Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

[RichardJensen]

Here's an even better "smoking gun"

 

October 1990 Popular Science p. 82 (remember when magazines had 82 pages?)

https://books.google.com/books?id=lQEAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA82&dq=ford%20modular%20motor%201990&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Now I've been reasonable with you in the past. When you furnished compelling--if not conclusive--evidence that MAN designed the 6.0L PSD, I changed my mind.

 

It would really be nice if you could take a look at this paragraph here, published in 1990--long before the 4.6L, 5.4L and 6.8L appeared in Ford trucks, and change your mind about whether the original parameters for the Mod motor contemplated replacing the motors in Ford trucks.

 

==

 

Again, that does not mean that the were ideally designed. But it does mean that the original brief called for a comprehensive V8 replacement.

[matthewq4b]

 

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.

 

 

Richard it is engineering and physics fundamentals. The larger the area of oil film bearing at a given pressure the higher the load/pressure it will handle before material contact.

There are 2 ways in increase the load handling of an pressure oil film bearing. Either raise the lubricants pressure or increase the surface area.

You are limited with in an internal combustion engine to the oil pressure you can run as the oil/ lubricant is not just a lubricant but also a coolant.

When you increase pressure you reduce the period of time that the lubricant is in contact with the surfaces it needs to cool thus reducing the heat transfer to the coolant lubricant.

 

You can not just arbitrarily increase the pressure to increase the load capability of the bearing. As you still have other systems relying on oil pressure such as cam chain tighteners and lifters and componant cooling.

Additionally there is the load at start up and shut down. Having high pressure high load oil film bearings with small bearing surfaces that are not pressured before equipment start up and shut down such as in car engine leads to vastly accelerated bearing surface wear due to the high pressures when the materials are in contact with each other.

 

Bearing load capability can be increased with larger diameter journals this increases the area under the load due to the larger diameter but this also increases rotating mass and in turn increases the load on the bearings., It is not near as effective as widening the bearing surface.

 

The mods have narrow bearings due to the tight bore spacing. Ford revised the bearing material multiple times to be more scuff resistant. Scuffing is when the oil film is pushed out due to over loading and the bearing materials surfaces contact each other. This is why Ford went through umpteen rod and main bearings revisions to increase the resistance to scuffing and bearing wear.

[matthewq4b]

 

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).

 

The 91 TC was launched early 1990. Heck my 92 GM was built in Dec 1990.

 

Ford announced the mods would be it the trucks in early 95 for the 97 MY IIRC Basically a full 5 years after launch.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

Richard it is engineering and physics fundamentals

 

I'm not disputing the existence of the problem. I am disputing your claim that the problem proves that the mod motors were not designed for use in trucks.

 

The existence of sub-optimal characteristics does not prove lack of intent.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

Ford announced the mods would be it the trucks in early 95 for the 97 MY IIRC Basically a full 5 years after launch.

 

But that doesn't establish when Ford decided to use the mods in the trucks.

 

Ford was talking on the record about using the Mods to replace their entire V8 family as early as 1990.

[RichardJensen]

A 1988 Popular Mechanics piece reporting rumors of the Mod motor that use that term, and refer to it in terms that are remarkably well matched to the way it was used in the 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8 ("one type of combustion chamber and cylinder size"):

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=MeUDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA38&dq=ford%20modular%20motor%201990&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

1986 Popular Mechanics talking about a "modular" engine family with multiple cylinder configurations.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ja8HagveLRQC&lpg=PA14&dq=ford%20modular%20motor%201988&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

An article in the 1992 International Journal of Powdered Metallurgy says this:

 

"Next came a larger rod for the 4.6 liter V-8 modular engine. Ford is also slated to use P/M conrods in new engines — the 3.0 liter V-6, the 4.2 liter V-6 engine and the 5.4 liter V-8 truck engine."

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=667&tbm=bks&q=ford+modular+motor+truck+1992&oq=ford+modular+motor+truck+1992&gs_l=serp.3...6602.9640.0.10128.10.10.0.0.0.0.254.786.2j3j1.6.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..10.0.0.6GvXGwt3u2M

 

So as early as 1992 it was known that Ford was going to be using the mod motor in a truck.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

What can be said, conclusively, based on contemporary reports:

 

- Donald Peterson tasked Jim Clarke with replacement of the company's existing V8s somewhere around 1986.

 

- From at least 1988 on, anonymous sources at Ford were talking about a "modular" engine family that would have identical cylinders and combustion chambers, but a variety of cylinder counts.

 

- As early as 1986, rumors of Ford "modular" engines with multiple cylinder counts were circulating.

 

- In 1989 Ford officials began to speak publicly about "several different models" of modular engine.

 

All of that is clearly supported by available documentation.

 

I leave it to you to judge whether this indicates that Ford contemplated extending the modular family to displacements larger than 4.6L and cylinder counts higher than 8, and thus, logically, whether Ford contemplated use of these motors in trucks as early as 1988 or perhaps even 1986.

 

 

 

 

Yes, these sources speak about "modular" V6s and "modular" V12s that were never produced, but that does not mean that Ford did not consider building those engines.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[Stray Kat]

But wait just a minute here. This is a "Modular" engine family, right?

 

The original intent of the under square design was to control combustion performance thus being more easily emissions compliant.

 

Now I'm no Mod expert but I've seen the innards of them plenty of times. I saw steel cranks, generous journal diameters and nice wide rod bearings. I believe the rods are wider than Windsors or if not very close. The powdered "forged" rods are consistent in cross section and many if not all are of the of the "full floating" wrist pin design.

 

The bottom ends are tied with either 4 or 6 bolt main caps. The block DO NOT have the spreading loads that a cam in block design has.

 

Now the controversy here seems to be about the narrow main bearings necessitated by the tighter bore spacing. This is a valid point but any early bottom end durability issues were solved by increased bearing technology.

 

Now let's ponder why the tight bore spacing. Certainly Ford needed a short engine for transverse applications but that also went hand in hand with Ford's strategy for EPA compliance in the long term.

 

Tell me is it easier to clean up a combustion chamber in a 4" bore or in a 3.5" bore? Answer the smaller bore longer stroke engines have proven to be the correct answer to this engineering question.

 

Sooo in one engine family we can have a 280" Mustang engine and then when more displacement was needed the plan was to simply add more of those efficient "modular" cylinders.

 

Now we have a situation in the case of the 415" V10 where you have that much more bearing and valve area for a given displacement.

 

On top of all of this you still have a very short and therefore inherently more ridged than a sloppy overly long unintelligent design.

 

Even further when you have an OHC engine you eliminate that long nasty crank snout because Ford took the opportunity to bury the water pump and other accessories into the front block space. Much less loading on the front end.

 

Then of course the Mods have all these flat surfaces where the intake, oil pan and front cover have a fighting chance of containing their liquids.

 

Do some Mods spit plugs?.......yes. Do others have funky plugs that can break off in the head?.......certainly.

 

All in all though these are true 300,000 mile gas engines. Apparently some of you have forgotten about why there was such a thing as a "valve grind kit". Or "split lip" rear main seals or even massive oil gushers at the corners of the old pushrod engine's intake manifolds.

[jpd80]

Great post Stray Kat,

For all the hoo haa around the MODs in the F Series, they did a valuable job and kept sales coming.

 

Who really cares if Ford had to keep going back and back fixing issues, they did and moved on.

The plug issue was there but having changed plugs on a 3v engine myself, the worst of it was gone

when the rotten 2-piece plugs were replaced with good single piece ones, after that it wasn't so bad.

Pity Ford didn't just jump to DOHC from the 2Vs, they had ZERO plug issues and made lots of torque.

 

I'm sure that sometime in the future, the history apologists will draw negative conclusions regarding

the validity of the V6 Ecoboost, that it was never designed for truck use and supported by in-service

issues that required correcting.

Edited January 1, 2016 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Here's an even better "smoking gun"

 

October 1990 Popular Science p. 82 (remember when magazines had 82 pages?)

https://books.google.com/books?id=lQEAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA82&dq=ford%20modular%20motor%201990&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Now I've been reasonable with you in the past. When you furnished compelling--if not conclusive--evidence that MAN designed the 6.0L PSD, I changed my mind.

 

It would really be nice if you could take a look at this paragraph here, published in 1990--long before the 4.6L, 5.4L and 6.8L appeared in Ford trucks, and change your mind about whether the original parameters for the Mod motor contemplated replacing the motors in Ford trucks.

 

==

 

Again, that does not mean that the were ideally designed. But it does mean that the original brief called for a comprehensive V8 replacement.

Ya no kidding now you are lucky if you get a couple dozen now.

 

Ford said it would be a new famaily of V8's and V6's RWD and FWD based on the Mod design sharing the combustion design and similar bore spacing's. Not the same but similar.

Mod as launched was planned to primarily go down in Cubic inches not up.

 

It was never planned to to use just one bore spacing But more than one. We did eventually get the large bore spacing mod as the 6.2, a mod with larger bore spacing.

 

Read the article's a little closer Richard. It was intended to be family of engines based on a single architecture not single set of dimensions.

It was not all shall be based on this. It was a design philosophy to share common design architecture between all engines. Allowing the mod to be modified as required for the intended applications but sharing as many components as possible.

 

That is where you are getting hung up. Thinking it was all supposed to be this and this only and everything has to based of this alone. Do you think a 3.5LV8 would have shared the same bore spacing as a 4.6L V8 ? Had the same external dimensions?

What be the point in even having a 3.5L V8 that took up the same space as a 4.6L and weighed more due to the increased amount of material in the block?

 

The Modular engine was a design philosophy sharing as many parts as possible not a dimensional one..

 

All this got tossed out he window in the mid nineties when Ford when on the cheapening

 

 

Any way you cut it the mods have been Ford's worst engines in the trucks period. The exception has been the 6.2L no mechanical issues at all not a one just a lack of bottom end torque.

 

And the Mod bearing width is .758" eventually increased to .790" to combat scuffing Small block Ford's are .885"

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

But wait just a minute here. This is a "Modular" engine family, right?

 

The original intent of the under square design was to control combustion performance thus being more easily emissions compliant.

 

Now I'm no Mod expert but I've seen the innards of them plenty of times. I saw steel cranks, generous journal diameters and nice wide rod bearings. I believe the rods are wider than Windsors or if not very close. The powdered "forged" rods are consistent in cross section and many if not all are of the of the "full floating" wrist pin design.

 

The bottom ends are tied with either 4 or 6 bolt main caps. The block DO NOT have the spreading loads that a cam in block design has.

 

Now the controversy here seems to be about the narrow main bearings necessitated by the tighter bore spacing. This is a valid point but any early bottom end durability issues were solved by increased bearing technology.

 

Now let's ponder why the tight bore spacing. Certainly Ford needed a short engine for transverse applications but that also went hand in hand with Ford's strategy for EPA compliance in the long term.

 

Tell me is it easier to clean up a combustion chamber in a 4" bore or in a 3.5" bore? Answer the smaller bore longer stroke engines have proven to be the correct answer to this engineering question.

 

Sooo in one engine family we can have a 280" Mustang engine and then when more displacement was needed the plan was to simply add more of those efficient "modular" cylinders.

 

Now we have a situation in the case of the 415" V10 where you have that much more bearing and valve area for a given displacement.

 

On top of all of this you still have a very short and therefore inherently more ridged than a sloppy overly long unintelligent design.

 

Even further when you have an OHC engine you eliminate that long nasty crank snout because Ford took the opportunity to bury the water pump and other accessories into the front block space. Much less loading on the front end.

 

Then of course the Mods have all these flat surfaces where the intake, oil pan and front cover have a fighting chance of containing their liquids.

 

Do some Mods spit plugs?.......yes. Do others have funky plugs that can break off in the head?.......certainly.

 

All in all though these are true 300,000 mile gas engines. Apparently some of you have forgotten about why there was such a thing as a "valve grind kit". Or "split lip" rear main seals or even massive oil gushers at the corners of the old pushrod engine's intake manifolds.

 

All these are valid points but it glosses over the fact that the mod needed significant rework and redesign to become what you could call a reliable 300,000 Mile motor in the F Series. it took Ford basically 10 years to achieve this. Ask yourself this did any other family of Ford gasoline motors require 10 years of refinement to finally meet their requirements reliably? Did the mods need 10 years of refinement to do this in other applications? No they did not.

 

I mean these were not minor issues either. When you lose the bottom end in a motor it does not get any more catastrophic than that. The other stuff is just icing on the cake. Heck a whole cottage industry sprung up offering solutions to the spark plug issues Not even issue but issue's. The mods in the truck have been the most flawed gasoline engines to ever grace the F series. I dare anyone to name one gasoline engine family that has been worse. (If you say the 3.8L I'll give ya that but it was pulled after just 2 years fortunately) Yes they have their strong points but so did Nash's and the Monza V8.

 

The V10 did not suffer bearing failures just due to the lower HP per cylinder this has been pointed out in the past here several times.

 

And short block and long stroked does not necessarily inherently make it more ridged block it does the opposite as you have much higher stress's on the crankcase area with less material to absorb those stress's, that is why the Mods had to be deep skirted. The same thing applies to VW's W engines they need a bed plate to stabilize the block. Believe me if Ford could have gotten away with cutting block weight by 25% they would have done it and gone to a conventional thin wall short skirt casting and saved the weight and cost.

 

And the long crank snout has nothing to do with it being OHC it has to do with being able to run the accessory belts on the modern non dished dampers. Even modern OVH engines sport this.

 

The flat sealing surfaces is not by any means a mod thing and was taken from other engine manufactures primarily the Japanese and specifically motorcycles nor was Ford the first to put in to use on a auto engine.

 

 

In the CV, GM, TC, Continental, MkVII, Mustang in the 90's the Mod's reliability record is something the that the Japanese and the German's envied it was with out a doubt the best most reliable most fuel efficient V8 on the market with out question. And I'll go to the mat with anyone on that. But the same can not be said about the mod in the trucks.

 

The only Mod that has sat in the F Series and has not not had any major issues is the 6.2 but this engine was designed as a truck engine from the get go.

 

We are no longer in the days of when an engineering designer sat down with a slide rule or even calculator and designed a piece of equipment manually doing load calculations. and added a factor of X to cover his potential over sights.. Now stuff is designed to X with the aid computers and double checked by the bean counters to get as close to X as possible with little to no margin for "non parameter events"

 

We seen this this with the 6.0L an engine that served well in it's designed application but completely and literally fell apart when it was put in the F Series an application that common sense for most would dictate is less severe than in MD trucks and buses. In the final Year the 6.0L had become a reasonably decent motor in the SD. And was no worse than the 6.6 Duramax. it took Ford 10 years till the Mod in the F-Series was good enough that you did not have to worry about loosing head gaskets blowing plugs breaking plugs off, or having the bottom end go out.It was not till 08 when the mod in the F-Series truly became a 300K motor. with out having to worry A,B and C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

 

Mod as launched was planned to primarily go down in Cubic inches not up.

 

 

And what conceivable use would LARGER mod motors be put to? CARS?

[RichardJensen]

 

Any way you cut it the mods have been Ford's worst engines in the trucks period.

 

 

If that's what you want to think, fine. But don't come around here trying to convince the rest of us that Mods weren't designed for use in trucks.

 

Oh, by the way, the mod wasn't shoehorned into the Continental until 1995. Four years after it was first used in the Town Car.

 

I guess that must prove that the Mod was never designed for use in a FWD vehicle.

[RichardJensen]

 

Read the article's a little closer Richard. It was intended to be family of engines based on a single architecture not single set of dimensions

 

Why don't you read the articles a little closer? The 1988 PM report, the 1990 PS article and the 1989 Business Week article all stress common cylinder & combustion chamber design. That strongly implies a single set of dimensions.

 

 

Do you think a 3.5LV8 would have shared the same bore spacing as a 4.6L V8 ? Had the same external dimensions?

 

Going by the 5.4L that was under development in 1990 (production details had been finalized by 1992), my guess is that it would have had a shorter deck height (resulting in a smaller overall block), and a shorter stroke.

 

 

And what happened to the modular V6s?

 

 

Pretty sure they were nowhere near as good as the Duratec design that Ford purchased from Porsche (allegedly) at about the same time they were working on the Modular V6s.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[matthewq4b]

 

And what conceivable use would LARGER mod motors be put to? CARS?

 

Hmm Fords proposed response tot he Viper that got cancelled.

[matthewq4b]

 

Why don't you read the articles a little closer? The 1988 PM report, the 1990 PS article and the 1989 Business Week article all stress common cylinder & combustion chamber design. That strongly implies a single set of dimensions.

 

 

Going by the 5.4L that was under development in 1990 (production details had been finalized by 1992), my guess is that it would have had a shorter deck height (resulting in a smaller overall block), and a shorter stroke.

 

 

And what happened to the modular V6s?

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure they were nowhere near as good as the Duratec design that Ford purchased from Porsche (allegedly) at about the same time they were working on the Modular V6s.

 

 

Common Cylinder and combustion chamber design means exactly that the design is common. For example could you have used the Quench 351C chamber on the 385 Engines ? Absolutely. Could you use the open open chamber design? Yup and it was. The cylinder design is more subjective it could be internal block supporting structure it could be piston speeds and rod ratios bolt patterns. The 300 I6 and the SBF share a common chamber design and cylinder also. See how this can be applied to engines that externally have zero resemblance to each other. You would have never guessed that the 240, 300 6 and the SBF share a common architecture.

 

 

If you noticed no where did it say BLOCK. there were individual items not tied to a fixed set of dimension but a set design philosophy.

Items that would and could share a common architecture scaled relative to the application.

 

 

 

As for the 3.5 decking the block you would have just lost 90% of the part commonality to share with the other mods. Tightening the the bore spacing would have reduced over all engine length witch is more important in FWD's than width and not lost significant torque and that is what V8's are about in NA. or done both and shared closer dimensions with a V6 MOD

 

The 5.4LV8 was introduced 1992 in the newly redesigned 1993 Lincoln MK VIII as a possible top engine option I remember this distinctly as I was at an invitational here in town when it was unveiled and remember thinking if they build I will buy it. . It unfortunately never made it in to the Mk VIII. If offered we may have seen it as an option for the Mustang for 1994/5 and that would have really sent GM scurrying.. So it;s introduction was not exactly shall we say as a potential truck engine. But as a Hot Rod Lincoln motor that could kick the asses of Mercedes and BMW's.

 

 

What happend to the Mod V6's ? exactly what what happened to the rest of the mod program it went no where. So much potential all flushed away

[jpd80]

For most of the 1990s, gas prices were between $1.10 and $1.20, so Ford strategy for combating rising fuel prices

was not required immediately in trucks and knowing Ford, it would have wanted to keep Windsor going as long as possible.

Fortunately for Ford, it managed to get the Mods in there just before gas prices took off at the end of the 1990s and really

jumped up from $1.35 in 2002 to $3.25 in 2008..... remember all those lifestyle trucks that went belly up in 07 with gas prices.

[Joe771476]

This sounds like something Marchionne from FCA would go for! But then, should there ever have been a lawsuit when poor GM got sued for sharing engines between nameplates/divisions back in the 70's/80's?

[atomcat68]

 

Hmm Fords proposed response tot he Viper that got cancelled.

 

Wait, that didn't get cancelled. Wasn't that what the GT from 2004-2007?

[Stray Kat]

Matt, there are things designed into modern engines that we would have sworn would never work 20 or so years ago. Look at piston ring design and the obvious lack of thickness and tension. How about the super short skirted pistons that look like short burst racing parts but survive in millions of modern engines in day to day use? How about those lightweight single row timing chains now being used in virtually all the new OHC engines from any manufacturer? What about 5W20 oil? Aluminum heads? Composite intakes? The list goes on.

 

The narrower main bearings in Ford Moduar engines do not seem like such a big deal in light of all the other incredible stuff the auto engineers are doing these days. I worked at Ford dealerships from the 1970's till 2004. I do not remember the Modulars to be all that problematic. Yes there were revisions to main bearing design and material but it was not a widespread problem at least in those days.

 

Later on I was in charge of a small fleet of a variety of trucks. We had three 5.4 powered F250 4 X 4's. Those were bought at auction and had already fulfilled their investment goals for the prior company. The 5.4's while not anything you'd call a drag race engine, were excellent truck engines. They had plenty of low end grunt, and were reliable.

 

Just last week while doing a little work for that construction company I found out their current mechanic had to repair 2 spit plugs in one truck. This at over 200,000 miles of hard work. He did the job WITHOUT removing the cyl heads.

 

It is my understanding that GM truck engines have had internal challenges as well. I've heard tales of lifter, piston and coolant loss in some cylinder heads. Problems are not the exclusive domain of Ford engines. In fact I'll take my chances on repairing spark plug threads vs. fixing lifters in an LS.

 

Which brings something to my mind. Is the almighty GM LS under the hood of Corvettes and Camaros really just a truck engine that has been pressed into duty as a sports car engine?

[Stray Kat]

While we are talking about V8 truck engines will someone please convince me that there is another manufacturer in a better position than FoMoCo as far as 2025 EPA and CAFE standard compliance?

 

I've seen on this very forum talk that Marchione does not have any practical options. The hemi gassers are not going to make it and replacing them with a new engine family is cost prohibitive, hence the desire to merge power trains with someone else. Right now they have the Ecodiesel carrying the entire Ram nameplate in the half ton arena. The hemi is a dead man walking and without serious expenditure or outright replacement apparently it will not survive in the long term.

 

GM is behind Ford as well, at least as far as long term goes. Yes the new DI v8's are good but they are now expensive and it's not clear if they can make it past 2025. They have already shown us their future in a sense and at least in the half ton arena that is a small Duramax 4 or 6 banger in a lighter or smaller and lighter truck. How many gas v8's do you think will be sold when the marketplace gets there?

 

Then there is Ford. Totally different scenario altogether. The massive investment in lightweighting has already been spent and by all accounts the technology is being well received.

 

The half ton V8 which is the "small bore" Coyote based family is serving well and seems to have at least one more generation left in it. I mean specifically there are gains to be made if they feel it necessary to go the DI route. The ironic part of all this is I suspect the DI GM 5.3 V8 is very close if not more costly to build per unit than Ford's 5.0 OHC.

 

I could easily see Ford having a huge manufacturing cost advantage if they simply built like a 4.0 - 4.5 liter "nano" V8 related to the Coyote/Mod architecture. The bore size is already where it needs to be and a shorter stroke engine allows you to pull the deck height down and all of a sudden the beauty of the Mod family comes to the fore yet again. All of the expensive design and development of this architecture has been already bought and paid for.

 

Then of course there is Ecoboost. Already well into 2nd and 3rd generations of engineering maturity, these are very viable Diesel engine alternatives. These are the engines that could actually fit the bill as a product that could serve under the hoods of other manufacturer's products. Ford already has a strong presence in powering the "cottage" sports car industry. It is not a huge leap to imagine Ford power being utilized in more mainstream non- Ford autos. In that arena I think it makes a lot of sense.

 

I don't think Ford is going to have too much of a problem if there is a wholesale switch to diesel in half ton trucks and other lightweight vehicles. They have done a great job with the 6.7 diesel and, while I'm no expert, I think Ford is very strong in Diesel engine development in its European and Aisian products. I'm confident Ford could fill that void.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

Common Cylinder and combustion chamber design means exactly that the design is common.

 

 

As for the 3.5 decking the block you would have just lost 90% of the part commonality to share with the other mods. Tightening the the bore spacing would have reduced over all engine length

 

So it;s introduction was not exactly shall we say as a potential truck engine.

 

what happened to the rest of the mod program it went no where. So much potential all flushed away

 

- No. The Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, citing Ford Engineering World of September 1990 contains this significant tidbit: "Ford has adopted "key" manufacturing dimensions such as bore spacing, bolt patterns, and journal sizes"

 

This is another instance of Ford saying things that were subsequently carried out. Are we to infer that what they meant was something entirely different?

 

- Decking the block would allow you to use the same heads, the same valves, the same springs, the same cams, the same finger followers, the same pistons, the same rings, the same rod bearings, the same main bearings, the same bearing caps, etc., etc. Shortening the block and using the same deck height would mean you'd get to share the conrods and timing gears, I guess?

 

- No. It was specifically mentioned in an engineering journal as a TRUCK ENGINE.

 

- that last line is worth highlighting because it illustrates just how biased you are. You are saying that the mod program 'went nowhere'--which I guess is fair if you want to ignore the fact that mod motors won the Daytona 24 outright and power medium duty trucks.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

Hmm Fords proposed response tot he Viper that got cancelled.

 

So you want me to believe your speculation instead of a clearly stated on the record claim that was carried out years afterward?

 

In 1990, five years before Ford announced their new truck engines and two years before the first on-the-record mention of the 5.4L truck motor, Jim Clarke, a Ford engineer, told Popular Science that Don Peterson directed him to replace all of Ford's V8s.

 

Do you seriously expect me, or any other person with a functioning cerebrum to believe that the subsequent replacement of all Ford's V8s with mod motors was an unplanned coincidence in favor of your purely speculative theory about a vehicle that never existed?

 

We're done here.

 

There isn't a reasonable person on the planet or in orbit above it who would find your assertion above more plausible than the narrative supplied by a Ford engineer on the record midway through the project.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

I'm also going to point out that the breadth of application and the versatility of the Mod motors is unmatched in Ford's modern history. This is an engine design that has proven equal to use in race cars, in pickups, in medium duty trucks, in exotic cars, in sports cars and in luxury cars.

 

This is an engine design that can reliably put out 950hp on pump gas and still pass emissions tests.

 

Perhaps the only engine family that has been comparable is the FE--but that was never used in Lincolns, nor was it used in medium duty vehicles. And its lifespan wasn't as long as the Mod.

Edited January 1, 2016 by RichardJensen

[Stray Kat]

I would argue that the Ford Modular series has been one of the most successful engine designs of all time. What kills them in some people's jaundiced eye is the fact that they are visually wide. People don't think about the fact that even the widest 5.4 fits quite well in everything from Fox bodies to pick up trucks.

 

With the Coyote now the Ford engines are a bit or quite a bit more compact in physical size. Remember this is only width since these OHC Fords are low and short.

 

The mistake that Ford made was at beginning by coming in too soft on power and torque the Mods got a weak reputation. In just a couple years though the "PI" heads came into production and that really got the ball rolling.

 

Also here's a fun fact: the only American V8 factory block and heads drag race car to ever run in the 5's in the 1/4 mile is a 280" Modular Ford powered Mustang Pro Mod car owned and driven by John Mihovetz. The cars that run this fast typically are powered by billet hemi's and mountain motors. So much for the mains being too narrow to bear sufficient loading. This is 2500hp in a 4.6 Teksid block with Ford GT heads.