Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

[matthewq4b]

 

Like I said, we're done. I've provided published sources that establish everything I've alleged about the design parameters of the Mod. You have suppositions and faulty memory on your side. That's it.

 

Richard you have given anything proving other wise. One artical that mentions a common bore spacing in like applications. Or did you miss that bit? Not to mention most of what else you have posted has been either faulty or erroneous.

And the most telling thing we eventually got a larger bore spaced mod in the trucks. That solved ALL the issues encountered in the base mods in the trucks. We all know why the mods were never expanded upon the cost cutting during the Nasser era.

 

Here is a question what purpose would tight bore spacing serve in the mods. What possible benefit would be seen from it ?

[RichardJensen]

 

cost cutting during the Nasser era.

 

One final reminder of just how wrong you are: The 5.4L truck engine was under development in 1992 and the 6.8L was reported on by Car & Driver in 1993.

 

While Nasser was in Europe.

Edited January 2, 2016 by RichardJensen

[matthewq4b]

I have some anecdotal evidence as well. I have been a Ford mechanic since shortly after the mods were introduced in trucks. They never had bottom end issues. In other words, our service department hasn't replaced engines for spun rod bearings that couldn't be blamed on lack of maintenance.

 

 

If there were no issues Ford would have not revised the Bearings umpteen times and eventually increased the surface area. Im pretty sure that was not done just for giggles. And bottom end failures were generally a higher mileage issue that occurred after trucks were out of warranty. Long after they has stopped going to the dealer. Our bottom end failure rate in our trucks was between 25 to 30%. Mind you our trucks seen extreme severe service. But this was a non issue with SBF and 385 equipped trucks I donlt we ever lost the bottom end a SBF or 385 equipped truck We did tend to melt the exhausts off the 385's but that was whole other issue. The V10's also did not lose bottom ends their issue seemed to head gaskets, even had to the head gaskets in the Excursion before I sold it.

 

 

As anecdotal as your experience was Ford seemed to think other wise and worked at many revisions to try to solve it.

[Edstock]

Here is a question what purpose would tight bore spacing serve in the mods. What possible benefit would be seen from it ?

 

For transverse FWD layout.

[bifs66]

Since there was mention of a Mod or Mod derivative being used in a race cars, I recently read where the Coyote is being groomed by Cosworth to serve as the engine of choice for the new TVR sports car. Apparently they considered either a Chevrolet or Ford V8; and elected to build their engine out of a modified Coyote. I assume the project is still ongoing. The reason they chose the Ford would make interesting reading.

[jpd80]

 

 

If there were no issues Ford would have not revised the Bearings umpteen times and eventually increased the surface area. Im pretty sure that was not done just for giggles. And bottom end failures were generally a higher mileage issue that occurred after trucks were out of warranty. Long after they has stopped going to the dealer. Our bottom end failure rate in our trucks was between 25 to 30%. Mind you our trucks seen extreme severe service. But this was a non issue with SBF and 385 equipped trucks I donlt we ever lost the bottom end a SBF or 385 equipped truck We did tend to melt the exhausts off the 385's but that was whole other issue. The V10's also did not lose bottom ends their issue seemed to head gaskets, even had to the head gaskets in the Excursion before I sold it.

 

 

As anecdotal as your experience was Ford seemed to think other wise and worked at many revisions to try to solve it.

 

Oiling issues like that occur at the extreme end of the bell curve that most engines would never face.

Saying the MODs weren't designed specifically for truck service because you see a 25-30% failure rate

at high mileage in extreme service conditions is at best a reach.

 

Were they designed with oil systems and bearings that proved marginal for extreme duty compared to older V8s?

More than likely

 

...but that doesn't prove that those engines weren't designed for truck service

and knowing Ford, they were simply made down to a price

 

.....but even that didn't stop Ford trying to make them better in service by continual improvement

and if Ford hadn't done that, the MODs may have joined North Star on the scrap heap years ago.

Edited January 2, 2016 by jpd80

[theDuff]

What, as soon as its out of warranty fleets stop coming to the dealer for service? I beg to differ. Dealers service high mileage fleet vehicles all the time!

 

What is your source for all these bearing revisions? How can you be so sure that these "revisions" came about because of high failure rates?

 

The head gasket issue was a minor oil leak coming from the rear of the bank one cylinder head. This was across all vehicles, not just trucks.

[fuzzymoomoo]

My car has almost 177k miles on it and I still take it to the dealer at least once a year to make sure everything is ok.

[matthewq4b]

 

One final reminder of just how wrong you are: The 5.4L truck engine was under development in 1992.

 

While Nasser was in Europe.

 

 

LOL the 5.4 was done, developed by 1992. All they did was stuff the 2V heads on it that were already in use, there was nothing to develop Richard it was a parts swap. And that was the whole premise of the mods from the get go.

[jpd80]

 

 

LOL the 5.4 was done, developed by 1992. All they did was stuff the 2V heads on it that were already in use, there was nothing to develop Richard it was a parts swap. And that was the whole premise of the mods from the get go.

And that they were designed for truck use as well as cars.

 

No amount of in-service observation after the fact changes the point that Ford

used them in trucks and vans quite successfully and actually increased sales.

[matthewq4b]

 

Oiling issues like that occur at the extreme end of the bell curve that most engines would never face.

Saying the MODs weren't designed specifically for truck service because you see a 25-30% failure rate

at high mileage in extreme service conditions is at best a reach.

 

Were they designed with oil systems and bearings that proved marginal for extreme duty compared to older V8s?

More than likely

 

...but that doesn't prove that those engines weren't designed for truck service

and knowing Ford, they were simply made down to a price

 

.....but even that didn't stop Ford trying to make them better in service by continual improvement

and if Ford hadn't done that, the MODs may have joined North Star on the scrap heap years ago.

 

I understand what your saying Jp but when you design a piece of equipment you design it for the whole bell curve not just points A to M. Doing anything else is incompetent or due to cost cutting. Ford know's full well the service it;'s trucks see and what has made them the best selling has been from offering trucks that will work and continue to work across the whole bell curve. We were not alone in seeing these failures either. It was an issue with the mods like it or not those are the facts.

Have we seen any bottom end failures in the 6.2L related to design issues. I have not heard of a single one has anyone else, probably not. Why ? Because the engine was designed for all the types of service it would see in the SD not just soccer moms but also slugging it out with overloaded service bodies clawing their way across unimproved service roads or mine sites.

 

Simple fact is bottom end failures in the cars are almost unheard of, in the trucks such is not the case. If the bottom end was solid from the get go there would have been no reason to revise the bearings or increase the surface area simple as that.

Bearings work or they don;t for the application installed there is no half way.

[matthewq4b]

What, as soon as its out of warranty fleets stop coming to the dealer for service? I beg to differ. Dealers service high mileage fleet vehicles all the time!

 

What is your source for all these bearing revisions? How can you be so sure that these "revisions" came about because of high failure rates?

 

The head gasket issue was a minor oil leak coming from the rear of the bank one cylinder head. This was across all vehicles, not just trucks.

 

Almost all company;s with large fleets of trucks and other equipment have an on staff mechanic it is just a matter of cost efficiency. I don not know one company that has fleet over 50 Trucks and many less that does not have an in house mechanic.

It is just a matter of cost savings. Why pay $100+ Hr (here anyways) for dealer service when you can have a tech on staff for half that.

 

And the oil leak was an annoyance. The failuers were coolant or cylinder to cylinder. Just do a quick search and see how many you can pull up in 10 mins. Although not what you could call a common problem it was not exactly rare either.

 

 

And Ford revised parts and changed dimensions for the fun of it ? Come on, now you are just being silly.

Edited January 3, 2016 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

And that they were designed for truck use as well as cars.

 

No amount of in-service observation after the fact changes the point that Ford

used them in trucks and vans quite successfully and actually increased sales.

 

 

If ther were designed for truck service form the get go like lets say the 6.2L or the 300 6 Ford would have not had bottom end bearing issues. Ford has not had bottom end issues with any motor placed in trucks before or since. So what you are saying is Ford's engineering dept dropped the ball on the most comprehensive thoroughly engineered and thoroughly thought out family of V8's they have ever built on something as simple as load calculations for the bottom ends, I mean we are talking first year engineering stuff here.

 

 

So you again either Ford's engineers were completely and totally incompetent. Or the engine was pressed in to service it was not designed for. Regardless of everything else what makes more sense ? Ford was completely incompetent on their most comprehensively engineered family of engines. Or it was pressed in to a service it was not originally intended for due to cost cutting ? Not like we seen any cost cutting at all in the mid 90's at Ford, heavens no.

Edited January 3, 2016 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

 

 

Richard it was a parts swap.

 

The 6.8 already in development in '93. When Nasser was still in Europe.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

load calculations for the bottom ends

 

Well, I guess that's the hill you want to die on.

Edited January 3, 2016 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

 

I understand what your saying Jp but when you design a piece of equipment you design it for the whole bell curve not just points A to M. Doing anything else is incompetent or due to cost cutting. Ford know's full well the service it;'s trucks see and what has made them the best selling has been from offering trucks that will work and continue to work across the whole bell curve. We were not alone in seeing these failures either. It was an issue with the mods like it or not those are the facts.

No, they are your observations and conclusions.

 

The fact is that Ford sold the MOD in trucks for years, had mostly satisfied customers who returned buying truck after truck.

 

Your experience and critical assessment is at the extreme end wher around 70-75% of the trucks still survived beyond $250K

which is still more than acceptable given the "extreme" service you mentioned.

 

it is only your conclusion that those "extreme duty" failures made the MODs less adequate for Trucks than the older engines,

maybe they were but by and large, continuing strong sales in both f150 and SD is pretty compelling evidence that in fact,

most customers were satisfied with their vehicles to the point of ordering replacements..

Edited January 3, 2016 by jpd80

[jpd80]

 

 

If ther were designed for truck service form the get go like lets say the 6.2L or the 300 6 Ford would have not had bottom end bearing issues. Ford has not had bottom end issues with any motor placed in trucks before or since. So what you are saying is Ford's engineering dept dropped the ball on the most comprehensive thoroughly engineered and thoroughly thought out family of V8's they have ever built on something as simple as load calculations for the bottom ends, I mean we are talking first year engineering stuff here.

 

So you again either Ford's engineers were completely and totally incompetent. Or the engine was pressed in to service it was not designed for. Regardless of everything else what makes more sense ? Ford was completely incompetent on their most comprehensively engineered family of engines. Or it was pressed in to a service it was not originally intended for due to cost cutting ? Not like we seen any cost cutting at all in the mid 90's at Ford, heavens no.

Not so, again, you're starting from the premise that supports your conclusion.

The bottom end bearing issues only come up at near the end of service life,

I'd say that was Ford building to a price and plenty of returning customers

would support that view.

 

none of the issues you have sighted had any perceivable deleterious effect

on the buying position of Ford SD fleet customers, those sales remained

strong all the way through to the slowdown in the 2000s.

 

There can be no more compelling fact than satisfied customers, some fleets would have experienced issues

with early than expected failures but by and large most moved on bought new trucks and went again

and let's not forget the huge profits Ford made off all of those F Series trucks, not bad for incompetents..

Edited January 3, 2016 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

 

 

either Ford's engineers were completely and totally incompetent. Or the engine was pressed in to service it was not designed for.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[RichardJensen]

 

Ford revised parts and changed dimensions for the fun of it ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

 

 

The two-valve (2V) 4.6L was the first production version, built in two different Ford plants (Romeo and Windsor).

 

For some reason known only to Ford’s engineers, the Romeo and Windsor engines were not |identical, which means you have to know which engine you have if you are rebuilding it or replacing internal parts.

 

The engine blocks are slightly different, the cams and cam gears are different, the crankshafts are different, and the heads and valve covers are different.

 

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2013/09/service-issues-on-ford-4-6l-sohc-dohc-engines/

[RichardJensen]

 

I understand what your saying Jp but when you design a piece of equipment you design it for the whole bell curve not just points A to M. Doing anything else is incompetent or due to cost cutting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9

[RichardJensen]

 

Bearings work or they don;t for the application installed there is no half way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Edited January 3, 2016 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

 

If there were no issues Ford would have not revised the Bearings umpteen times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

[RichardJensen]

Since there was mention of a Mod or Mod derivative being used in a race cars, I recently read where the Coyote is being groomed by Cosworth to serve as the engine of choice for the new TVR sports car. Apparently they considered either a Chevrolet or Ford V8; and elected to build their engine out of a modified Coyote. I assume the project is still ongoing. The reason they chose the Ford would make interesting reading.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/07/tvr-cosworth-mustang-coyote-engine-report/

http://bangshift.com/general-news/videos/hear-the-new-tvrs-ford-coyote-based-cosworth-tweaked-v8-start-and-run-a-simulated-lap-of-lemans/

 

[jpd80]

We know that Ford made numerous incremental changes to the MODs over the years to improve reliability well beyond warranty

and yeah, it's true that some of those MODs did fall short with some slightly premature bearing failures at the end of their life.

 

Did that cause fleet owners to avoid MOD powered vehicles or to just replace them more regularly with newer ones?

Was Ford threading the needle on service life, ATPs, customer satisfaction and increasing sales frequency?

Edited January 3, 2016 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/07/tvr-cosworth-mustang-coyote-engine-report/

http://bangshift.com/general-news/videos/hear-the-new-tvrs-ford-coyote-based-cosworth-tweaked-v8-start-and-run-a-simulated-lap-of-lemans/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qZOQL-g0s

 

Wow! Thanks for sharing that. Very interested to see what a Cosworth tuned Coyote will turn out.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/07/tvr-cosworth-mustang-coyote-engine-report/

http://bangshift.com/general-news/videos/hear-the-new-tvrs-ford-coyote-based-cosworth-tweaked-v8-start-and-run-a-simulated-lap-of-lemans/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qZOQL-g0s

Wow! Thanks for sharing that Richard. Very interested to see what a Cosworth tuned Coyote will turn out.

 

Now while I know that GM has the street rod world wrapped up as far a "crate engine" sales, Ford via the Cobra, is very well represented in the "kit car" realm. With the Coyote people have a true 400+ hp option with OEM quality and reliability. This is the stuff of dreams and can be had at reasonable prices. In fact Ford Performance has just introduced the"Coyote Power Module" system which includes engine trans and electronics. These can be had with either a manual or automatic trans. In addition these are the 2015 and up versions which were rated at 435hp in full emissions trim. Easily I could see this package approaching 500hp with easy in and out breathing systems and maybe a little timing and fuel via a "tune".

 

While the absolute low budget guys might find this a little spendy I believe there is a "uge" (to quote Trump) middle ground market in the car building realm, that could and will take advantage of this option. You see the GM LS is now history as far as current production. GM has moved to the more expensive and complex LT engine design. That means ladies and gentlemen that GM will have to sell "out of production" engines and parts in contrast to Ford simply being able to take regular production assemblies right off the line. This is a huge advantage and I foresee a shift in affordability between the two company's offerings.

 

The other cool thing about the Coyote Ford is that it is very asthetically pleasing with very little effort. I don't know if that can be said about the appliance like appearance of the GM engine, especially the new LT. Plastic covers not withstanding.