Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

[bifs66]

" The 1969-70 351W with a 4V was rated at 290 hp. It was seen as reduntant after the 4V Cleveland hit the scene"

 

I bought a new, 290HP Mach-I with an automatic trans in 1969, and ran it right off the showroom floor at Capital Raceway. Even though I was a total novice at drag racing, the car ran a 14.8 sec quarter mile, which was as good as most "stock" performance cars did back then. The Cleveland had even more potential; and incurred numerous restrictions through the years in order to keep the SBC competitive. Technically, every NASCAR engine today can trace its general architecture to the Ford Windsor/Cleveland design. Furthermore, the LS series is more a descendant of the Windsor than any classic SBC.

Edited December 29, 2015 by bifs66

[aneekr]

Aren't MB and Nissan/ Renault starting to share engines?

 

Correct! Here are the results of the Nissan/Renault - Daimler collaboration regarding engines since 2013:

• Renault provides a version of the K9K 1.5L diesel engine to Daimler for use in the Mercedes-Benz A-Class (W176), B-Class (W246), and CLA-Class (C117). This engine is also offered on the Mercedes-Benz Citan, which is essentially a second generation Renault Kangoo with different styling.
• Renault's R9M 1.6L diesel engine is used by Daimler on the Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W205). This engine is also offered on the Mercedes-Benz Vito (W447).
• Daimler supplies M274 2.0L gasoline and OM651 2.1L diesel engines to Nissan for application in the Infiniti Q50. The upcoming Infiniti Q30, which is based on the Mercedes-Benz A-Class (W176), will also use these engines.
• Both three cylinder engines in Daimler's W453/W454 Smart Fortwo and the third generation Renault Twingo - H4Bt 0.9L diesel and H4D 1.0L gasoline - were jointly developed by the two companies.

[jpd80]

Talk about engine supply, until recently Ford supplied all of J/LR's engines.

So when J/LR was crowing about selling a combined 400,000 units a year,

Ford was making a profit off each and every engine sale.

 

If that was as little as $1,000 per engine, then that would mean Ford was making

$400M profit a year without even owning J/LR....

[RichardJensen]

I don't think they were making that much. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say between $200 & $500

[7Mary3]

" .........Furthermore, the LS series is more a descendant of the Windsor than any classic SBC.

 

No, the LS was a 'clean sheet' and was not based on or inspired by the Windsor. Some get this impression by the similar valve and port arrangement, but Cadillac also used a similar arrangement starting in the early 60's. If anything did inspire the LS it would more likely have been the small block Buick or the not-seen-in-the-U.S. Holden V-8.

[bifs66]

 

No, the LS was a 'clean sheet' and was not based on or inspired by the Windsor. Some get this impression by the similar valve and port arrangement, but Cadillac also used a similar arrangement starting in the early 60's. If anything did inspire the LS it would more likely have been the small block Buick or the not-seen-in-the-U.S. Holden V-8.

 

I said that the LS series was MORE a descendant of the Windosr THAN it was of the classic SBC. I think that is a fair statement. Ford V8's have used symmetric port arrangement since 1958.

[7Mary3]

 

I said that the LS series was MORE a descendant of the Windosr THAN it was of the classic SBC. I think that is a fair statement. Ford V8's have used symmetric port arrangement since 1958.

O.K., you have a point with that. Of course the original Hemi and 1955 Plymouth V-8's had symmetrical ports too.....

[matthewq4b]

 

I made that point here: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59722-vw-caught-cheating-on-emissions/?p=964627

 

I mean, even if you just look at conventional Ford passenger cars vs. Chevy, Ford had more variety, but it was nowhere near as crazy as some people make it out to be when they try to include the MELs, the truck motors, etc. vs. what you could get in a Chevy car.

 

And Chevy-favoring enthusiasts also fail to realize that there were justifiable and practical reasons for most of what Ford did with their V8s, and that Ford--the company--couldn't care less if you can't swap the intake manifold from a junked 351C onto a second-hand 351W.

 

Oh, you will also find a very lengthy response to that post I linked to. I'm not responding to it because Matt's dislike for the mods is almost religious. You probably shouldn't either.

I have no issue withe mods. For their intended applications they were great. I have an issue with Ford trying to use the mod's for applications they were never designed. It was designed for very specific applications RWD and more importantly FWD "CARS". In those applications the mod has served with excellence you seem to forget I loved the 4.6 In my Marquis a little short on bottom end of torque but that is a minor quibble.

 

Where it all fell apart was when Ford tried using it for everything. The list of issues, recalls, lost customers, and hit to Ford's reputation with the use of it in their trucks is so lengthy you could write a novel about it.

There has not been ONE mod motor that has been used in the trucks that has not had significant issues with out exception. That is the issue I have with the mod.

 

The Mod motor is a good example of what happens when you press a design in to applications it was never intended to fulfill.

Edited December 30, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

The 351C was in production for 5 model years. 1970, 71, 72, 73, 74. The 335 architecture was to be the standard of Ford's small blocks for the future. There was a plan for a 302 version. It was realized that emissions would be the death of the design and the "Fairlane V-8" was then carried on.

 

Overall I'm in a "sorta agreement" with your statements, but had to add a little correction.

 

There was a 335 series 302 we just did not get it in NA.

[351cid]

 

There was a 335 series 302 we just did not get it in NA.

Yes there was a 302C sold in Australia until the early 80's (IIRC). The heads from those engines are what the Edelbrock aluminum heads are based on. I have an iron set of 302C heads on my 393C. The 302C heads are closed chamber and provide exceptional low end torque and tolerate a higher mechanical compression ratio. I run 10.0:1 compression with a fairly short duration cam and 93 octane fuel with no detonation issues.

[bifs66]

O.K., you have a point with that. Of course the original Hemi and 1955 Plymouth V-8's had symmetrical ports too.....

Yeah... I had one of those "Poly" engines in my '57 Plymouth back in the day.

[RichardJensen]

The Mod motor is a good example of what happens when you press a design in to applications it was never intended to fulfill.

 

The mods were clearly designed for use in trucks. What need was there for a deep skirt or a high stroke:deck height ratio based on the work a passenger car motor was expected to do?

 

Furthermore, alleging that the spark plug issue is an issue with the mod motor's overall fitness for its use is comparable to dismissing the Mustang GT because you don't like the factory tires.

 

And alleging that the mod motors have caused a hit to Ford's reputation is just bizarre--what hit? What damage?

 

Are we going to pretend that *other* truck V8s have NO problems?

 

 

http://dodgeforum.com/forum/2nd-gen-durango/362615-prevent-your-hemi-from-throwing-rods.html

[351cid]

My experience has been that the 6.8L V-10 is the best gas pulling engine available. Several buddies have commented that the 6.8L does better that the 460. Since I've never pulled with a 460, I can't say one way or the other.

[7Mary3]

 

The mods were clearly designed for use in trucks. What need was there for a deep skirt or a high stroke:deck height ratio based on the work a passenger car motor was expected to do?

 

 

 

I disagree. My understanding is the Mods were originally developed for FWD passenger car use, though fairly early in their development they were pressed into truck use. The deep skirt block design is very common these days in many ICE's, as it provides NVH benefits and transmission/accessory mounting advantages. The 'tall deck' was necessary to get enough displacement for truck use, as the Mods bore spacing is very small. Even so Ford had to go the expensive route of adding 2 cylinders to get enough displacement for larger pickups and commercial trucks, as even with the longest stroke crank possible 5.4L was about all they could get out of it.

 

That having been said, I don't think the Mods 'tarnished' Ford's reputation in trucks at all. That was effectively done by the 6.0L Powerstroke!

[jpd80]

Looking back, it's clear that Ford jumped the gun a little with downsizing the V8s with the Mods,

the feared fuel economy and high gas prices never really turned up until the later 2000s

while V8s in cars went the way of dinosaurs.as the more efficient V6 took over the bulk

of car and smaller Utility duties.

 

Had Ford simply evolved its 3.8 V6, 302, 351 and 400 engines to accept 2V, 3V and 4V heads

then I think we would have seen much better outcomes for most of Ford's larger vehicles.

 

File all of that under coulda shoulda woulda......

[coupe3w]

I think Ford is finally getting the "MOD" motor right. The Coyote 5.0 and especially the Voodoo 5.2 is a step in the right direction. These two engine is what the "MOD" engines should have been from the start. But I see two problems 1 being it's too wide for most of the older cars (engine swaps) and 2 no way to over bore them due to the PTWA. Other than that they have a lot of potential especially witth a blower or turbo(s).

[RichardJensen]

 

The 'tall deck' was necessary to get enough displacement for truck use

 

Kind of--AFAIK, they could've used longer crankshaft throws and shorter con-rods to get the extra displacement. That's what GM did with the LS motors.

[RichardJensen]

Had Ford simply evolved its 3.8 V6, 302, 351 and 400 engines to accept 2V, 3V and 4V heads

 

I don't think that's feasible. Once you start fiddling with the oil galleys & circulation because you're taking out the camshaft & lifters, not to mention modeling how coolant is going to flow through the new heads, you're kind of at a point where you might as well start from scratch.

 

I mean, Ford probably could've started off w/a block the same size/bore spacing as the Fairlane or the 385, but the innards of the engine would've been totally different.

[jpd80]

 

I don't think that's feasible. Once you start fiddling with the oil galleys & circulation because you're taking out the camshaft & lifters, not to mention modeling how coolant is going to flow through the new heads, you're kind of at a point where you might as well start from scratch.

 

I mean, Ford probably could've started off w/a block the same size/bore spacing as the Fairlane or the 385, but the innards of the engine would've been totally different.

We did a very successful evolution on the Inline Six from non-cross flow to cross flow to alloy head to SOHC to DOHC.

All was done right in front of Ford brass and with their blessing.

 

The I-6 and Cologne 4.0 were neck and neck up until FoA went to Alloy SOHC and VCT, from that point

the Cologne remained anchored while the 4.0 I-6's torque and horsepower went from strength to strength

evolving to DOHC and turbo in 2002....

 

 

I understand that North America was a very different place and that finding solutions across so many vehicles

was behind doing a clean sheet MOD. The I-6 is simply an example of alternate reality, the need to stick with

existinga rchitecture and evolve it...... pretty much what happened to a smaller degree with 4.6 to Coyote...

Edited December 31, 2015 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

 

I don't think that's feasible. Once you start fiddling with the oil galleys & circulation because you're taking out the camshaft & lifters, not to mention modeling how coolant is going to flow through the new heads, you're kind of at a point where you might as well start from scratch.

 

I mean, Ford probably could've started off w/a block the same size/bore spacing as the Fairlane or the 385, but the innards of the engine would've been totally different.

Funny you say that, because the 'Boss' 6.2L block is basically an enlarged Mod. design with the same bore spacing as an FE.

[bifs66]

Speaking of bore spacing.... The Windsor and Cleveland engines owe their bore spacing to the older Y-block V-8s. The "Fairlane" V-8 was phased in while the Y-block was still in production. The common bore spacing allowed the blocks to be machined on the same line.

[jpd80]

Speaking of bore spacing.... The Windsor and Cleveland engines owe their bore spacing to the older Y-block V-8s. The "Fairlane" V-8 was phased in while the Y-block was still in production. The common bore spacing allowed the blocks to be machined on the same line.

And the 385 Lima series had the same bore spacing as the MELs before them...

 

I wonder if a lot of that goes to reusing some machining hard points to save money.....

Edited January 1, 2016 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

 

The mods were clearly designed for use in trucks. What need was there for a deep skirt or a high stroke:deck height ratio based on the work a passenger car motor was expected to do?

 

Furthermore, alleging that the spark plug issue is an issue with the mod motor's overall fitness for its use is comparable to dismissing the Mustang GT because you don't like the factory tires.

 

And alleging that the mod motors have caused a hit to Ford's reputation is just bizarre--what hit? What damage?

 

Are we going to pretend that *other* truck V8s have NO problems?

 

 

http://dodgeforum.com/forum/2nd-gen-durango/362615-prevent-your-hemi-from-throwing-rods.html

 

 

Oh Richard you really have no idea why the block was deep skirted do you. It had nothing to do with use in trucks.

 

The reason the block was deep skirted was due the tight bore spacing and deck height this lead to block that was more square in dimensions making it more susceptible to torsional torquing. That is why it was deep skirted. To give it back the rigidity and bore stabilization it lost with it;s more square block dimensions. If it had not been been deep skirted the engine would have never lasted any length of time and would have torqued it;s self out of shape in no time especially in front drive applications.

 

What was needed for the trucks was a block that had adequate bearing surfaces. Some thing the mod was very short on due to the tight bore spacing. How many times where the rod bearing updated? it was almost every few months for a while there. The mod has cost Ford huge dollars in the Trucks with, blown plugs, stuck and busted plugs, failed bottom ends, thrown rockers,failed head gaskets, etc, the mods have been the most trouble prone gas engines Ford has ever used in their trucks with out exception. The bearing loading was so marginal that a partially failed head gasket usually resulted in complete bearing failure. To give you an idea most older large diesels are not very tight and leak and even have pet cocks on the cylinders to blow out the coolant before starting as to not hydro lock the cylinders upon starting. But their bearings were not loaded to the ragged edge either and would last for decades under full load for days on end.

 

Have we all forgotten the numerous threads on these issues and hundreds yes hundreds of thousands of individuals that had these issues. It did impact Fords reputation fortunately not enough to completely crater their sales, the tenth gen F-150 were the worst 1/2 tons Ford built in the history of the company. And the biggest reason for that were the power plants.

 

The Mods were NEVER designed for truck use and the proof of that is numerous issues, and revisions Ford has gone through trying to make them suitable. Still today the V10 is down rated in the MD trucks so the bottom end it will hang together.

 

Like it or not those are the facts. The mod has been one step short of a complete failure in the trucks. The money Ford has spent fixing issues and short comings to try to make them suitable over their life time they could have designed 2 completely new engine family's No engine family in the history of the F series has seen the issues, or revisions trying to fix and over come issues that the mod has. The 385 Series stayed in the trucks for over 20 years and seen NO significant changes other than the addition of EFI. The same applies to the 302 and the Windsor.

[matthewq4b]

My experience has been that the 6.8L V-10 is the best gas pulling engine available. Several buddies have commented that the 6.8L does better that the 460. Since I've never pulled with a 460, I can't say one way or the other.

 

It is sort of like comparing Apples to Oranges. But given the same level of tech the 460 will trash a 6.8 V10 . To get 400hp and 500 ft lbs plus out of 460 all you have to do through some parts at it and hope they stick. Heads and cam intake and carb will get you to that that. I had a 77 F250 super cab years ago that I had the motor built in I got sick of the pathetic 198hp and waiting for next week to pass on the hyway, as soon as the warranty expired on went D0VE heads an RV grind cam Edelbrock Intake and Holley carb and re curved the dist and I was making over 420 horse and over 500 Ftlbs on reg leaded pump gas as per the dyno. The truck would lite up the tires with a 9 ft camper in the bed with no issues. What I did fail to do was use the early football head bolt, rods and still had the square shoulder bolt rods and one finally let go after 140K miles.

[matthewq4b]

Looking back, it's clear that Ford jumped the gun a little with downsizing the V8s with the Mods,

the feared fuel economy and high gas prices never really turned up until the later 2000s

while V8s in cars went the way of dinosaurs.as the more efficient V6 took over the bulk

of car and smaller Utility duties.

 

Had Ford simply evolved its 3.8 V6, 302, 351 and 400 engines to accept 2V, 3V and 4V heads

then I think we would have seen much better outcomes for most of Ford's larger vehicles.

 

File all of that under coulda shoulda woulda......

 

 

I agree completely Jpd All 3 were good solid engines the 400 was under appreciated just due the lack of performance parts for it. But all the tricks that worked on on the 351C applied to the 400. The 400 could be made in to a real monster if the desire was there. The bottom end was heavier and stronger than the 351C I personally have never heard of a 400 busting a crank even after being hopped up, usually they tossed rods when rodded up but that was in the days before ARP had kits for everything. Even when pushed the 400 with it's 2 bolt mains did not suffer from cap walk or the bottom end issues that plagued the SBC or SBF or even the 351C.