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.

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!

:cheers:
Tom

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.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

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 :handshak:

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

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.

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

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.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...6Lmodmotor.jpg

The water bottle is just for comparison.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...motorturbo.jpg

Re: Couple pics...
 

Yeowzah!! :thumbsup:

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

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

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

:cheers:
Tom

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:o

:cheers:
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.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

re-reading your post I see that you mentioned it there, and i should have made the connection. Sorry.

I only wish....
 

Now here's a depressing part guys....I deal with Bullet to do all my custom grind cams. So I called them a few weeks ago to see if they did 4.6L Mod stuff, they said no prob. I just got them a couple days ago, under $1100.00 bucks! Sure isn't like this for our Zee's.....

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...1/IMG_2058.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...1/IMG_2059.jpg

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

So.... did you talk to Bullet about maybe doing some LT-5 cams???

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Well of coarse I did buddy. A while ago already. They don't do, nor have ever done LT-5 cams. They know about them, but have no call or have ever had enough demand for them. Problem isn't actually grinding the cams, it's that they don't have or have access to the cores. That's the big deal. Not only with LT-5's, but other things as well. They just did a 60mm roller cam for a Mopar R-3 for me, that was almost 1K! Just one cam! Just because of the core.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

We had a little discussion about cam blanks at VanDorns BBQ at BG this last year. I heard that a contract option exists to run another batch of cam blanks, 300 units I think. If I recall correctly LPE holds the option. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details now and who exactly told me this... might have been Corey Henderson.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Hey guys....Ssooo....I'm almost done this 4.6L Mod Motor project. I'm still not at all impressed....compared to our LT-5's. Pretty weak if you ask me. Too many chains, too many tensioners, too many followers, the non-moving hydraulic lifters are a joke. Not impressed at all.....
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...46Lmodhead.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...Lmodhead-2.jpg

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...an_ZR1/46L.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...headgasket.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...adsonblock.jpg

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...reeingcams.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e.../46Lcamsin.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/e...ontcoveron.jpg

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

The new Coyote engine architecture will probably relegate the Modular engines to unpopular junkyard fodder. It's all about economy of scale and using the same powerplant across many models (trucks, mustangs, formerly the crown vics) just like GM has has done with the LS engine.

variable valve timing with future displacement increases will make the coyote engine the swap to do for older Fords. I never liked the modular 2v engines...they would blow a head gasket at 100 and some odd thousand miles and usually you just junked the car.

LT5: too bad GM never had any shared use or they could have made these by the 10's of thousands yearly.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I'm just a little blown away at how popular these are in the performance world? You can't convince me our LT-5's wouldn't walk all over these Mod Motor's given equal development time from the aftermarket world. LT-5's valvetrain (or lack of!) is so simple, clean & well thought out crazy going to work on a Mod Motor, I think. Intake ports on the Mod Motor are decent but the Exhaust ports are no screaming hell. The fact you have some choices of Intakes is of coarse nice though. Just thought I'd share my thought's......

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Maybe GM will re-embrace the DOHC V8 at some point and build it based on the experience from the LT5 and Northstars. Then you would have a proper, ideologically correct, transplant. problem is that that was so long ago, and GM probably has had so much turn over that the new engineers probably have to keep relearning from the same mistakes the old engineers already made.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I agree - far as what could have been accomplished by now if the LT5 received the same development effort/resources since inception. I mean, a fully ported, 350 cid LT5 with headers and a free flowing exhaust and stock cams makes over 500 at the crank, yet idles smooth and gets 24-26 mpg in 6th/cruise at 70 mph...

For a block even just an inch longer, and considering GM had the opportunity to widen the gap between the frame rails an inch or so with the C5/6 platform...what monsters would there have been coming out of Bowling Green by now? Or, even keeping the 5.7L dimensions, and adding VVT and direct injection... I hate having to look to Dearborn (Ford plant) to see what might have been, if you know what I mean.

Just making noise...

P.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I often think about the same thing, what if there was a second LT5. At the 20th last yr they said they had done one specifically for the C5-6 chassis. Ours are too tall for the hood line of a C5.

This was a presentation given at the BBQ over at JVD's. There were a number of new LT5's made, 50 I think. It had VVT, relocated single injectors, OBDII management, no gas guzzler tax, redesigned combustion chambers, new I/H's & Plenum & T/B, MAF combined with MAP ( I'm not too sure as I don't speak EEC very well ), and wait for it, wait for it.....the opening bid on the new LT5 corvette base motor was to yield 450 hp @ 5.7L for the 97 C5.

I think if you want to see what the combustion chamber redesign would have looked like, or something similar to the thinking, look up Todd's 427 thread.

This presentation was given by Graham and Dave. They also had plans for somewhat larger displacement motors for the ZO6 & ZR-1.

It makes me sad to think that I could have bought a used base C5 coupe with a 450 hp DOHC motor someday if things were a bit different at CPC back in 91.

Tom

& another thing...
 

& another thing! lol....These Mod Motors primary cam gear's that drive the cams are off the Exhaust cam...that makes no sense to me. To degree the cams need to start off the intake, makes it hard given movement, slop etc. when your starting everything at the exhaust...no matter how many tensioners are in the system. It was actually a good experiance for me doing this engine in the fact it heightened my appreciation, which was already quite high, for the original LT-5 design in it's era.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I remember that presentation too Tom. I would love to have seen a further generation of the LT5 too. If I recall from the HOTB they had full working engineering prototypes for the 450 motor and also blueprints for a further iteration that would deliver 500+

Damn those GM bean counters for killing the development.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Okay, so I'm not dreaming! You know if you listen and watch closely when Dave, and even Jingles talk you begin to pick up things.

This year both of them participated in a Q&A seminar given by Marc about the unique qualities of the LT5. Dave & Jingles started to chew the fat over how to beat the emissions testing with an LT5. It was great stuff.

However, if you were at the JVD 20th BBQ and here at the NCM for the seminar this year I began to piece things that those guys said into a sequence. Dave's own words..." we poked too many sticks in too many eyes.."
The "with the LT5" was left unsaid, hanging in the air at the end of many thoughts that they both verbalized.

Sorry, rant over!

Tom

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I think that a big part of the death of the LT5 had something to do with hurt feelings among the die-hards at GM who hated the idea of anything other than a genuine SBC powering a Corvette. Sure, the beancounters kill anything fun -- GN/GNX, Impala SS, the last Fiero, but as mentioned above, I bet the roots reaching across the ocean to England, made those sticks in the eye extra sharp.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

having 98k on mine, i hate hearing this

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Just stay vigilant with your cooling system. They are some kind of multilayer shim gaskets which required a mirror finish on the heads...I think the aftermarket ones work with a traditional finish, but the labor involved for a top end job on a 4.6 or 5.4 is kind of high for a car with 150k miles on it.

lots of complexity for 200 hp.

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Back to the original topic-

How do you feel about the LT5 not having caps for camshaft journals and having to throw away the head/cover if that ever is out of spec? Is there anything to be done about that?

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

i flush the cooling system every year so here's hoping she makes it for a while

Re: & another thing...
 

There's always reasons for seemingly odd compromises The 4 cam mod motor did duty in both RWD and FWD platforms. This meant some design decisions did not go the way we'd all want.

For those that see similarity between 4V Ford and LT-5, before jumping to conclusions you should look closely at the Ford 3.0L SHO motor, which shows more of the lineage and dates to late 88 introduction.

Now that I think about it, I have collected the whole set:
- 93 SHO
- 97 Continental (4v transverse FWD)
- 99 Cobra
- and of course my wife is still letting me campaign her 91 LT-5

I've always figured Ford missed the market some when they reduced displacement while GM continued to increase it, although they should have been right. As an old Mustang guy I was really glad for the tech they brought forth and man the 03/04 Cobra answered for a lot.

Cheers,
- Jeff

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I was thinking something similar...Lots of complexity for 500-700HP, for my liking. Sure 'Lots' of them out there though.....

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

Wouldn't catch me throwing anything like that away. Shouldn't be a huge deal to repair, these days. Never done one, but can't image I don't have a contact that couldn't make it happen....

Re: Interesting II...(Sorry Paul)
 

I agree 100%. Almost anything can be repaired these days.

Ford 4.6L 4-Cam, 4-Valve Mod Motor