What is a modular motor? I know its what ford calls and uses for their V8's. But what does modular motor really mean?

Thanks

 

I'm suprised nobody knows.

 

I didn't know either but I do know how to search the web. Actually I thought it was called modular because some parts were interchangeable, and I was right. Read the whole enchilada here:
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...MMFF_MixMatch/

-Ozzy

 

Yep, basically the same deal as SBC's. 265, 267, 302, 305, 327, 350, and 400. Chebby just doesn't call it modular

 

Main Entry: mod·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'mä-j&-l&r
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or based on a module or a modulus
2 : constructed with standardized units or dimensions for flexibility and variety in use

As stated above, it is Fords term for engine part interchangability. They just decided to get all fancy-worded for it. Either definition could be twisted i suppose. Base engine being the module or the various parts for interchagability. I guess its a case much similar to "is the glass half full or half empty?" (not referring to view based on level of optimism) but rather the 2 questions basically meaning the same thing.

And i dont think there is a "its twice as big as it needs to be." answer, unless you count Chevy into the equation.

 

Great thanks guys thats what i thought, its just a series of engines that share the same architecture.

BTW i did search the internet, but didn't find any usefull information.

Thanks again,

 

Not exactly what Ford meant by the word "modular". The Romeo Engine Project (Fordspeak for "modular") started in the early '90s. I had some involvement. The engineering group with which I was affiliated renamed it the "Tinkertoy Engine", and wanted nothing to do with it.

Basically, Ford designed an exterior casting, fit separate cylinder sleeves into the molds, and cast the pieces together, instead of pouring one, continuous piece of iron (or aluminum) alloy. The head studs were fit deeply into the lower casting to help hold it all together. Not the strongest design, by any means. Probably the reason for all the "Romeo smokers" you see driving around after a short 90-100K miles.

The Northstar engine is similar, but Cadillac took a slightly different approach to creating structural integrity of the final casting. I'm not too excited about those, either.

Yes, some of the parts are interchangable, but the big attraction to Ford was in the ability to produce various bore sizes within the same casting, and vary the NUMBER of cylinders within the same basic design. One advantage is that the sleevs can be replaced, rather than bored for service, if you consider that an "advantage". I supposed when (not "if") a sleeve distorts and loses seal, they can be replaced in the field. This of course leads to all kinds of people of various levels of mechanical and engineering ability to try to install larger sleeves in their already marginal engines as a modification.

I know this it "tech", but is it ThirdGen tech?

 

Thanks Vader, thats what i was really wondering if the block was cast a bunch of pieces and then put together. I guess so...

Your awesome Vader and your knowledge never ceases to amaze me!

I guess its kinda 3rd gne techy i wanted to know what the competition was running and how they were doing it.

 

What everyone has stated, BUT do to engineering short sights the engine has turned out to be far LESS modular than intened and even than the GEN 1 SBC...

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/eb40228.htm

...a good read.

-Tom

 

Also in the link in the above quote, the second pic down has a cation that says,

"The 260hp 4.6 SOHC mill found in 99-present Mustang GTs is strong for its size, having a specific output of 56.52 hp per liter. In contrast, the 1995 Cobra 5.0 engine made 48 hp per liter."

Who cares? That sounds like Honda-boy talk to me. What matters is EXTERNAL size, weight, power, emissions, and economy. The Cobra motor's (302) long block is (way) narrower, lower, would be lighter if Ford didn't use 30 year old cast iron head technology on it. If they put the same effort into the head design that they did the 4.6 (aluminum construction, MODERN combustion chambers and ports, etc) the engine would be lighter, smaller(external dimensions), and have a greater output with a wider torque curve, and great fuel economy. Can you say, Gen 3 SBC?

This article articulates very well, my EXACT feelings. Plus there is a little blurb in there too about the Northstar engine Vader was referring to...

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

IMO, Ford screwed up a good thing when they replaced the Windsor engine with that so-called "modular" motor.

 

No arguments here. The crowd that still has the '95-earlier Windsors should consider themselves relatively fortunate - very fortunate, indeed, by comparison to the Romeo-running crew.

 

Heres some of my favorites:

The 4.6L engines built in the Windsor plant are completely different than the ones built in the Romeo plant, and there are significant differences in the engines that have been built in each plant from year-to-year, so there are at least eight short blocks, seven heads and 13 long blocks so far, not counting the CNG and DOHC engines.

It’s pretty confusing to keep track of all the different combinations, so nobody seems to know what goes where or exactly when it was used. We tried to get some help from Ford, but we were unable to find anyone who was willing to share any information

These engines appear to be very prone to detonation. We have seen several pistons with rod bearings that have been pounded to death from abnormal combustion

 

That Car & Driver article is right on the bullseye. So, who was right, all along?

Similarly, the Ford NASCAR 359 is a PUSH ROD engine. Any Cobras keeping up with those?

And how many eight OHC, eighty-valve-per cylinder, twenty-four-foot-timing-chained 3,000 HP engines have we seen? None. How many with one camshaft? As many as the track managers can book on Top Fuel weekends.

Nont that the DOHC engines don't have soem advantages. Think of all those people that read a magazine or two and suddenly think they know something about engine design. They purchase lots of the DOHC engines, every year. I call them "sheep", since they'll follow anything with a hook on it.

 

First production was for m.y. 1991 so wasn't this more of a 1987-onwards thing?

Those are actually valve guide seals. Dads were replaced on his 94 Crown at ~120k. They started again; he just did them at ~165k. He's saying that the squads don't seem to have the smoking problem, so he's contemplating adding the Eng. oil cooler to his 94 and 02.

 

Just a little something interesting... an old Ford FE big block is actually smaller in size and lighter in weight than the 4.6 modular engines made now!

Those FE motors (352-428ci) were alot more powerful too.

 

Yep, in fact we do. Thanks.

 

Granted this isnt a 3rdgen gen (GM ) topic but its very informative reguardless.

Now Vader,

Lemme get this straight.
You could have had an oppertunity in one way or the or the other to say, Hey tards! You might wanna put the valves a bit higher so they dont suck oil???????

Besides the many problems the 4.6's scoot fairly well, cant say I like the idea of no cam bearings allowing the cams to wear into the heads like so many noisy imports but again in stock form they run good. Cant say Ive driven a stock352/390 that would keep up with a 4.6.

 

Well, from a longevity standpoint, they seem to hold up pretty well. Thus far, I have 205k on one car and 208 on the other. It does not make buckets of power, but makes decent power, decent fuel mileage, and is fairly reliable. The main disadvantage is the thing is HUGE, and servicablity sucks, especially in a MN-12 chassis. (less than 1" between head and shock towers/etc...)

 

I agree that it's an O.K. motor, and now that it's been out for 10 years, they're finally getting the power back up where it belongs(no way you can tell me that the first ones scoot pretty well, SSC), but here's my beef;

The fact that Ford spent all the time/effort/money developing an engine that is IMO not one bit better than the tried and true design they already had. Like I said earlier, the old Windsor engine, with the same effort put into MODERN head design, would smoke the "mod" motor, in a smaller, possibly lighter package.

Back to the DOHC vs Pushrod "power density" thing. Two years ago, I went to the Indy 500. After the race in the in field, there was a huge display of stuff from Chevy. One of the display's was a racing area, with various racing bits. Here's where it get's interesting....

They had a tent with three Chevy racing cars; an IRL car, the C5R from LeMans, and a bonafide NASCAR. Next to each car, was the respective engine for that car, on an engine stand. Now here's the funny thing, Obviously the IRL is the "highest tech" engine there, right? I mean, it's all aluminum, DOHC, Fuel injected, 4 valves per cylinder, 16 throttle bodies, 3.5 liters and ~750hp NA. That's pretty impressive.

The other two engines were a "5.7" liter pushrod, carbed, "SBC 2" based and the other one, a 7.0 liter, EFI Gen III based. Both af those are ~750hp as well. Which is higher tech? Well the funny thing is that all three of these engines are THE SAME SIZE! I mean, length, over all width, and hight, they were damn near the same size. You couldn't tell by looking which engine was bigger or smaller over all. So as a power package to out in YOUR car, which one is the "highest tech" (i.e. technology yields the best results)? Probably the C5R engine. It makes more torque, more useable (low end) torque, has a broader torque curve, than the IRL motor, and the EFI should make it behave better than the NASCAR engine's carb.

I pointed this size vs power vs "percived "high tech" to my friend who was there at the time and a fellow auto enthusiast, and his reaction was impressive; it was like, "holy CHIT, maybe there IS a place for pushrod design!". He is also the same person, who when I showed him my SBC 400 sitting on the shop floor (before it went in my car), his repeated comment was, "I can't believe THAT thing is 6.6 liters....I just can't believe it!"

-Tom

 

Yep.

 

You know how there's always more to these things, below the surface, than what we as hobbyists see....

I wonder if there are emissions issues with the old Windsor motor (much like there were/are with the BBC) that render it unsuitable for future use, thereby necessitating a re-design?

I wonder if there's union contracts they'd like to get out of; ancient plants they'd like to shut down; suppliers they're tired of getting bent over by; royalties they're tired of paying; things like that, purely business and economic as opposed to anything technical, that go into their decision-making matrix?

 

Yes the short stroke and crappy combustion chamber design, produced unacceptable emissions and caused its downfall.

 

I dunno Tom the one we did at work not too long ago was in a 95/96 cougar totally trashed engine at 90k. This is the one with the trick suspension all the goodies. We installed a used 4.6L from a 97 rustang, dont know if the newer engine is much different internally. This car runs very well, automatic tad doggy off the line but once you hit 3500 in first it keeps you planted to the top of 3rd. But if I had a choice of fNord powerplants to choose from I'd rather have a 300-6.

 

Yes IMO the Ford 300-6 is the best engine Ford ever made. I have on in my 78 F-150. Right now it has a 1bbl carb on it, but i plan on casting an adapter out of aluminum and putting a Q-jet on that sucker.