Ford versus Chevy

[Big House]

For you history guru's, why did Ford switch to the modular engine while chevy continued with Push-rod technology?

[dwasson]

Ford chose the modular motor because of design and manufacturing considerations. The essential feature of the modular concept is that the cylinder geometry is the same for all engines, V8 or V10s. In theory Ford could produce engines with any number of cylinders, and almost any displacement (except as limited by cylinder wall thickness considerations).

This idea has saved a lot of money for Ford in designing the 5.4 and the Triton V10.

GM stayed with their pushrod motors because they can be built on the same tooling they already have. This thinking leads GM to produce 90 degree V6s that require split crankshafts to reduce vibration.

I think that Ford made the right choice, but that they are not exploiting their advantage as much as they should. I would love to see more of the 6s and 4s using a new, smaller modular geometry.

[Raudermaster]

Funny you should ask that, I was discussing Ford's modular line compared to GM's pushrod's. I was wondering why too.

[fairlane347]

The bottom line, its always about cheeper in business, always!

[RCSignals]

The bottom line, its always about cheeper in business, always!

And that certainly applies to GM and their 'push rod' engine.
Their first V8 was all about 'cheap', and it continues to be.

Gm has a good engine inthe Northstar, they just don't make much use of it. Too bad really.

[RCSignals]

Ford chose the modular motor because of design and manufacturing considerations. The essential feature of the modular concept is that the cylinder geometry is the same for all engines, V8 or V10s. In theory Ford could produce engines with any number of cylinders, and almost any displacement (except as limited by cylinder wall thickness considerations).

This idea has saved a lot of money for Ford in designing the 5.4 and the Triton V10.

GM stayed with their pushrod motors because they can be built on the same tooling they already have. This thinking leads GM to produce 90 degree V6s that require split crankshafts to reduce vibration.

I think that Ford made the right choice, but that they are not exploiting their advantage as much as they should. I would love to see more of the 6s and 4s using a new, smaller modular geometry.

Yes, exactly

[Joe Walsh]

I just wish that Ford had designed the modular engine family with a 4" bore...you can't get a lot of cubes with a 3.55" bore.

I'm sure the reason was to keep the modular engine as compact as possible, but then they hang a set of HUMONGOUS DOHC heads on the tiny block...:(

[sweetair]

I just wish that Ford had designed the modular engine family with a 4" bore...you can't get a lot of cubes with a 3.55" bore.

I'm sure the reason was to keep the modular engine as compact as possible, but then they hang a set of HUMONGOUS DOHC heads on the tiny block...:(And those heads do look very nice, don't they?

[Bigdogjim]

Now the V-10 is a a sweet engine:):):)

Love to stuff that in a marauder!

[dwasson]

Now the V-10 is a a sweet engine:):):)

Love to stuff that in a marauder!

Didn't someone stuff a V10 in a Crown Vic? What did that take?

[Bigdogjim]

Didn't someone stuff a V10 in a Crown Vic? What did that take?

I know of a 5.4 in a crown vic? I like to see a V-10 in ours......:cool:

[Raudermaster]

There is a TT aero body GM that has the 6.8l in it and that took some massaging to get in. Also, I know of a either '98 or '99 CV that has the 6.8l in it as well, found that one on Car Domain a long time ago.

[RCSignals]

There was a guy who used to post here a long time ago that had a business putting V10s in CVPIs. He hoped to get PD sales. As I recall they were NG fuelled

[WantOneSoBad]

And that certainly applies to GM and their 'push rod' engine.
Their first V8 was all about 'cheap', and it continues to be.

Gm has a good engine inthe Northstar, they just don't make much use of it. Too bad really.

They might be cheap, but the LS1 engines are some of the best engines to date. I love the MM, but I'll always be a Chevy fan. Everyone knows that the pushrod engine is low tech but its been beating the 4.6 and 5.0 in fords for awhile now, Mustangs in particular, And lets not get on the LS6 or LS7 motors, they are making 4 and 5 hundred horsepower naturally aspirated AND your getting 20+ MPG overall. Screw a V-10, give me a supercharged LS7 and I honestly think I could be satisfied for the rest of my life when it came to vehicles.

[prchrman]

Everyone knows that the pushrod engine is low tech but its been beating the 4.6 and 5.0 in fords for awhile now, Mustangs in particular.

No everyone does NOT know that...you need to compare 351s with the 350s anyway and back in the day my 351 clev. busted many a 350...also a 5.0 is a push rod with 48 less cubes and they are busting 350s on a regular basis in my neck of the woods...if you want to dis my motor there are plenty of forums to do that on but here is not the place...willie

[ADE 1000]

And that certainly applies to GM and their 'push rod' engine.
Their first V8 was all about 'cheap', and it continues to be.

Gm has a good engine inthe Northstar, they just don't make much use of it. Too bad really.

Yes, “cheaper” and far more effective. There isn’t a “modular” motor that compares to the LS2, let alone the LS7 or upcoming LS9.

The GM pushrod motors are compact, lightweight, fuel efficient, and produce killer power across the entire rpm range. Why some people continue to use the term “pushrod” in a derogatory fashion perplexes me.

[Eric91Z]

I wish Ford's "modular" motors could get the kind of gas mileage GM gets with their "outdated" push rod motors. I have plenty of friends with modified LS1 and LS2 motors that are still getting mid-to-high 20 mpg on the highway. I am talking in the 27, 28, 29 mpg at 75-80 mph.

Best I can get is 22 mpg so far. Then again, I haven't taken any extended highway trips lately to make it any better, but on my daily commute (about 45 miles one way), best I can get is 22. Worst I have ever gotten, with combined driving, was 19, and that was with some extended 85-90mph cruising and plenty of getting on it. I know, I know, my car is about 1000 pounds heavier and less aerodynamic than their F-Bodies, Corvettes, and GTO's.

I won't knock the push rod technology. Plus, they generally make more torque, too, which our cars could use. Then again, that issue will be resolved some day when a Trilogy gets bolted on the top of the motor.

[Mike Poore]

I just wish that Ford had designed the modular engine family with a 4" bore...you can't get a lot of cubes with a 3.55" bore.

I'm sure the reason was to keep the modular engine as compact as possible, but then they hang a set of HUMONGOUS DOHC heads on the tiny block...:(

Joe, I see your point, but wouldn't that require a wider and longer cylinder head? Wouldn't the engine have to be longer by 2" and the heads equally so. Also the width at the headers would be wider by 1" just to accommodate the larger combustion chambers + whatever they'd have to add for the larger valves.

When I talked to the Roush guys at Carlisle and asked about the 32V engine, and it's application in a Cobra project, they said it would never fit, and was a poor choice. I still think the proper replacement engine for an MM is a well built FE somewhere in the 400 + cu in range.

I think it's still fair to ask if the reason the 4.6 32V motor was used in the MM, and the MM project went forward in the first place, was because they had a bunch of 32V engines lying around, and couldn't figure out what to do with them. They lost some of 'em in the 3 year production run of Aviators, and dropped that vehicle when they ran out of motors in '05.

Remember all the '90 Cobra's they didn't sell, and the '91's they never made? What ever happened to those blocks & heads? Aviators & MM's perhaps?

[SergntMac]

The production dates on our engines are stamped into the block, on the back side, normally covered up by the flex plate. I've seen dozens of MM engines, never found one older than 2002. Ditto the head design, it's the latest edition of a stock head with a background including FR500 design upgrades, just not the final finishing.

[Loco1234]

For a 287Cu in. motor it packs more than a tiny punch....

I love the Mod Motors...
and one must realize that Ford has been kickin ass with OverHead Cam designs since the early 1960's

Anyone recall a motor known as the 427 SOHC "Cammer"
615HP w/ a single carb (Factory Rating)
645HP w/ a Dual card setup. (Factory Rating)
...and Factory Rating were on the shy side due to insurance companys...

Does this seem at all familiar...?
http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10 333&stc=1&d=1163107065

This is the Cammer motor being fitted into our original 1965 AC Shelby Cobra.
<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o191/Loco4321/trav.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

[99SVT]

I just wish that Ford had designed the modular engine family with a 4" bore...you can't get a lot of cubes with a 3.55" bore.

I'm sure the reason was to keep the modular engine as compact as possible, but then they hang a set of HUMONGOUS DOHC heads on the tiny block...:(

The reason for the close bore spacing and small bore was for FWD Lincolns, The motor had to fit transverse before they would approve it for production. At the time Lincoln and Cadillac were both developing OHC designs, Ford with the mod motor and GM with the Northstar.

In the same era, Corvette got a DOHC motor for the ZR1 from 90-95. Everyone seemed to be developing new engines at this time, mainly for emissons reasons. With tighter tolerances, a better sealing engine could be made that would produce less emissions and still make similar power with less cubes.

I do agree that these motors should have a bigger bore, it's really hurting performance now. That's probably the reason for the new engine family in development now.

[WantOneSoBad]

No everyone does NOT know that...you need to compare 351s with the 350s anyway and back in the day my 351 clev. busted many a 350...also a 5.0 is a push rod with 48 less cubes and they are busting 350s on a regular basis in my neck of the woods...if you want to dis my motor there are plenty of forums to do that on but here is not the place...willie

I know that from 2000 and up to 2003 and maybe before then, the LS's in Firebirds and Camaro's were eating the modulars in Mustangs unless they were supercharged and even then it still is pretty close. I'm not dissing any motor, I'm just saying RECENTLY as in the last decade, from the factory, the LS motors consistently make more power than modular engines. It's not my opinion, its a fact. :burnout:

[RCSignals]

Yes, “cheaper” and far more effective. There isn’t a “modular” motor that compares to the LS2, let alone the LS7 or upcoming LS9.

The GM pushrod motors are compact, lightweight, fuel efficient, and produce killer power across the entire rpm range. Why some people continue to use the term “pushrod” in a derogatory fashion perplexes me.

Where was it used in a 'derogatory fashion' ?
No need to be sensitive, it's just an engine

'far more effective' is only an opinion.

[RCSignals]

For a 287Cu in. motor it packs more than a tiny punch....

I love the Mod Motors...
and one must realize that Ford has been kickin ass with OverHead Cam designs since the early 1960's

Anyone recall a motor known as the 427 SOHC "Cammer"
615HP w/ a single carb (Factory Rating)
645HP w/ a Dual card setup. (Factory Rating)
...and Factory Rating were on the shy side due to insurance companys...

Does this seem at all familiar...?
http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10 333&stc=1&d=1163107065

This is the Cammer motor being fitted into our original 1965 AC Shelby Cobra.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o191/Loco4321/trav.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

Exactly. A 4.6l displacement 'pushrod' V8 from GM wouldn't come close.
People are comparing 5.8l GM engines with a 4.6l Mod, and often that little mod engine with only a few 'tweaks' gives the larger displacement 5.8 a run for it's money.

[RCSignals]

I wish Ford's "modular" motors could get the kind of gas mileage GM gets with their "outdated" push rod motors. I have plenty of friends with modified LS1 and LS2 motors that are still getting mid-to-high 20 mpg on the highway. I am talking in the 27, 28, 29 mpg at 75-80 mph.

Best I can get is 22 mpg so far. Then again, I haven't taken any extended highway trips lately to make it any better, but on my daily commute (about 45 miles one way), best I can get is 22. Worst I have ever gotten, with combined driving, was 19, and that was with some extended 85-90mph cruising and plenty of getting on it. I know, I know, my car is about 1000 pounds heavier and less aerodynamic than their F-Bodies, Corvettes, and GTO's.

I won't knock the push rod technology. Plus, they generally make more torque, too, which our cars could use. Then again, that issue will be resolved some day when a Trilogy gets bolted on the top of the motor.

A 2-valve mod engine (in a CV) can get '27, 28, 29 mpg ' at highway speeds. I've done it on extended highway trips.
Your 4-valve probably won't.

[GreekGod]

My understanding about 4 valve per chamber engine design is that maximum efficiency and power comes with keeping the combustion chamber and bore well under 4". This allows a compact chamber that is more detonation resistant than a "big" bore engine, and also helps keep emissions low. An example is BMW 6 cylinder car engines.

[ADE 1000]

'far more effective' is only an opinion.

No, it is a fact easily confirmed by comparing them to the many impotent Ford "performance" offerings of the past 10 years.

[WantOneSoBad]

I have a question, I thought a 4V engine was suppose to be more effecient than a 2V engine. So, why is it that they don't get as good gas mileage a 2V engine or the older pushrods. If it's one of todays more advanced engines to which I hear people claim more than they should, you would think it would outperform these older less complicated designs in both power numbers and mpg. I'd appreciate any detailed answer or an educated opinion.

[Joe Walsh]

I have a question, I thought a 4V engine was suppose to be more effecient than a 2V engine. So, why is it that they don't get as good gas mileage a 2V engine or the older pushrods. If it's one of todays more advanced engines to which I hear people claim more than they should, you would think it would outperform these older less complicated designs in both power numbers and mpg. I'd appreciate any detailed answer or an educated opinion.

I still go by the old adage: "Nothing is free"

The DOHC is rated at 300+ HP, the SOHC at 239 HP.

To make more HP, you usually have to burn more fuel.

[RedMerc04]

The reason why those F-Bodies, vettes, cts-v's etc get high 20's on the highway is that most of them are mated up to 6 speed trannys. I believe that most of the F Bodies have a pretty conservative 3.42 rear end too. So that kind of gas mileage isnt as outrageous as it seems, not to knock the LS motors at all but if your car is turning 1300 rpm at 70 mph id pray that i would get a mpg result of high 20's.

[sweetair]

For a 287Cu in. motor it packs more than a tiny punch....

I love the Mod Motors...
and one must realize that Ford has been kickin ass with OverHead Cam designs since the early 1960's

Anyone recall a motor known as the 427 SOHC "Cammer"
615HP w/ a single carb (Factory Rating)
645HP w/ a Dual card setup. (Factory Rating)
...and Factory Rating were on the shy side due to insurance companys...

Does this seem at all familiar...?
http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10 333&stc=1&d=1163107065

This is the Cammer motor being fitted into our original 1965 AC Shelby Cobra.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o191/Loco4321/trav.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)Not trying to be too picky here, but let's call it what it is. It is only 281 C.I.D. NOT 287!!

[99SVT]

I have a question, I thought a 4V engine was suppose to be more effecient than a 2V engine. So, why is it that they don't get as good gas mileage a 2V engine or the older pushrods. If it's one of todays more advanced engines to which I hear people claim more than they should, you would think it would outperform these older less complicated designs in both power numbers and mpg. I'd appreciate any detailed answer or an educated opinion.

The problem is that the torque curve doesn't climb until 3000rpm. Trying to putt around like grandma at 1200rpm just lugs the motor because it's outside of it's powerband. I can get 29mpg in my Cobra on the highway by leaving it a gear lower and reving to around 3000. These 4v motors are like the old 427 side-oiler or a Boss 302, built to rev freely, not just a modified truck or taxi cab motor thrown into a lightweight car.

If you notice, supercharged 4v's don't really suffer much in the gas mileage department, even though there's often more than 100hp added. The supercharger adds more low end torque which means the engine is more efficent at a lower rpm. The same can be said about adding 4.10 gears, the added wheel torque really helps things out. The biggest thing that hurts mileage with 4v's is peoples' driving habits, once gears or a supercharger is added, the lead foot sydrome occurs and mileage suffers.

[WantOneSoBad]

Thanks for that, it does clear some things up.


I still go by the old adage: "Nothing is free"

The DOHC is rated at 300+ HP, the SOHC at 239 HP.

To make more HP, you usually have to burn more fuel.

Good point, but what about Direct Injection, I hear you can get 300hp+ from V6 motors and still get very good mpg at the same time.

[Loco1234]

Not trying to be too picky here, but let's call it what it is. It is only 281 C.I.D. NOT 287!!

No Im sorry...
I must of had a brain fart when I wrote that...
LOL

Ya thanx for the correction... it is 281ci... even better to make my point though...

This is a small engine... **** I have a jetski that is 1100cc and my cousin bought on last year with 1500cc

"this is a small engine" putting out awesome numbers....

[Mach1]

Ford used the small bore mainly for emissions. The volume around the area above the top piston ring is unburned fuel during combustion, which has to be burned up in the converters, of course the smaller the bore, the less this volume will be. Ford was expecting stiffer emission standards which didn't materialize, yet. Apparently they aren't too concerned with it now since the new Boss OHC engines have a larger bore.

OHC engines are well known to have some significant advantages over Pushrod types and probably the main one is reduced friction. Valve springs and valve train forces are much less for OHC than pushrod because the valve spring on a pushrod system has to not only close the valve, but push the entire mass and friction of the rocker arm, pushrod, and lifter assembly back down. This is huge, especially at high rpm. F1 engines routinely operate at over 18,000 rpm, racing pushrod engines seldom go over 10,000 rpm. OHC also allows for better porting, since you don't have to provide passages for pushrods through the heads.

GM and Chrysler have done a good job of getting the most out of Pushrod technology. Their main advantages are compactness, and they can also easily be fitted with displacement on demand systems. The old Ford flathead was even more compact, and once considered the performance leader in its time, and in my opinion the Pushrod engines will be joining the Flathead soon as being obsolete. I don't think we will ever see Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Yamaha, Kawasaki etc producing a pushrod motor.

I am glad Ford has chosen OHC technology and they are associated with it now. The Mod motors are very impressive and the new Boss engines look like they will have even more potential. I wish Nascar would return to the rules of old, when the MFG's had to use the same basic engines in the race cars as the ones sold on the street. That would be very interesting racing. Ford OHC vs Chevy pushrod and Dodge Hemi.

[Joe Walsh]

I don't think we will ever see Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Yamaha, Kawasaki etc producing a pushrod motor.



You are forgetting the "production" pushrod V8 that Toyota sold in millions of vehicles and is now the basis for their NASCAR engine...:rolleyes: ...:razz:....

[Loco1234]

I hope the FORCE isn't with YOTA in Nascar.....

I sooner prefer a rule change like menthoded above then Toyota joining the "sport".

[RCSignals]

a rule change? like allowing OHC engines?

[Mach1]

What "Production push rod V8" is Toyota producing now? The I Force V8 is an OHC. Joe, you gotta be kidding!!!!:flamer:

[Joe Walsh]

What "Production push rod V8" is Toyota producing now? The I Force V8 is an OHC. Joe, you gotta be kidding!!!!:flamer:

Yep....I was being sarcastic about TOYOTA's entry into NASCAR...:down: .....:shake:

[WantOneSoBad]

This is kinda off topic but thats where the post went, anyways, is it possible to fit an LS6 or LS7 in a MM without a whole lot of cutting. And if so, what all would need to be converted?

[GreekGod]

This is kinda off topic but thats where the post went, anyways, is it possible to fit an LS6 or LS7 in a MM without a whole lot of cutting. And if so, what all would need to be converted?

Summit makes a conversion "kit". It bolts right in with special motor mounts and a different flywheel and block plate. You can use the MM ECM, as MSD makes a converter plug for the harness. You will need a muffler shop to adapt the much bigger "LS" headers to the smallish MM exhaust pipes. Produces neck snapping torque. ;)

[jasonblair]

I wish Ford's "modular" motors could get the kind of gas mileage GM gets with their "outdated" push rod motors. I have plenty of friends with modified LS1 and LS2 motors that are still getting mid-to-high 20 mpg on the highway. I am talking in the 27, 28, 29 mpg at 75-80 mph.

Best I can get is 22 mpg so far...Then again, that issue will be resolved some day when a Trilogy gets bolted on the top of the motor.As someone who sold my LS1 GTO and got a Trilogy Marauder, I don't think the issue is the motor. I would get 27MPG on the highway with my GTO.. but it is a lighter car AND it has a 6 speed with a .52:1 final drive ratio. I think the MPG claims are more due to the T-56 than to the motor.

[WantOneSoBad]

Cool, I appreciate that info, hopefully you guys can help me out with alot more sometime in the future. I'm just kinda looking ahead here but that would be sometime down the road when I decided to do that. I definately plan on owning a MM by Jan of 07. I just need to sell my truck first so I can drop $10,000 as a down payment on one. Anyways, I just think it would be cool as **** to have a S/C LS7 tucked under the hood of a MM. I know that might outrage alot of these diehard FOMOCO fans but I could give a rats ass, I'll hear your $.02 when you catch up to me at the red light. Anyways, that would be a year or 2 down the road from when I get my MM. I can already see my License plate.....HAFBREED....don't think alot of people would get it though.

By the way, if your interested in a 2001 Ford Expedition, its on Ebay, any bid over $10,000 will take it...BUY IT NOW SO I CAN GET A MM!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=330048645259&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=014