Jump to content

Upcoming Ford Powertrains


Recommended Posts

I don't think there has been that much interest in the mod motors for racing, especially at the grass roots level. Why else would Ford Racing still offer so many pushrod crate motor variations? The few aftermarket parts that are available for the mod motors are more expensive than the 5.0L and 5.8L stuff. Maintaining one of these mod motors with all their cams, chains, etc. has to be a lot more work and expense. Add in the fact that they are pretty much maxed out at 330 cu in and its no wonder there is little interest. Sorry but when I cruise the pits at the local drag strips I don't see many hard core racers running mod motors. Trophy Trucks with lots of sponsorship might be a different story but the average weekend warrior wants the most bang for his buck and the mod motors just don't fit that bill. They have been available for, what, twenty years now in one form or another and they still haven't really caught on. The naturally aspirated 4.6, especially in 3V and 4V form, has been an okay engine for a street performance Mustang but, lets be honest here, a 2002 Z28 could still clean a 2010 GT's clock and probably come close to matching it for fuel mileage. I say good riddance and bring on the Coyote. :burnout:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lets be honest here, a 2002 Z28 could still clean a 2010 GT's clock and probably come close to matching it for fuel mileage. I say good riddance and bring on the Coyote. :burnout:

 

Ouch...I don't know how much clock-cleaning would be done (we'll see this summer), but point well taken that it is 8 years older, taken time off, came back, and can still do what our "new" Mustang can do. But again, it's all about sales, and the Mustang wins that race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a report on Bobcat and the best I could figure is that by most, it would have 5% improvement in fuel efficiency over the EcoBoost. The only real advantage is the ability to handle massive boost.

Depends on what your goal is. Bobcat and be applied to pretty much any gasoline engine and will produce SIGNIFICANTLY higher peak power than any other technology.

 

Just so that everyone knows, "Bobcat" (PFI gasoline and DI Ethanol with turbo and a CGI block) is really old technology. It was applied to aircraft engines prior to WW-II (without the DI and CGI) !

Not worth the cost.

I concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, some big misunderstandings in acceleration times here...

 

..What does THAT do to the performance of the car? The 2010 already blows past regular vets and can play with Z06s (assuming a decent driver is behind the wheel). With those two improvements, it should be a much better match for the Z06 and might even cause a ZR-1 driver to have to work a little.

 

oldfairmont, I totally respect you and find your knowledge here always useful, nothing personal, but this is WAY OFF. I've been looking at every test drive I can find, and it seems that the 2010 GT500 is posting 4.5-4.6 sec. blasts to 60. The BASE Vette regularly accomplishes this task in 4.0-4.1 seconds. The 1/4-mile times of both cars are even a tad more spaced apart. Check the net, the info's easily available...

 

There's NO WAY a 2010 GT500 comes near a Z06, check the reviews and road tests for that and you'll see what I mean. The Z06 posts 3.5-3.7 dashes to 60. (You don't wanna know the quarter-mile diffs...)

 

The ZR-1 is even a little faster than that, so no, the 2010 GT500 doesn't quite hang with the ANY Vette yet. Maybe the base Vette is close, but that's definitely it.

 

...lets be honest here, a 2002 Z28 could still clean a 2010 GT's clock and probably come close to matching it for fuel mileage.

 

Not really. Again, a quick check of many road tests/reviews shows that the '98-'02 Z/28s were 5.2-second cars to 60 with the 1/4-mile mark showing-up in the 13.6-13.8 range. One look at the 2010 Mustang GT shows 4.9-5.1 second rips, with 1/4-mile going by at the 13.6-13.8 range, matching the Z.

 

And, as a side note, the '05-'09 GTs were the same as far as acceleration goes, (actually found a couple of tests that got 4.8 to 60!). This, the result of the new goodies on the 2010 GT being cancelled-out by it's slight weight gain...

 

But, blksn8k2, I do know what you were getting at. It's kinda ridiculous that the 2010 GT is even comparable to the 2002 Camaro Z/28. But you're right, it's GAME OVER once the 5.0-liter hits.

Edited by OHV 16V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there has been that much interest in the mod motors for racing, especially at the grass roots level. Why else would Ford Racing still offer so many pushrod crate motor variations? The few aftermarket parts that are available for the mod motors are more expensive than the 5.0L and 5.8L stuff. Maintaining one of these mod motors with all their cams, chains, etc. has to be a lot more work and expense. Add in the fact that they are pretty much maxed out at 330 cu in and its no wonder there is little interest. Sorry but when I cruise the pits at the local drag strips I don't see many hard core racers running mod motors. Trophy Trucks with lots of sponsorship might be a different story but the average weekend warrior wants the most bang for his buck and the mod motors just don't fit that bill. They have been available for, what, twenty years now in one form or another and they still haven't really caught on. The naturally aspirated 4.6, especially in 3V and 4V form, has been an okay engine for a street performance Mustang but, lets be honest here, a 2002 Z28 could still clean a 2010 GT's clock and probably come close to matching it for fuel mileage. I say good riddance and bring on the Coyote. :burnout:

 

What do you have to maintain in the Mod Motors? Where is this so called maintenance expense coming from? Robert Yates (of NASCAR fame) has made numerous comments regarding the reliability of Mod Motors in racing environments. He built a 5.0L 4V for the Rolex 24 Hours of Daytona using mostly OEM parts, so I think he would have some idea. Grand Am Cup 5.0L Cammers are also using mostly OEM components, including valvetrain and they have no problem making a full season without any valve train related maintenance..

 

Mod motors are not maxed out at 330 cubes, the 4.6L will support ~324 cubes reliably, the 5.4 (aluminum block) will support ~358 cubes reliably. The 5.4 is physically capable of 380 cubic inches.

 

There are many, many hard core racers running Mod Motors. I suggest you check out NMRA Factory Stock, Pure Street, Real Street, Pro 5.0 and don't forget to check out John Mihovetz over in NHRA Comp Eliminator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone understands my point that there shouldn't be any way that the last gen Camaro could still hold a candle to a 2010 GT but it can and that is really sad. The 4.6L mod motor was originally designed to fit sideways in a FWD Lincoln Continental. It never should have been placed in any RWD performance cars. It was compromised from the start with narrow bore spacing and thus displacement limitations yet the 4.6 and especially the 5.4 are physically huge which in turn compromises chassis design. The 5.4L 4 cam takes up more space than a 100 cubic inch larger Boss 429 for christ's sake. I guess the SVT power train engineers have done a good job of putting lipstick on a pig, even if it was supercharged lipstick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone understands my point that there shouldn't be any way that the last gen Camaro could still hold a candle to a 2010 GT but it can and that is really sad. The 4.6L mod motor was originally designed to fit sideways in a FWD Lincoln Continental. It never should have been placed in any RWD performance cars. It was compromised from the start with narrow bore spacing and thus displacement limitations yet the 4.6 and especially the 5.4 are physically huge which in turn compromises chassis design. The 5.4L 4 cam takes up more space than a 100 cubic inch larger Boss 429 for christ's sake. I guess the SVT power train engineers have done a good job of putting lipstick on a pig, even if it was supercharged lipstick.

 

A 2010 GT can't outrun a 2003 Mach 1 either, I fail to see your point.

 

The Mod Motor shouldn't have been placed in high performance RWD applications?

 

Why shouldn't have the Modulars have been installed in hi-po RWD applications? Before you answer, realize stock 2003 Cobra long-blocks have no problem holding 600+ rwhp, and in some markets n/a 5.4 4Vs are making virtually the same power as the "almighty" 6.2L LS3. Not bad for an engine that should have never existed.

 

FYI, the 5.4 is notably smaller in every dimension than the Boss 429 save for width. Length and height matter just as much as width (if not more so) for packaging and crash standards in a RWD application.

 

It's really quite clear you don't know much of anything about the Modulars or their capabilities. Take it from someone who does.

Edited by White99GT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, folks, is why you really need to check your figures TWICE when you use them. On the scratch paper that I was using for the comparisons, I had the numbers for the base vette and the mustang reversed. For that, I appologize.

 

You may now continue your regularly scheduled debating...

 

Wow, some big misunderstandings in acceleration times here...

 

 

oldfairmont, I totally respect you and find your knowledge here always useful, nothing personal, but this is WAY OFF. I've been looking at every test drive I can find, and it seems that the 2010 GT500 is posting 4.5-4.6 sec. blasts to 60. The BASE Vette regularly accomplishes this task in 4.0-4.1 seconds. The 1/4-mile times of both cars are even a tad more spaced apart. Check the net, the info's easily available...

 

There's NO WAY a 2010 GT500 comes near a Z06, check the reviews and road tests for that and you'll see what I mean. The Z06 posts 3.5-3.7 dashes to 60. (You don't wanna know the quarter-mile diffs...)

 

The ZR-1 is even a little faster than that, so no, the 2010 GT500 doesn't quite hang with the ANY Vette yet. Maybe the base Vette is close, but that's definitely it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, folks, is why you really need to check your figures TWICE when you use them. On the scratch paper that I was using for the comparisons, I had the numbers for the base vette and the mustang reversed. For that, I appologize.

 

You may now continue your regularly scheduled debating...

 

Like I said, DEFINITELY nothing personal there, I really enjoy your posts and find them very knowledgeable and informative :beerchug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect the 5.0 engine to show up in a regular Mustang GT in a 400 HP form. They just don't have to jump from 315 this year to 400 for marketing purposes.

 

I'm not saying it won't make 400 HP in some special model. Just not the bread and butter Mustang GT. I would not be surprised to see a 350-360 HP 87 octane version for the regular GT.

 

This is just my opinion, is not based on insider info, just based on how they usually do things.

Edited by Ralph Greene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what your goal is. Bobcat and be applied to pretty much any gasoline engine and will produce SIGNIFICANTLY higher peak power than any other technology.

 

Just so that everyone knows, "Bobcat" (PFI gasoline and DI Ethanol with turbo and a CGI block) is really old technology. It was applied to aircraft engines prior to WW-II (without the DI and CGI) !

 

I concur.

 

The use of Ethanol to allow overboosting by turbo is an old idea. It requires burning only E-85, or what ever ratio that is required. You can see the result in the new Fiesta RS rally car. 2.0L I-4 with 500 hp.

 

With out DI, it is not Bobcat. Bobcat burns regular unleaded gas and only injects very small quantities of E-85 where (inside the cylinder) and when it is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect the 5.0 engine to show up in a regular Mustang GT in a 400 HP form. They just don't have to jump from 315 this year to 400 for marketing purposes.

 

I'm not saying it won't make 400 HP in some special model. Just not the bread and butter Mustang GT. I would not be surprised to see a 350-360 HP 87 octane version for the regular GT.

 

This is just my opinion, is not based on insider info, just based on how they usually do things.

 

In the future, I can see the common GT to have a 400 hp EcoBoost V-6. Then have a special version with a high price, high output 5.0L. positioned above it. Maybe even add DI and high octane fuel to make a GT500?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone understands my point that there shouldn't be any way that the last gen Camaro could still hold a candle to a 2010 GT but it can and that is really sad. The 4.6L mod motor was originally designed to fit sideways in a FWD Lincoln Continental. It never should have been placed in any RWD performance cars. It was compromised from the start with narrow bore spacing and thus displacement limitations yet the 4.6 and especially the 5.4 are physically huge which in turn compromises chassis design. The 5.4L 4 cam takes up more space than a 100 cubic inch larger Boss 429 for christ's sake. I guess the SVT power train engineers have done a good job of putting lipstick on a pig, even if it was supercharged lipstick.

 

I'm not going to try and convince you, but there needs to be some clarification...

 

The Modular was designed with ever increasing EPA and CARB standards in mind. Who could have predicted the current horsepower war that has been raging over the last 8-10 years? With that being said, I think that the Modular design has served extremely well. Besides... they have a better track record of reliability over the long term than the LS engines. There are many, many out there with several hundred thousand miles on them with out a single problem.

 

Regarding performance? All depends on who is driving... I've pissed off more than a few '99-'02 Z-28 owners with my lowly 2v Mod powered '01 Bullitt. It's bone stock with the exception of a cold air intake.

 

That being said, it is time for a new engine design. I believe that we'll all welcome the Coyote and the Boss (Hurricane) with open arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MODs were deffinitely designed with clean combustion in mind. They were targeted at where Ford saw EPA tailpipe emissions going in the 80s. Looking at their history of EPA and CARB certs, they have been either the cleanest or among the cleanest in their class with respect to tailpipe emissions (well, on everything save CO2, but that's another argument).

 

As for the power output at release, compare other competing engines in the 4.8 to 5.2L range and their power outputs. An output of 400 HP comes in at the higher end of them in naturally aspirated form. That would be expected for a new engine in a Hi-Po configuration. Blue II mentioned that there would be two different tunes, one for the trucks and one for the cars. The car tune will be "hotter" focusing more on peak HP and a decent power band. The truck tune is more for immediate torque with a broad torque curve. It'll be interesting to see if they do it entirely with electronics or actually use two different cam sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very rare set-up: 1997 F-150 Regular Cab Flairside 4x4 with the 4.6 Mod V8 and 5 Speed manual transmission. Any criticism of the 4.6 mod has to be a result of the 4speed automatic that it was usually teamed up with back then, because with the 5 speed manual it is pure fun to drive. It can run with almost any truck out there, including those with much bigger displacement. That ‘old school’ 2V mod motor with 100k miles runs great and with that extra gear there is no mistake that a decent V8 is powering the truck.

 

Count me as one who thinks it is a great motor.

 

 

By the way I am going to sell this truck. Have to grow up and put my toys away. I need somthing that can carry the family - Just in case anyone here might be interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very rare set-up: 1997 F-150 Regular Cab Flairside 4x4 with the 4.6 Mod V8 and 5 Speed manual transmission. Any criticism of the 4.6 mod has to be a result of the 4speed automatic that it was usually teamed up with back then, because with the 5 speed manual it is pure fun to drive. It can run with almost any truck out there, including those with much bigger displacement. That ‘old school’ 2V mod motor with 100k miles runs great and with that extra gear there is no mistake that a decent V8 is powering the truck.

 

Count me as one who thinks it is a great motor.

 

 

By the way I am going to sell this truck. Have to grow up and put my toys away. I need somthing that can carry the family - Just in case anyone here might be interested.

 

I had a '99 set up very similarly to yours, only I had the 5.4 and auto. I sold it for the same reason you are selling yours...good luck. It was my first new vehicle...I miss her. :(

 

 

Edit: My 500th post!! :)

Edited by fordmantpw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2010 GT500 is faster than the base vette. Edmunds did a 0-60 in 4.3 seconds flat 1/4 in 12.4 114.7 and the vette with the 436 hp does 0-60 4.5 and 1/4 12.8 114.8 all from edmunds. So the GT500 is faster than the base vette from the same source. They even did 0-60 4.0 seconds flat and a 1/4 mile time of 12.2 was lowest time they pulled at the 1/4 mile track based on the timing lights. I would trust edmunds way before some of the others, especially Car and Driver who has always had it in for the GT500 Shelby.

Edited by cobra32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2010 GT500 is faster than the base vette. Edmunds did a 0-60 in 4.3 seconds flat 1/4 in 12.4 114.7 and the vette with the 436 hp does 0-60 4.5 and 1/4 12.8 114.8 all from edmunds. So the GT500 is faster than the base vette from the same source. They even did 0-60 4.0 seconds flat and a 1/4 mile time of 12.2 was lowest time they pulled at the 1/4 mile track based on the timing lights. I would trust edmunds way before some of the others, especially Car and Driver who has always had it in for the GT500 Shelby.

 

I'm a Mustang fan, I always keep one around the house, but I wouldn't call the GT 500 faster than a stock Vette just because of 0-60 times. In most ways, in real life driving where driving dynamics come into play, the Vette is considerably faster. Look a GT 500 over closely, and in quality areas (fit, finish, underneath stuff), it's made very little different from a V6 model. The Corvette is built to a higher standard of driving dynamics....and frankly for a different audience and purpose. You just don't compare the two with 0-60 times....which is mostly about launching traction and driving skill anyway at that HP level.

 

So I don't kid myself....but still love the Mustangs.

Edited by Ralph Greene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Mustang fan, I always keep one around the house, but I wouldn't call the GT 500 faster than a stock Vette just because of 0-60 times. In most ways, in real life driving where driving dynamics come into play, the Vette is considerably faster. Look a GT 500 over closely, and in quality areas (fit, finish, underneath stuff), it's made very little different from a V6 model. The Corvette is built to a higher standard of driving dynamics....and frankly for a different audience and purpose. You just don't compare the two with 0-60 times....which is mostly about launching traction and driving skill anyway at that HP level.

 

So I don't kid myself....but still love the Mustangs.

what the hell planet are you from??? can we please get this this never mind what an idiotic thing to say on a ford website ..... please don,t buy anymore fords ever again they can do very well without your ignorance....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the street, the 2010 GT500 and the standard Vette, will be a drivers race. As is evidenced by the times, at the track, the 2010 GT500 should beat the standard Vette. Every report on the new GT500, have remarked on how easy it is, for anyone, to get a good time out of it.

 

It is a very different animal, than the 2009 GT500.

 

That said, the Vette is a dedicated sports car. I would hope that it would be a better "drivers car." What it isn't, is a better family car. This is why you see so many "midlife crisis" males buying them. Most of these buyers, btw, couldn't drive the car well, to save their lives.

 

Anyone who thinks that the Vette is the epitome of quality, and fit and finish, really needs to go look one over. As an enthusiast, I have looked over many. The gaps, and fit and finish, are pretty bad............ for a car that starts in the $40K's. The interior is a rubbermaid special. The 2010 Mustang interior is much better in fit and finish, and materials, than the Vette. This is pretty pathetic, when you consider that you can buy a 2010 Mustang in the low $20K's.

 

Everyone who owns Vettes, understands that their cars are not about fit and finish, and quality interiors. They do not fool themselves into thinking otherwise. They do, however, wish that GM would fix some of the nagging quality problems, that the cars have had for years and years.

 

Yes, I frequent many Vette forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...