Interesting II...(Sorry Paul) - ZR-1 Net Registry Forums

flyin ryan · 01-07-2011

Hey guys, So I'm building a Ford 4.6L Mod engine for a customer, 4 valve 4 cam deal (I'm sure you know where I'm going already) So far I'm pretty surprised at the similarities to our beloved LT-5. Some obvious, some not so much...but there none the less.

The other thing that surprises me is how popular these engines are given the fact the LT-5's are, well...not.

I'm not seeing where these 'Mod Motors' are absolutly a better unit, actually thinking more along the opposite...LT-5's have it all over these things in a lot of area's.

Interesting if nothing else...At least I think so, so far.

tomtom72 · 01-08-2011

Okay, I'll admit that I used to be a blue oval brigade member....T-birds mostly. I couldn't wait for that motor to be offered in the 95 bird. They killed the old 302 as an option back in '89, and for a few yrs all you could get was the V6. Then it all went south with the retro-bird & they lost me. 40k for a bird was just stupid.

A friend of mine was a ford tech & he told me about the new stuff in the pipe line. He was not into drinking the kool aid as he came from the other side till his landlord put him out of business. He was fairly impressed with the effort & thought it would be a good for street cars. It seemed that ford was almost as obsessive as GM was about durability testing. To him this was head to head for the N* in the caddies as this was slated for the town cars.

Funny, almost at the same time as the LT5 too. I proly wasn't paying too much attention, but I don't seem to remember ford making a really big to do about this motor? I'm sure I'm wrong. If I couldn't get it in a Bird, I wasn't listening.

I would say this much.....if I could justify it I would trade in my Cobalt ss/na on a new Boss 302....but I need that as a DD like I need a whole in my head. Well, maybe I do need a whole in my head, but I can't justify a Boss as a DD. Darn, I so wanted a 69 or a 70 Boss 302 when I was a kid!

Tom

pantera1683 · 01-08-2011

I had a 97 Cobra with the DOHC 4.6L engine about a decade ago and I would never buy another mod motor again. That engine was heavy, slow, brittle, and it drank oil. It had powdercoated pistons so if you wanted to add any power to it you had to rebuild the bottom end $$$$$.

The only things I liked about it was it looked cool and was rev happy.

todesengel · 01-08-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomtom72

Okay, I'll admit that I used to be a blue oval brigade member....T-birds mostly. I couldn't wait for that motor to be offered in the 95 bird. They killed the old 302 as an option back in '89, and for a few yrs all you could get was the V6. Then it all went south with the retro-bird & they lost me. 40k for a bird was just stupid.

A friend of mine was a ford tech & he told me about the new stuff in the pipe line. He was not into drinking the kool aid as he came from the other side till his landlord put him out of business. He was fairly impressed with the effort & thought it would be a good for street cars. It seemed that ford was almost as obsessive as GM was about durability testing. To him this was head to head for the N* in the caddies as this was slated for the town cars.

Funny, almost at the same time as the LT5 too. I proly wasn't paying too much attention, but I don't seem to remember ford making a really big to do about this motor? I'm sure I'm wrong. If I couldn't get it in a Bird, I wasn't listening.

I would say this much.....if I could justify it I would trade in my Cobalt ss/na on a new Boss 302....but I need that as a DD like I need a whole in my head. Well, maybe I do need a whole in my head, but I can't justify a Boss as a DD. Darn, I so wanted a 69 or a 70 Boss 302 when I was a kid!

Tom

Tom, I believe you have some incorrect info in there. I had a 92 fox with a 302, and the first sn/94 had 302's, albeit with a redesigned intake to allow it to fit under the hood, and it lost a few ponies

todesengel · 01-08-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by pantera1683

I had a 97 Cobra with the DOHC 4.6L engine about a decade ago and I would never buy another mod motor again. That engine was heavy, slow, brittle, and it drank oil. It had powdercoated pistons so if you wanted to add any power to it you had to rebuild the bottom end $$$$$.

The only things I liked about it was it looked cool and was rev happy.

Yet ford stayed the course, and look at the results it has yielded. Musch like the first gen duramax v. the one available now.

New technology is always a risk, just as they evolved the lt-5 (although little) over it's short life.

The 03 cobra motor was a monument to that, as was the ford gt motor. Look to the brand new powerplant in the mustang gt. The new mustang is going to own the tracks over the chrysler and gm offerings this spring/summer.

Kb7tif · 01-08-2011

Look to the brand new powerplant in the mustang gt. The new mustang is going to own the tracks over the chrysler and gm offerings this spring/summer.[/QUOTE]
32 valve variable valve timing trac control ect 411 hp its a start.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXusbh5hb8U A bit pricey

flyin ryan · 01-08-2011

Here's a couple pictures in the very early mock up stage. That block isn't the one I'm using, just for mocking up in the car.

The water bottle is just for comparison.

Paul Workman · 01-09-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyin ryan

Here's a couple pictures in the very early mock up stage. That block isn't the one I'm using, just for mocking up in the car.

The water bottle is just for comparison.

Yeowzah!!

"Interesting" is where you find it, Ryan. And dat is veddy intorestink! Keep the pix flowin!

tomtom72 · 01-09-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by todesengel

Tom, I believe you have some incorrect info in there. I had a 92 fox with a 302, and the first sn/94 had 302's, albeit with a redesigned intake to allow it to fit under the hood, and it lost a few ponies

I was just talking about the bird line up, sorry I should have said that

....they took away my 302 at the end of 88......I was married back then & trying to be responsible so the bird line up was the only car I paid any attention to because it wasn't front wheel drive.

Back in the 80's & 90's very few people were making T-bird-esque cars that were rwd....I really didn't like fwd cars. I know I'm behind the curve on that!

Pantera,
I admit that I never looked at the hot rodding possibilities of the modular. From the aspect of a new direction, new materials, new technology slant I would have to say Ford was at least not performing a retroactive abortion on DOHC multi-valve motor concept for a V8 for use in regular cars..... and by now with the new 302 motor you would have to say that concept wasn't allowed to be still born either. I'll also admit that yes I have sour grapes at GM for their decision that the V8 DOHC/4V platform should be abandoned. From a cost per unit standpoint I just don't get how Ford can make it work and GM knew it was cost prohibitive? I'm sure in the end the "customer doesn't care to know about the technology, so lets use push rods" thinking won the day? JMHO

Tom

pantera1683 · 01-09-2011

Pantera,
I admit that I never looked at the hot rodding possibilities of the modular. From the aspect of a new direction, new materials, new technology slant I would have to say Ford was at least not performing a retroactive abortion on DOHC multi-valve motor concept for a V8 for use in regular cars..... and by now with the new 302 motor you would have to say that concept wasn't allowed to be still born either. I'll also admit that yes I have sour grapes at GM for their decision that the V8 DOHC/4V platform should be abandoned. From a cost per unit standpoint I just don't get how Ford can make it work and GM knew it was cost prohibitive? I'm sure in the end the "customer doesn't care to know about the technology, so lets use push rods" thinking won the day? JMHO

Tom[/QUOTE]

My Mustang memory is about a decade old, but from what I do remember the modular engine family was the new direction Ford wanted to take. They were able to keep costs down by using the "modular" format. 4.6 V8, 5.4 V8, 6.8 V10 all used interchangeable parts. The 6.8 V10 is really a 4.6 with 2 extra cylinders and the 5.4 is a taller block 4.6.

The problem with the modular is that they were not designed for "high performance" applications, unlike the LT5, they was underbuilt.

With that said, if Ford would have made the modulars as 5.0s from the beginning, they would have been a lot better-4.6 equals no torque.

01-07-2011	#1
flyin ryan Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Edmonton, Alberta or Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 2,741	Interesting II...(Sorry Paul) Hey guys, So I'm building a Ford 4.6L Mod engine for a customer, 4 valve 4 cam deal (I'm sure you know where I'm going already) So far I'm pretty surprised at the similarities to our beloved LT-5. Some obvious, some not so much...but there none the less. The other thing that surprises me is how popular these engines are given the fact the LT-5's are, well...not. I'm not seeing where these 'Mod Motors' are absolutly a better unit, actually thinking more along the opposite...LT-5's have it all over these things in a lot of area's. Interesting if nothing else...At least I think so, so far. __________________ There are no limit's mans ingenuity, just as mans ingenuity will never conquer the forces & behavior of this planet...Smokey Y.

01-08-2011	#2
tomtom72 Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Jacksonville, FL USA Posts: 4,645	Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul) Okay, I'll admit that I used to be a blue oval brigade member....T-birds mostly. I couldn't wait for that motor to be offered in the 95 bird. They killed the old 302 as an option back in '89, and for a few yrs all you could get was the V6. Then it all went south with the retro-bird & they lost me. 40k for a bird was just stupid. A friend of mine was a ford tech & he told me about the new stuff in the pipe line. He was not into drinking the kool aid as he came from the other side till his landlord put him out of business. He was fairly impressed with the effort & thought it would be a good for street cars. It seemed that ford was almost as obsessive as GM was about durability testing. To him this was head to head for the N* in the caddies as this was slated for the town cars. Funny, almost at the same time as the LT5 too. I proly wasn't paying too much attention, but I don't seem to remember ford making a really big to do about this motor? I'm sure I'm wrong. If I couldn't get it in a Bird, I wasn't listening. I would say this much.....if I could justify it I would trade in my Cobalt ss/na on a new Boss 302....but I need that as a DD like I need a whole in my head. Well, maybe I do need a whole in my head, but I can't justify a Boss as a DD. Darn, I so wanted a 69 or a 70 Boss 302 when I was a kid! Tom __________________ 1990 ZR-1, Black/grey, #2233, stock. ZR-1 Net Reg Founding Member #316 & NCM member

01-08-2011	#3
pantera1683 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 396	Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul) I had a 97 Cobra with the DOHC 4.6L engine about a decade ago and I would never buy another mod motor again. That engine was heavy, slow, brittle, and it drank oil. It had powdercoated pistons so if you wanted to add any power to it you had to rebuild the bottom end $$$$$. The only things I liked about it was it looked cool and was rev happy.

01-08-2011	#6
Kb7tif Join Date: May 2009 Location: S Nevada Posts: 352	Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul) Look to the brand new powerplant in the mustang gt. The new mustang is going to own the tracks over the chrysler and gm offerings this spring/summer.[/QUOTE] 32 valve variable valve timing trac control ect 411 hp its a start.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXusbh5hb8U A bit pricey __________________ 1995 Convertible Supercharged Auto 1974 454 550hp (avatar car) On the blocks- -Scharger install ! 1992-Zr-1 Sold. Watson Headers Ported Plenum, Housings Random tech cats Fidanza Flywheel Chipped, Relocated Mat Woods 165 stat Borlas, Straights 1996 Lt4 Sold 1994 Lt1 Sold 2004 Z06 Sold AKA** Illenema Last edited by Kb7tif; 01-08-2011 at 12:47 PM.

01-08-2011	#7
flyin ryan Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Edmonton, Alberta or Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 2,741	Couple pics... Here's a couple pictures in the very early mock up stage. That block isn't the one I'm using, just for mocking up in the car. The water bottle is just for comparison. __________________ There are no limit's mans ingenuity, just as mans ingenuity will never conquer the forces & behavior of this planet...Smokey Y.

01-09-2011	#10
pantera1683 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 396	Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul) Pantera, I admit that I never looked at the hot rodding possibilities of the modular. From the aspect of a new direction, new materials, new technology slant I would have to say Ford was at least not performing a retroactive abortion on DOHC multi-valve motor concept for a V8 for use in regular cars..... and by now with the new 302 motor you would have to say that concept wasn't allowed to be still born either. I'll also admit that yes I have sour grapes at GM for their decision that the V8 DOHC/4V platform should be abandoned. From a cost per unit standpoint I just don't get how Ford can make it work and GM knew it was cost prohibitive? I'm sure in the end the "customer doesn't care to know about the technology, so lets use push rods" thinking won the day? JMHO Tom[/QUOTE] My Mustang memory is about a decade old, but from what I do remember the modular engine family was the new direction Ford wanted to take. They were able to keep costs down by using the "modular" format. 4.6 V8, 5.4 V8, 6.8 V10 all used interchangeable parts. The 6.8 V10 is really a 4.6 with 2 extra cylinders and the 5.4 is a taller block 4.6. The problem with the modular is that they were not designed for "high performance" applications, unlike the LT5, they was underbuilt. With that said, if Ford would have made the modulars as 5.0s from the beginning, they would have been a lot better-4.6 equals no torque.