Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2005
Ford's Mod Motors Are "Top-10 Engines"?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
NoOption5L@aol.com - 15 Mar 2005 05:12 GMT By Douglas Flint @ Car ConnectionDotCom --- I was looking at a copy of Ward's Auto World, probably the best and most respected auto industry trade publication. They were doing their usual yearly Top Ten Engines pick. Although there were some good and unexpected picks (the Ford 4.6-liter SOHC V-8 was in the top five), they tend toward sophisticated European engines and high-end Japanese engines, which is all good and fine for the high-end crowd but I live on the ground floor, as do most of my customers.
My top ten list will have the following requirements: a) the engine must have been in use for a substantial number of years over the past ten years and have been in mass use (hundreds of thousands of units in service) and b) it has to have been used in a successful car or truck.
Since different engines have different uses I will not rate them from top to bottom. In 1942 the North American Aircraft Company developed a lovely airframe, but the plane was cursed with a dog of an Allison engine. Since its performance was poor over ten thousand feet where most air-to-air combat took place, it was pushed into service in the ground attack roll where it performed mediocre at best. Then someone had the idea of mating the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine from the vaunted British Spitfire into the airframe. The result was the P-51 Mustang, which exceeded all its contemporary aircraft in speed, climb, range, maneuverability and, most of all, range, and within a year had swept the Luftwaffe from the skies over Europe .
In 1984 Chrysler had a wonderful idea: a small van or minivan based on their front-wheel-drive K-car platform. When they introduced it, it caused quite a stir, but the engines used were the same four-cylinder engines used to drive the car variant and could be described as barely adequate in a car. In the van, especially if it was loaded with a family, they were total dogs. Then in 1987 they installed a Mitsubishi 3.0-liter fuel-injected overhead-cam V-6. The minivan revolution was on. With a smooth powerful engine sales soared, and even when Chrysler installed a horridly defective transmission two years later they couldn't kill the sales.
The minivan is now a staple of the American automotive diet, but without the Mitsubishi V-6 it might not have been. The Mitsubishi V-6 served in various Chrysler products until phased out by less sophisticated home-grown engines in the year 2000. Although the early production run suffered from excessive smoking due to faulty valve guide seals, it proved to be the engine that could. Although the horsepower (145) is not spectacular by today's standards, all 173 pounds of torque seemed available all the time - and I have never found myself wishing for more power in either my '89 Caravan or '91 Le Baron Convertible. Which brings up another good point. The convertible which Chrysler revived as a species in '82 came into its own in '87, also with new sharp styling and a Mitsubishi V-6. Not bad for one little V-6.
The Honda fours: four engines, two cars that set the standard for small cars and midsize sedans. The Honda 2.2-liter four-cylinder used in the Accord models from 1991 and up set the standard by which all four-cylinder engines are measured: a simply designed single overhead cam engine, but with four valves per cylinder and a balance shaft for smoothness. It's hard to put my finger on, but having worked on and driven hundreds of these cars, the Honda four is somehow superior to its contemporary Toyota Camry four-cylinder engine (though both are very good).
I have many customers with 200-, 300-, 450,000 miles on those Honda engines and they don't just run. They run like they are new - smooth and quiet. Later Honda introduced its VTEC four, slightly larger and more powerful but along the same lines. They carried the Honda line to 2003 and were never second best. In small cars, the Honda Civic with the 1.5 and 1.6 single overhead cam 16-valve engines not only saved fuel but were quite peppy and as long-lived as their big brother Accord's engines.
These cars with these engines - combined with Toyota's cars - drove Detroit from the battlefield of bread-and-butter sedans and relegated them to sell on low price because they couldn't compete.
American cars and trucks have always been about the smooth abundant power provided by V-8 engines. In the late Eighties it would have been easy for Ford Motor to sit pat on the engines they had. GM wasn't building anything that wasn't based on late Fifties technology. Chrysler was winding down its V-8 car business and hadn't been a serious contender in the truck market for over a decade. I'm sure the accountants fought it all the way, but somehow Ford produced the first modern overhead cam V-8. The 4.6-liter single overhead cam V-8 was introduced in 1991, not as an option, but as the standard engine in a '91 Lincoln Town Car.
What a statement of confidence to put it as the only engine in their flagship car! It was a winner: smoother and more powerful and more fuel efficient than the old 5.0-liter pushrod V-8. No major recalls or defects or teething problems. It was right from day one. And did Lincoln begin to eat Cadillac's lunch! The next year the 4.6 became standard in the Ford Crown Victoria and the Mercury Grand Marquis, two very successful cars that became even more so. By the mid-Nineties, Ford had the sole surviving rear-wheel-drive full-size cars wildly popular amongst older (wealthier) buyers, and the only car really suitable for police, limousine, and fleet use. Then the 4.6 and a heftier cousin, the 5.4 Triton engine, moved into the Ford truck line, giving them an advantage over the competition there too. The 4.6 is still in service and probably will be for many years to come.
Ford gets credit for foresight - and for not playing it safe - and for producing a modern V-8 every bit as trustworthy as the old V-8s.
The Eighties were a time of growth and renewal. America was back. The mighty battleships were back in service, and America needed a good little truck to go to work in. It was Toyota that built the best small pickup truck and at its heart was the 2.4-liter 22R engine introduced sometime in the Seventies (in the rear-wheel-drive Celica I think). The base design was an eight-valve single overhead cam engine which outwardly seemed rather nondescript. It utilized a chain system rather than a belt to drive the cam (it was so far behind the times it was ahead). But it just went and went and went and then went some more.
Most were sold with manual transmissions, which meant more of the power actually got to the wheels and there was no complex auto trans to fail at 200,000 miles, taking the vehicle out of service. Nope, just a clutch every five years. Actual mileage was never a factor when buying or selling a Toyota pickup. The truck's body was more likely to rust out than the engine fail. It remained a carbureted vehicle right up to 1991 when electronic fuel injection became standard. (The carburetors were remarkably trouble-free).
With electronic fuel injection it remained the base engine in Toyota trucks right up through 2004. With horsepower at 100 to 110 and torque at 130 to 140, it seems like an underachiever - but every bit of horsepower and torque was available when you needed it, so it never felt underpowered. A little noisy and crude with the timing chain rattling for the first 30 seconds on a cold start and the mechanically actuated valves ticking all the time, it has proven to be a little work mule still in service years after its contemporaries (Ranger, S-10s, Nissans, and Mazdas) have gone to their grave.
Well I'm out of space, and if we count the Honda fours as four, I'm only up to seven in my Top Ten countdown. I guess this will have to be continued because I have four engines left to go which will take me to Eleven. I like that.
Doug Flint owns and operates Tune-Up Technology, a garage in Alexandria, Va. ---
Kinda intresting, huh?
Patrick '93 Cobra
Scotter - 15 Mar 2005 05:59 GMT Wow thanks for all your work in putting that together, Patrick! And it sure made me feel even more good about my undying 4.6!
 Signature Scotter 96 Mustang GT Convertible 3.37 gears & Filtercharger About to have all-new leather and other cosmetics
> By Douglas Flint @ Car ConnectionDotCom > --- [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > Patrick > '93 Cobra big-spud@shaw.ca - 15 Mar 2005 08:00 GMT the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is the equal bore and stroke.
Wound Up - 15 Mar 2005 09:07 GMT > the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is > the equal bore and stroke. Perhaps the first part is true, but the topic of bore to stroke ratio is not one that can be boiled down to "equal = best". If it were, wouldn't you think all great and memorable engines in automotive (and other) history would have at least approximated this? They haven't, because it's just not so. It might be a good ratio, but it's certainly not the single ideal.
For argument's sake and example, this reputable SBF builder has a different idea.
http://www.coasthigh.com/Assemblies/Ford/ford_331.htm
Those of you who are more technically inclined, let's start a thread on this here. What are your thoughts? Inquiring minds want to know.
 Signature Wound Up ThunderSnake #65
Chris Shea - 15 Mar 2005 22:09 GMT regarding bore/stroke for the 4.6 mod motor (96-04), can anyone confirm this?
i read that the maximum physical limitation of the block even bored/stroked is something like 350 cubic inches? that physically it cannot be made bigger, even with a stroker crank
curious, thanks
>> the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is >> the equal bore and stroke. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Wound Up >ThunderSnake #65 Jafo - 16 Mar 2005 01:44 GMT Pretty sure 331 is the max. Its limited by the relatively short cylinders.
 Signature Jafo '02 GT Black Not eggzackly stock.
> regarding bore/stroke for the 4.6 mod motor (96-04), can anyone confirm > this? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Wound Up > >ThunderSnake #65 big-spud@shaw.ca - 15 Mar 2005 23:56 GMT http://www.classicfirebird.com/hand/engine.html
for street use, square is better.
RSCamaro - 16 Mar 2005 04:48 GMT >> the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is >> the equal bore and stroke. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Those of you who are more technically inclined, let's start a thread on >this here. What are your thoughts? Inquiring minds want to know. I gotta give kudos to the 4.6 designers. The 4.6 in my Vert has plenty of power and runs right up to the limiter whenever I want it to and then I feel that it could go for more. The best engine in a car I had was a 327ci + .030, Comp Cams 292, 10:1 comp. ratio, stock heads w/ roller rockers, Holley 4010/4011? 650 cfm mech sec, internels balanced, etc. etc. A guess on the hp was around 350-375. I beat the living daylights out of it every day I drove it until I sold it. Generally running it up to or past 7,500 rpms. The worst thing that happened to it was destroying 2 pushrods on 2 different occasions. My vote goes to the shorter stroke larger bore configuration.
...Ron -- 68' Camaro RS 88' Firebird Formula 00' Mustang GT Vert
Ashton Crusher - 16 Mar 2005 07:29 GMT >>> the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is >>> the equal bore and stroke. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > ...Ron There is still no substitute for cubic inches. Much as I like my 4.6 in my GT..... it seems it's still no real match for the old tried and true 5.7 liter Chevy engine. My personal direct comparison is my 95 Caprice 9C1 with what was a slightly detuned corvette 5.7 liter in it compared to my 05 Crown Vic PI with the SOHC 4.6. They are fairly close in acceleration but the 5.7 is a bit faster. Not a surprise there given the larger engine. BUT, the Caprice consistently gets 22+ mpg on the highway with that bigger engine and the CV only gets 20 mpg out of that sophisticated mod motor. And my GT does about the same 20 mpg on the highway (automatic in all of them). -- Jim '88 LX 5.0 (now in car heaven) '89 LX 5.0 vert '99 GT 35th Anniversery Edition - Silver Mods to date - Relocated trunk release to drivers side, shortened throttle cable, PIAA Driving lights.
Chris Shea - 19 Mar 2005 04:17 GMT gotta agree there - no substitute for cubic inches
look at the 2005 z06. has a 7.0 litre engine - that is 427 ci.
my 04 cobra has a 4.6 litre/281 ci engine (plus the displacement of the supercharger, but that is a different story)
i just read somewhere else in this post that the maximum i would ever be able to put in my car without going to a longer stroked block is 331 cubes/5.4 litres.
so it seems that the sbc is always out in front of the mod ford motor.
how can chevy get such a large displacement from the small block engine, while ford cannot?
Ashton Crusher wrote in message ...
>>>> the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is >>>> the equal bore and stroke. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >Mods to date - Relocated trunk release to drivers side, > shortened throttle cable, PIAA Driving lights. JS - 19 Mar 2005 17:51 GMT > how can chevy get such a large displacement from the small block engine, > while ford cannot? The 351W SB engine can be stroked to 427. The mod motors weren't designed for that kind of stroking. They are a lot closer to bulletproof than the stock 302/351W blocks were though, and artificial aspiration, provided there is a good bottom end, can push the stock 4.6L block way past what you could take a 5.0L block.
JS
CobraJet - 16 Mar 2005 07:34 GMT > >> the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is > >> the equal bore and stroke. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Those of you who are more technically inclined, let's start a thread on > >this here. What are your thoughts? Inquiring minds want to know.
> I gotta give kudos to the 4.6 designers. The 4.6 in my Vert has > plenty of power and runs right up to the limiter whenever I want it to > and then I feel that it could go for more. The best engine in a car I > had was a 327ci + .030, Comp Cams 292, 10:1 comp. ratio, stock heads > w/ roller rockers, Holley 4010/4011? 650 cfm mech sec, The 4010 is a four-holer, and the 4011 is a spreadbore.
> internels > balanced, etc. etc. A guess on the hp was around 350-375. I beat the > living daylights out of it every day I drove it until I sold it. Can you guess why the Chevy firing order is different than the non-351 Fords?
> Generally running it up to or past 7,500 rpms. The worst thing that > happened to it was destroying 2 pushrods on 2 different occasions. My [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 88' Firebird Formula > 00' Mustang GT Vert
 Signature CobraJet
RSCamaro - 17 Mar 2005 00:03 GMT >> I gotta give kudos to the 4.6 designers. The 4.6 in my Vert has >> plenty of power and runs right up to the limiter whenever I want it to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can you guess why the Chevy firing order is different than the >non-351 Fords? It's possible that this is a trick question but I'll bite anyway.
Lets see... The first difference I ever noticed was that Chevy orders it's cylinders starting at the front right bank w/ odd # cylinders to the rear 1,3,5,7, and left w/ even # cylinders to the rear 2,4,6,8, where Ford uses left bank ascending 1,2,3,4 and right bank 5,6,7,8. Second thing is distributor placement. The third thing I noticed was that the Ford engine distributor runs counter clockwise where Chevy runs clockwise. The largest reason for a different firing order I can think of at the moment is the crank design.
How did I do? Please remember that I'm not an engineer or anything, just a backyard mechanic.
...Ron
>> Generally running it up to or past 7,500 rpms. The worst thing that >> happened to it was destroying 2 pushrods on 2 different occasions. My [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> 88' Firebird Formula >> 00' Mustang GT Vert -- 68' Camaro RS 88' Firebird Formula 00' Mustang GT Vert
CobraJet - 17 Mar 2005 03:21 GMT > >> I gotta give kudos to the 4.6 designers. The 4.6 in my Vert has > >> plenty of power and runs right up to the limiter whenever I want it to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > How did I do? Please remember that I'm not an engineer or anything, > just a backyard mechanic. You were real close. The two firing orders are actually the same, but appear different because of the cylinder numbering. Yes, it was a trick question. Like 55's? I have a line on a two door. I may buy it just to piss off Billy and Patty.
> ...Ron > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 88' Firebird Formula > 00' Mustang GT Vert
 Signature CobraJet
RSCamaro - 17 Mar 2005 00:12 GMT >> I gotta give kudos to the 4.6 designers. The 4.6 in my Vert has >> plenty of power and runs right up to the limiter whenever I want it to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The 4010 is a four-holer, and the 4011 is a spreadbore. I had both a 650cfm vac sec square bore and a 650cfm mech sec spreadbore on the engine at different times. I still have both carbs on a shelf in need of freshening (not likely to happen though), the mechanical secondary spreadbore worked much better on the 327 than the vacuum square bore unit. I should have made that clear as well as I couldn't remember which # fit which carb.
...Ron
>> internels >> balanced, etc. etc. A guess on the hp was around 350-375. I beat the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> 88' Firebird Formula >> 00' Mustang GT Vert -- 68' Camaro RS 88' Firebird Formula 00' Mustang GT Vert
Big Al - 16 Mar 2005 20:10 GMT > the 4.6 will be remembered one fords best engines, what makes it so is > the equal bore and stroke. Just like the 5.4 and the V10 :)
Al
|
|
|