matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 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. That comes at price as you increase cylinder wall and piston side loading thus increasing wear and that can lead to piston slap. Think you posted a video on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 That comes at price Exactly. They increased the deck height to improve engine durability, not because there was no other way to add .1L of displacement per cylinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I understand that North America was a very different place With a very different emissions regime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 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. And the results will be emissions compliant and warrantable for 100k no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 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..... That is some of it but it goes deeper than that it comes down to bearing surface area also. As you increase bore spacing it allows you increase bearing widths thus increasing the potential load that the bearing can handle at a given oil pressure. The more spacing in the MEL engines were generally large displacement engines building about the same HP as the 385 Series, the 385 did not need a larger bore spacing so it all worked out. Same with the Y block and the SBF. There was an engine that was under rated, the Y block it's down fall was the lubricants available at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Exactly. They increased the deck height to improve engine durability, not because there was no other way to add .1L of displacement per cylinder. No they added deck height cause they could not increase bore spacing due it having to fit FWD applications Height was not as much concern with the replacement of carbs for EFI so the they could package the engine much closer to the under side of the hood,which they did. And that came at the cost of reducing bottom end durability. They did what they with the mod so it would fit FWD's simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 The Mods were NEVER designed for truck use Sure Matt. Perhaps you can tell me how many years after the Mods were launched Ford decided to use them in trucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 No they added deck height cause they could not increase bore spacing They didn't have to add deck height. That's been established. Therefore this statement is incorrect and everything that follows is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 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. Already been done in a an engine called the 427 SOHC. The issues you mention are technically non issues. It; not like we are talking reverse flow coolant or any thing here. And starting with the bore spacing of the SBF or the 385 they would have avoided more than half of the problems they had in the mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 How many times where the rod bearing updated? Because "poorly designed" means "not designed" right? Like if a surgeon, in the course of removing my gall bladder nicks an artery. Well, obviously, he wasn't intending to remove my gall bladder because he made a mistake while doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Already been done in a an engine called the 427 SOHC. Yes. Thank you for mentioning that. A basically one-off engine that didn't have to meet 60s-era expectations for NVH, durability, emissions, etc., much less modern ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 They didn't have to add deck height. That's been established. Therefore this statement is incorrect and everything that follows is irrelevant. They had two options Increase deck height and narrow bearing surfaces that still fell with in loading tolerances for the intended applications. Net result still a reliable motor or lengthen the stroke and shorten the rod and increase side loading net result with existing casting and engines who's relibailty is not in question. Or do that and increase block casting weight, piston weight, reciprocating mass and reduce efficiency to increase reliability back to acceptable levels. So in short no they did not practically have another option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 no they did not practically have another option. Because no other company has ever done the longer throws/shorter rod trick to increase displacement. That's just a theoretical approach, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Point being they did not *have* to increase the deck height. Why am I making such a big deal about this? Because sloppy language and sloppy argumentation bother me. Another example: When you say in defiance of the actions of Ford Motor in the context of their peers that Ford DID NOT design the Mods for eventual use in the trucks. Your arguments at best indicate that the early iterations of the Mod were not well suited for use in trucks, which is hardly the same as not designed for trucks. The Pinto's frame was not well suited for use in a compact application (as compared to better compacts from Nissan and Toyota), but that does not mean that it was not designed to be a compact. The AXOD was not well suited for its purpose, but that does not mean that it was not designed to be a FWD transmission. And so on and so forth Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 And I'll reiterate my disdain for any argument that assures us that the Mod was not designed for truck applications because the 3V head had a poorly designed spark plug port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Because "poorly designed" means "not designed" right? Like if a surgeon, in the course of removing my gall bladder nicks an artery. Well, obviously, he wasn't intending to remove my gall bladder because he made a mistake while doing it. It means they were never designed period for the application. Sort of like you getting a heart transplant from the family Chihuahua will it work ? sure, but for how long? Spin it any way you want Richard the mods were NEVER designed for use in trucks. Sort of like the 6.0L it was never designed for use in pick up trucks. In it;s intended application it served with basically NO issues. In the F series it could be argued that it was the worst engine ever placed in to a Pick up truck. It's not like Ford does not have a history of doing this kind of stupidity either. Mind you the 6.0L was their fault but they did that same dumbass thing with the 3,8L V6 when they stuffed it in the F Series, an engine totally not designed or suitable for truck use, at least that lunacy only lasted 2 model years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 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 doubt you have a citation for this. Comparative warranty data from the older V8s vs. the Mods, awareness of the cost to design and tool a factory to produce two new engine families, etc. And, of course, you'll be hanging your hat on the "hundreds of thousands" of mod owners who incurred significant expense removing spark plugs--even though most of those plug removals would have occurred after 100k miles, or, in other terms, long after the vehicles were out of warranty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 It means they were never designed period for the application. You have proof of this? You have proof that Ford's design parameters for the Mods did not mention truck use at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Or are we to believe that Ford first of all believed that they could continue to use the Fairlane V8 indefinitely---and then suddenly and for no readily discernible reason---decided that they couldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Point being they did not *have* to increase the deck height. Why am I making such a big deal about this? Because sloppy language and sloppy argumentation bother me. Another example: When you say in defiance of the actions of Ford Motor in the context of their peers that Ford DID NOT design the Mods for eventual use in the trucks. Your arguments at best indicate that the early iterations of the Mod were not well suited for use in trucks, which is hardly the same as not designed for trucks. The Pinto's frame was not well suited for use in a compact application (as compared to better compacts from Nissan and Toyota), but that does not mean that it was not designed to be a compact. The AXOD was not well suited for its purpose, but that does not mean that it was not designed to be a FWD transmission. And so on and so forth Simple fact Richard if the Mod had been designed for truck use the bearing areas would have been larger to handle the increased load in that application. The Mod was pressed in to service in to the trucks. It was not designed for use in the trucks. What about this can't you understand. You have not given one thing that makes the mods suitable for truck applications. They are torque deficient due to design that is not suitable in a truck, The bearing surfaces are inadequate for the loads encountered. The spark plug retaining was inadequate for that application and service. Head gaskets were not adequate, Water pump bearing failures in the F Series. I mean if this engine was designed for the F Series it was done by the most incompetent group half wit engineers on the planet led by chimpanzees and approved by orangutans So there you have it either Ford was totally and completely incompetent to the point that it defies belief or logic, or the engine was pressed in to service to save a buck and time. Edited January 1, 2016 by matthewq4b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Sure Matt. Perhaps you can tell me how many years after the Mods were launched Ford decided to use them in trucks. I did 7 YEARS not 1 or 2 or even 3......7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) No doubt you have a citation for this. Comparative warranty data from the older V8s vs. the Mods, awareness of the cost to design and tool a factory to produce two new engine families, etc. And, of course, you'll be hanging your hat on the "hundreds of thousands" of mod owners who incurred significant expense removing spark plugs--even though most of those plug removals would have occurred after 100k miles, or, in other terms, long after the vehicles were out of warranty. They have already done it once with the 6.2. Redesigns for 3v heads to get more torque. And that is not even counting the multiple numerous design updates to fix deficiency's or the millions upon millions in warranty claims or the law suits for ejected plugs and broken stuck plugs. Edited January 1, 2016 by matthewq4b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Simple fact Richard if the Mod had been designed for truck use the bearing areas would have been larger Because less bearing area made them less reliable? Thus anything that is below some arbitrary standard of reliability was not designed for that use? Like, for instance, the AXOD, which was clearly *not* designed to be a FWD transaxle because it was such a poor FWD transaxle. Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I did 7 YEARS not 1 or 2 or even 3......7 years. That doesn't answer the question I asked. I asked when Ford decided to use the Mods in the trucks. Not when they started selling trucks with mods in them. Also, your numbers are off. It was six model years between the first production mod and the first production mod in a truck (1991/1997). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) As early as 1989 Ford was touting the "Modular" engine family: "In this picturesque town 30 miles north of Detroit, the company is gearing up a new flexible manufacturing plant to build a family of innovative new modular engines due out in the 1990s. flexible enough to build several different models." (Business Week--snippet from Google books) Now if, in 1989, Ford was telling reporters--on the record--that there would be "several different models" of modular engine, what were those several different models? The SOHC 4.6, the DOHC 4.6, and...............? Where would Ford use any engines with a displacement greater than 4.6L? In their passenger cars? Unlikely. It seems quite clear to me that Ford intended to replace the Fairlane and 385 blocks with a single modular family. That they seem to have made a poor choice favoring FWD applications over truck applications in terms of bearing surface is hardly proof that they never contemplated use in trucks in the first place. Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts