 6.8L V10 was already well underway by 1993.

[Stray Kat]

The narrow bore mods were not meant for trucks The bottom end was never designed to take the loading experienced in the trucks. The narrow bore mods were not designed for low RPM torque or the High loading low at RPM's that trucks see. The short compacted block served no practical purpose in the trucks.

Simple as that. Ford knifed the the crank throws squished the cylinders as much as they could with out actually siameseing them to get length down as short as possible. Which is not a design consideration in trucks.

 

Also dimensional changes were listed.

 

As for the fleet Manager who do you think he reported to ?. Come on Richard you are grasping again. And not following Ford recommended service intervals seriously. Really any company that services their own fleet generally exceeds manufacturers recommended service intervals and generally does oil analyses to spot issues before they become problems when equipment can not afford to break down on the job. The cost of losing a piece of equipment on job can cost more than piece of equipment it's self.

 

This has been state here before but to recap, there were to be 3 configurations of Mods. Smaller displacement engines for things like a 3.5L V8 and V6's Mid displacement 4.6 Etc. And a series of truck V8's up to 7.0L the truck engines were not partially siamesed bores like the smaller mods to promote even cooling of the cylinders offered better deck support for head gasket retention and had 385 width bearing shells.. Saleen even played with 7.0L Mod in the mid late 90's before opting for the SBF based 7.0L for their SL but the SL has enough engine bay width to take a mod motor.. You think the 6.2L liters Bore of 4.015" is a mistake? Couple that with the V10's 4.165" stroke and you basically get 7.0L

 

All mods were to share common design elements and as many parts as possible. That was whole premise of the mods and it was stated over and over and again common design elements and common architecture across all engines. Sort of like the 6.2L is a mod just on a larger bore spacing.

 

This is where Auto CAD which at the time just recently could be used with out a dedicated math co-processor allowed this to be done. As you could increase and decrease dimensions with a couple clicks with out having to manually redraft the whole piece. That is in part why the mods were developed as they could have dimensions changed using common building blocks. Individual or paired cylinder assemblies could be configured any way you desired with relative ease as an individual building block. That was the whole premise behind the mods. It was designed so it could fully utilize the advances in Autocad and reduce the labour involved in designing new engine assembles as all the base dimensional work was already done, it was just a matter of assembling what you wanted in the dimensions you desired with a few clicks in auto cad that is what made the mod so revolutionary. Get off this there was to be only be one mod BS. That was never ever the intention of the Mod program and this has been stated from numerous sources. But that is what it ended up being due to cost cutting.

 

A fact you have conveniently chose to ignore, Ford under went some pretty drastic cost cutting in the mid nineties and piles of projects were shelved during the era with personnel cuts even exceeding the projects being shelved including most of the mod program and it led to platforms that languishing long past their best before date.

 

 

Gosh Matt, while I don't disagree with you completely I must point out a couple of observations.

 

First the question was raised earlier. Why have tight bore spacing unless you're designing for FWD? Well I can think of a huge reason and that is very simply to accommodate the very low and sloping hoodlines of today's cars. There are 4 valve Modular Fords being swapped into Focus' that are converted to RWD with no body cutting. If that's not an example of careful design I don't know what is.

 

Second if Ford had a V10 in mind from the beginning then trucks were always part of the equation. So it stands to reason the V10 was intended for the top and the V8 5.4 was the base engine for Super Duty. I heard about a V10 from the very beginning of the Ford Modular engine line. May I also say the V10 Ford was and is an immensely successful engine. I have read about and spoken to many owners that have nothing but good to say about them. They are still very viable with no end to their future in sight. Where is the Dodge truck V10?

 

If the main bearing situation was such a problem why didn't Ford open up the bore spacing when they redesigned for the new Coyote, knowing full well they would be used in pick up trucks?

[RichardJensen]

 

generally does oil analyses to spot issues before they become problems

 

So that means he was putting 5w20 in truck engines w/200k miles on them. In 1998.

 

And apparently he was reporting to someone who trusts his own conclusions about things over stuff that Ford employees have put in print, so you know, that doesn't convince me that the proper oil weights were being put in these engines.

[akirby]

I think the horse died a few pages ago. Can we move on?

[RichardJensen]

 

This is where Auto CAD which at the time just recently could be used with out a dedicated math co-processor allowed this to be done. As you could increase and decrease dimensions with a couple clicks with out having to manually redraft the whole piece. That is in part why the mods were developed as they could have dimensions changed using common building blocks. Individual or paired cylinder assemblies could be configured any way you desired with relative ease as an individual building block. That was the whole premise behind the mods. It was designed so it could fully utilize the advances in Autocad and reduce the labour involved in designing new engine assembles as all the base dimensional work was already done, it was just a matter of assembling what you wanted in the dimensions you desired with a few clicks in auto cad that is what made the mod so revolutionary.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

[351cid]

One more comment. Matt days that the V-10 was de-rated in per per cylinder. This is absolutely not true.

 

My 2004 V-10 2V is rated at 310 hp & 425 lb ft of torque.

 

A 2004 5.4L V-8 is rated at 260 hp & 350 lb ft.

 

A V-10 has 20% more cylinders than a V-8.

 

260 x 1.2 = 312. So yeah, they lost 2 hp

350 x 1.2 = 420. They gained 5 lb ft.

 

In conclusion, since the 6.8 is identical in bore, stroke, compression, and cam specs; it is NOT de-rated.

 

Also, according to you, since my truck has 177K hard worked miles I should expect the crank to drop out at any moment.

 

Then let's talk about my companies 4.6 Expedition. 319K miles pulling a 3000 lb trailer. No repairs to the drive line other than normal wear items. No plugs spit out either.

[RichardJensen]

I think the horse died a few pages ago. Can we move on?

 

Whatever. I'm sick of Matt begging the question and patting himself on the back

[silvrsvt]

Couple points, the Mach 1 had a 4V 4.6L in it, same as the marauder.

 

As for the mods longevity. Ford designs an engine to last about 150k miles without a major item failing on it. That is roughly 15k miles over 10 years, which is pently for most uses.

[silvrsvt]

Let's quit beating a dead horse. Going to lock this.