Talk:Ford Modular engine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How do we change the valve covers in these things?


Hahah... You're funny. But in seriosuness, does anybody have any idea what separates the Triton from the MOD? Is it the application (truck vs. car)? I have been making some little additions to both pages trying to keep them separate, based on what I have read...This could be a little better if we have more info on why these are separately named. One problem I have had is with Ford of Australia. They use 5.4 MOD V8s in their cars. Are these MOD or Triton MOD? Same point with the 2000 Cobra R. 70.26.11.45 02:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


4.6L Main bearing caps[edit]

I can tell you from taking these out, that the 99 Cobra model has an 8 bolt main, not a 6. When you swap bottom ends out, you have to get a different clutch and everything.

  • All aluminum Modular/Coyote blocks do in fact have 6-bolt main bearing caps.
There are 4 vertical cap fasteners and 2 side mounted cross-bolts.
Early Teksid aluminum blocks used a thread in jacking screw because the main caps weren't an interference fit with the block side skirts like later blocks, but those aren't fasteners in any way. They simply allow the side bolt to clamp on to the main cap.
6 bolt mains caps is accurate, 8 is not.
I actually think you might be referring to rear crank bolt count. Cast crank have 6 bolts, forged Cobra cranks have 8 bolts.

Clarification[edit]

Triton is just Ford's marketing term for modular V8s used in truck applications. As for Ford Australia, the way I understand it is that the 5.4 liter Modular V8 used in the Falcon are very similar to the 2000 Cobra R's engine, putting out the same power and torque. I've read that the blocks are made in North America but that heads are locally produced in Australia but I'm not sure if that is the case or not. So to break it down, if it's in a truck, it's a Triton (which is a modular engine) but if a modular engine is in a car, it's refered to as a modular engine.

  • I know. I'm logged in now. I was the one who added the Australian info from a ford press release. IOt is a source of confusion. I think the Tritons come from Windsor (predominantly), and the car engines, except the Aussies come from Romeo. The fact that Tritons are available at both or that trucks can use Romeo engines complicates matters. So better not go there just yet. Have a look on a mustang/modular "modular motors explained" or something site for clarification between Romeo and Windsor MODs. There are honestly enough differences (internal materials, wrist pins, cross bolts, cranks, cam bridges, timing covers etc. etc.) even among "Tritons" of the same year from these two plants to give one a headache. So we can more or less assume TRITON is a marketing name for customer's benefit. Evenutally I would like to discuss it on this page, once it is unravelled. -C CJ DUB 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the remarks on the origin of the Barra name from the Ford of Australia section. Low relevance to the Ford Modular Engine page. CJ DUB 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The heads on the falcons are the same cheads as the 03-04 cobras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.193.249 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cammer Dominance[edit]

Cammer was DOMINANT in 2005. The cars using the Cammer won the manufacturer title, and had a podium finish in almost every race of the 2005 season (8 of 10 races?). That counts as dominance in any race mandate, short of winning every race, which nobody has done. The iditoic new rules they brought in resulted in making the M3 too competitive, rather than giving the mustang parity, due to the restrictors and the ridiculously low weight they now allow for the M3. What a joke. Now you see why the GTO is not competitive. They are heavily weighted and restricted. CJ DUB 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1994 4.6L Ford Lincoln TownCar[edit]

Anyone have any idea on the HP of the 1994 4.6L DOHC ford engine in a Lincoln TownCar? Answer: 160 hp (112 kW) to 210 hp (157kw)depense on the series: Executive, Cartier, signature

2003-2004 Cobra is not an aluminum block, it's cast iron.[edit]

Hey, I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing, I just created the account actually, but I noticed that the article was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 Mustang Cobra (aka Terminator) uses the aluminum DOHC. They actually put a cast iron in to handle the extra power that was added from the supercharger. Someone who is more familiar with the system can change that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajerman (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • You're correct; fixed. Good catch. TheBalance 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firing order[edit]

It would be nice if we had this data for all the Ford engines, since it is an integral part of how they dvelop power, TQ, and their characteristic Ford sound. GMs for example fire quite a bit different. As far as I know 4.6 modular, (all of them) are 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8. 192.197.71.189 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-CJ

The LSxs use the Ford 351/302HO/Modular firing order, not the old SBC firing order. The reason the LSx firing order looks different on paper is because GM numbers the cylinders differently, in reality the firing orders are identical. TheBalance (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions...[edit]

The 2-valve 4.6 iron block was also used in the F-Series from 1997-?? I would assume 2004 when they switched the 5.4 to the 3-valve. I'm unsure as to whether they still offer it.

Sorry, I don't have time to do any research right now.

-Kris --65.208.138.225 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That engine is called the "Triton" It has its own page for pickup truck apps. They still offer it as the 4.6L 2v option for trucks. I checked the ford website and its the old 4.6L 2v iron block (Al heads). The only other 4.6 in the line-up right now is the aluminum 3v and they are NOT using that for anything but Explorers and Mustangs. 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Customers[edit]

Right now, after a brief glance at the article, it looks like the example cars are all Ford Co products. What about customer cars, such as the Panoz Roadster and the Qvale Mangusta. I know they're not high volume vehicles, but some mention of the Ford engines in non-Ford products should be made. Gentgeen 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far only the Koenigsegg has been mentioned. Why don't you make the additions? TheBalance 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting discussion to merge articles[edit]

Well I have read both articles and found that most of the data is duplicated and does not need to occupy 2 different articles. I'm starting a discussion as per Wikipedia code of editing and I want to know what everyone thinks before anything else is done. Please post your comments weather to keep separate (and show good reasoning) or merge together relevant information. Yours 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for merging the articles. Although there is not much to "merge", since virtually all of the information covered on the Triton article has already been covered here.

TheBalance 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging these articles together are a bad choice, while a lot of car or truck savvy people will know where to look for this information, Wikipedia has always been about finding information easily and a LOT faster. So a good portion of people trying to find this kind of information won't be as lucky if we merge the two articles together. I say keep them separated...

BeaverDono 02:39, 15th of November 2007

That's why we have redirect pages. If the articles are merged, the Ford Triton engine page will be redirected to the Ford Modular engine page. TheBalance 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded and revamped the 5.4 L section of the Modular page today. The Ford Modular engine page covers basically everything the Ford Triton page does now. In fact, the Modular page covers the same information with superior detail and accuracy for the most part. TheBalance 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say go ahead and merge. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles merged. TheBalance 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Intake Manifold Defect[edit]

the article states they started using th aluminum crossover in 2002, when they became standard halfway through all the 2001 year models. Most all Romeo based new edges have the aluminum cross-over on the intake manifold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MustangAficionado (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Saleen 302[edit]

Saleen Manufactures a 302 CID (5.0L) Modular, 3-Valve SOHC V8 engine, based on the Ford 4.6l 3V modular V8, which is sold both as a crate engine, and installed in various 2008/2009 models of Saleen Mustang. The normally-aspirated version installed in the 2008 H302 is rated at 390 HP/390 lb-ft TQ, while the top end "S302E Extreme" gets a supercharged Saleen 302 rated at 620 HP/600 lb-ft TQ. Bore is 3.554”, stroke is 3.800”. (reference: http://www.saleen.com/2008_h302_3v_specs.asp, http://www.saleen.com/2008_s302_xt_specs.asp)

Chris.

Boss 6.2 as Modular successor[edit]

The Boss replaces the V10. The 6.2 is optional in the Raptor, and the base SD engine. Yes, the base engine is the current SD is the 5.4 3V, but look at it like the Expedition in which the optional 5.4 eventually became the only engine offering, they simply phased out the 4.6 in that application. Similar is happening with the SD, in which the V10 successor becomes the base engine. The Modular lives on in v2.0 as the Coyote, which is the 4.6/5.4 replacement. 6.2 fuel economy and HP goals were based on besting the V10, the 5.4 never factored into the equation because the 6.2 isn't intended as the 5.4 replacement...the Coyote fills those shoes. TheBalance (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote[edit]

don't confuse "modular" with overhead cam engine design. the coyote is NOT part of the modular engine family, otherwise Ford would have just done some adjustments to the modular engine lines to build this new engine. coyote v8 needs to have its own page. --72.85.10.69 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is confusing "Modular" with "overhead cam engine design". The Coyote is part of the Modular engine family, and it is precisely "adjustments to the Modular engine line". The engines share the same basic engine architecture i.e. the same bore spacing, the same deck height, and they run down the same production line with the same tooling. The 5.0L Coyote is a bored/stroked 4.6 Modular with thoroughly revised valve-train/cylinder heads/intake manifold along with some minor block revisions (increased bulkhead width and lack of siamesed bore with the aluminum block). Look to the GM LS engine entry, gen III and gen IV LS V8s share the same entry because they share the same basic architecture; however, the gen IV small block was thoroughly revised. The Coyote is a thoroughly revised Modular V8 (Gen II Modular) and not a clean sheet redesign, which you would know if you read through the references given. TheBalance (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another reference confirming everything I've said, Line, and I quote, "Ford began development on the new engine some two and a half years ago, and it's simply a bored-and-stroked version of the all-aluminum, overhead-cam 4.6-liter Modular V8 first built in Ford's Romeo plant in 1991 and fitted to the Mustang in 1996." TheBalance (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
look again at your references.the coyote is NOT being built on an existing modular assembly line.
the existing modular lines are at romeo and windsor engine.
the coyote is being built on a brand new line at essex engine plant with brand new tooling. essex engine is located in windsor but is a totally different building than windsor engine. essex engine plant was previously building v6 engines.
inside line discredits themselves as a reference-- clearly they are incorrect in stating that it is just "simply a bored and stroked version". the block and heads are completely new pieces as the Ford official press releases state.72.85.10.69 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. Essex has been building Modulars for years now: (5.4 Essex ref) [1] (4.6 Essex ref) [2], Coyote utilizes existing tooling and this has been covered sufficiently. I've been seeing Essex stickers on Modular cam covers for years.
Inside line made a gross oversimplification, one that probably annoyed more than a few Ford power-train engineers, but they are fundamentally correct. The Coyote is a bored and stroked 4.6, it's just been thoroughly revised in many other regards as well; however, it does utilize the basic Modular architecture. This sharing of architecture means the Coyote entry belongs within the Modular entry, just as the gen III and IV LS V8s share the same entry. TheBalance (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermarket parts.[edit]

The performance parts aftermarket is slowly warming up to the "modular" engine. Trick Flow Specialties now makes a splayed valve 2V replacement head for the 4.6 PI. The stock heads have both valves tilted towards the outside, resulting in a restricting kink in the intake airflow. The TFS heads tilt the intake valves towards the inside. The stock camshafts, gears, chains, cam followers- every part aside from the heads, valves, springs, guides and retainers can be re-used from the original engine. I don't know if the heads will fit both the Windows and Romeo built 4.6 PI. According to the magazine article I read on these, simply changing to these TFS heads almost doubles the horsepower. They tested the stock and TFS heads with an aftermarket intake fitted with a 4V carburetor (a carb?! in 2010?!) and an aftermarket electronic ignition controller. Bizzybody (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No camshaft bearings[edit]

These engines don't use camshaft bearings. The shafts run directly in bare aluminum saddles machined into the heads. Have there been any issues with failures? Keeping the oil clean would be extremely vital as getting something in there which scores the bearing surface means the head is ruined, rather than being able to replace a bearing insert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That lack of cam cap bearing inserts is not an issue as failures are virtually nonexistent barring mistreatment (i.e. being run out of oil). If the cam journals are scored they can be line honed and fitted with bearing inserts. TheBalance (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modular.[edit]

When the "modular" engine was first announced, I had visions of an engine line assembled from V-twin sections or modules so that (in theory) they could be bolted together as anything from a V-2 to V-10, or longer if the crankshaft and camshafts could be made. Imagine such with special intermediate sections for extra timing drives to reduce twist on the longer shafts. Would've been great for pulling competitions and land speed record vehicles.

But instead Ford misused the word modular to refer to I-4, V-6 and V-8 engines all having the same bore spacing and deck height, then only made V-8 versions, completely eliminating any link to "modular" design, yet still used the word. Modular became a marketing word with no engineering reality to back it up. Bizzybody (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the V10 Triton fits your bill. As so many mfg. do, the difference between V8 & V10 is often the subtraction of or addition of an extra pair of cylinders. BMW's Motorsport Division did it as well with the S85 V10 (2006-2010 M5, M6) and the S65 (2008-2012 M3). I don't know how to sign this, so I hope the program does it for me here on 3 Sep 2011 Rtelkin (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spark plug blowout.[edit]

The spark plug thread problem is much more serious than stated in the article. The affected engines only have four thread engagement of the spark plugs. In aluminum that is very weak. When the threads let go the plug is ejected rather violently, usually destroying the coil. Ford's authorized repair procedure for pickup trucks involves unbolting and lifting the cab off the frame so mechanics can gain easier access to the spark plug holes. Other companies have designed special repair tools and thread repair inserts which can be installed without lifting up the cab. Some "smart" person or persons at Ford @#Q#%ed up big time. What kind of brain failure ever thought four threads would hold in aluminum? Bizzybody (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 threads aren't the issue as 4 threads held just fine in the in the NPI 2Vs and the B-series 4V heads. Ford changed the heat treating process in 1999 resulting in a "softer" final casting. This is one of those scenarios where intensive short-term OEM durability testing doesn't catch all issues, it doesn't truly replicate the sheer number of heat cycles, poor fuel, and/or spark knock caused by drivability concerns that they often see in the real world. Still, with proper preventative maintenance even the 4-thread heads don't have issues, I've put over 300,000 miles on 4 thread PI 2V and C-head 4Vs without a single issue.
Change the OEM plugs no later than 70,000 miles, remove the plugs only when the engine is completely cold which helps to prevent thread galling on removal, install the plugs at 13 lb-ft without anti-seize or 10.5 lb-ft with a nickel based anti-seize, change them every 60-70K thereafter and you won't have ejected spark plugs. TheBalance (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5.8L Road runner.[edit]

Hey guys, wiki usually scoops everybody...where is the 5.8L information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.156.209 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2013 GT500 5.8[edit]

I see someone listed the 5.8's bore size at 3.66 inches. What is the source of this info? I haven't seen anything definitive on the 5.8's bore diameter yet. TheBalance (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MM&FF's latest issue had a big write up on the 2013 GT500 including a lot of details on the engine specifics straight from a Ford engineer involved with the car. The engine has a 3.68" bore diameter which puts the displacement at 354.4 ci/5807.5 cc (rounded to 354/5808 for the article, in line with Ford Modular entry convention). All earlier reports of this engine being a 351 are wrong. References will be posted when MM&FF puts the article up on their website. TheBalance (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOSS Redline[edit]

I notice that the article says the redline has been verified up to 8400 RPM and has a citation, but I could not find that information anywhere within the link. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.220.21 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2v 4.6 differences by year/model[edit]

I was wondering where I could find a comprehensive list of differences in 2v 4.6s by year and model. I tried googling these things and couldn't find it, I think it would make a great addition to this article. I understand some info may be difficult to source but I believe bored people on forums may have already done this work and I was hoping someone may bring it to this Wikipedia article since I read about the modular and the f150 several times and couldn't find this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.136.53 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Modular engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ford Modular engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Expedition[edit]

The Ford Expedition is missing from the list of models utilizing the modular engines (4.6L, 5.4L). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed twice for the 5.4 L engine (once for 2-valve and once for 3-valve). Feel free to add it for the 4.6 L engine.  Stepho  talk  14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Modular_engine&oldid=1202083040"