4.6 quad cam Ford into RF40 - does go !!!!!

[Robert Logan]

Well last night we finally managed to get that beautiful new (ish) Ford engine into one of our cars. This was done for a special order customer and we have managed to keep all suspension details exactly the same. The engine is HUGE and the fitting was extremely complex with numerous changes to the chassis required.

The building of the first full turn key will start very soon and they will only be available as MkII's because of the increased rear deck height. I supose a big block is now posible as the 4.6 is said to be bigger!

I will keep you all informed as to progress but I would like some feedback as to the project as it is moving away from the originality of the GT40.

Look forward to your comments,

Best wishes,

Robert

[John Lind]

Hi Robert

From my point of view the motor is more technically interesting than an iron block push rod motor. I like the idea of the engine, but I still personally prefer the look of a Mark 1 body. If you sprayed enough water on the new engine do you think it might shrink?

John

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

The 4.6 L quad cam is indeed much wider and taller than an FE big block! "Compact" is not a term used to descibe this engine. And the 5.4 version is even bigger!

Would look really cool in a 40 though....

Rick

[Mark Worthington]

Other than the obvious "gee whiz" factor, bragging rights about 32 valves, and a better sounding car, I see no logical reason why anyone would want to put themselves through this. The 4.6 is MUCH more expensive to modify, and even with worked heads, a free-flowing exhaust, and every bolt-on mod in the book, the 4.6 will be straining to make 420 normally aspirated HP when a properly built Windsor can readily make 520 HP. Furthermore, the reliability of the 4.6 DOHC is not even in the same continent as the Windsor engines, as I personally know five people who have blown up ten DOHCs between them, present company included.

Robert, you should make sure your customer has, at a minimum, installed billet oil pump gears and a billet crank position sensor; he should also consider having the oil return holes in the heads modified to improve high-rpm reliability. If he has a 99+ DOHC engine then he should also invest in the ARP cam sprocket bolts.

I'm not hung up on the retro inadequacy of the 4.6, it's just bigger, heavier, less powerful, less reliable, and much more expensive than the Windsor-based alternatives.

Regards,
Mark

i believe kinsler makes an individual stack EFI for this motor. i personally would love to have the 4.6 all aluminum motor with 32 valves in my 40. i can get one from a 97 cobra with a t-45 tranny (only 16K miles on it) very cheap. (tranny can be sold later)

i already have a 408W with ported aluminum heads and 48 IDA TWM EFI for it so i'm in too deep. plus with this combination i will make more power. the beautiful thing about the 4.6 is that its all aluminum, will rev higher and the 32 valves with the bundle of snakes would sound wicked at 7500 RPM [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

i wouldn't mind sacrificing 100 hp for less weight, and the sound of that motor. i've been on a 40 with 340 hp and its a rocket so if the 4.6 can make 420hp i think i would be very happy.

the trick would be to stuff this motor in a MKI. (my personal preference). keep us updated!!!

luis lopez

[RD40866]

Let's not forget that Ford, Fontana and others make aluminum blocks for that Windsor engine. Plenty of good alum heads available also. Plenty of good ways to get the job done. Choice depends on taste, available parts and $$$, of course.

RD

[Gary Gibbs]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HOTSHOT:

i wouldn't mind sacrificing 100 hp for less weight, and the sound of that motor. i've been on a 40 with 340 hp and its a rocket so if the 4.6 can make 420hp i think i would be very happy.
luis lopez<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less weight. You have got to be kidding. Has someone weighed the cast iron or all aluminum version? I would love to know the complete engine weights. Robert if you can weigh it please do.

If they are under 600 lbs I would be surprised and if they are close to 500 lb I would be amazed. You can build a significantly lighter windsor motor with a cast iron block (I would guess ~460 lbs). With an aluminum block and heads you could get down to under 400 lbs. These are my guesses as I have not weighed either versions. The windsor will have significantly more displacement, HP, and reliability.

My 452 CI (7.5 L) FE motor is smaller then the SOHC/DOHC motors and only weighs 503 lbs complete with cast iron block; alum heads intake, and throttle bodies; alternator; alum water pump; and steel road race pan. Complete engine including all FI components. All you add is flywheel and starter.

I am not a big fan of the 4.6 L (although I own one in a T-bird). It is big, and fat with relatively little displacement. I wonder what the new GT40 power plant weighs with that blower added to the top.

I am not knocking the idea. If someone wants the new technology in their car I think that's great. I just want others to know what they are getting into just to have DOHC/SOHC.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: CCX33911 ]

[MK -IV J6]

My 2cents: Original is original-everything else is what it is and whatever makes one happy is what it's about!

[John Schneider]

I say good for you Robert. Keep pushing the envelope. Varity is the spice of life.
John

[RD40866]

Robert, was it an RF '40 that an unknown builder in California just stuffed a 4.6 into, or was this even the chassis? Good going!

Roger D., old school with alum block 351 and Gurney Heads...

[Wayne Presley]

I wouldn't mind having this in one...

[Steve Toner]

I'm in the original camp myself, but if I wanted to be heretical, I'd look at putting a Mitsubishi 4G63 engine in - these are the turbocharged 4cyl engines in the Eagle Talons and Mitsubishi Eclipses. They can easily make 300 HP, and Dave Buschur in Ohio (http://www.buschurracing.com/) builds 'em up into the 600HP range...

[Steve Toner]

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess I'm not totally in the original camp, as I find aftermarket upgrades acceptable. I guess there are degrees of originality (or heresy), and if you're totally in the original camp, you wouldn't settle for a replica anyway. But is having a Ford engine that is not built around a Windsor or side-oiler block any more original than putting in a Rover or Mitsubishi or [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] Chevrolet [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] engine??? Oh yeah, didn't Chevrolet buy a GT40 for development, so maybe a Chevy engine can be considered original after all... Now I'm just rambling...

[Danny]

Hi all,

I suppose I can start my first post on this forum with a little info I have found regarding the weight of ford V8's.

I found this site: http://www.241computers.com/ford/eweight.html

Which has a list of engines weights and a few sizes. Don't know how reliable it is but he does quote references so I suppose it has some credability. To save you from reading here are some figures quoted from various sources:

Ford 4.6 DOHC 464 pounds "9 pounds lighter than SOHC"
Ford 4.6 DOHC 437 pounds without accessories
Ford 4.6 DOHC 521 pounds aluminum block and heads

Not a lot of info but it may be a good indicator.

Great to see you have shoe horned the 4.6 DOHC into the RF Robert. Will this now become an RF option or is it a one off?

To tell you the truth I know stuff all about ford V8's. Comming from JAP V6 turbo's (Nissan 300zx Twin turbo), without knowing more, I tend to lean towards the modern option. I love a free reving car so some of the features of the 4.6 like DOHC, 6 bolt mains etc... are quite attractive. And with 320-330hp (in the 'cobra' form) out of the box you don't even need to crack it open to get 'reasonable' performance.

The one of the things that bothers me is the relative (compared to the windsor)lack of performace stuff I can find. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Cheers,

Danny

'96 Nissan 300zx twin turbo
GT40...watch this space

[Mark Worthington]

Danny,

I’ve been playing with Ford’s 4.6 DOHC for a few years now. As I see it, many of the available bolt-on mods done by guys such as myself with Mustang Cobras will not be applicable in a GT40 application. Examples include exhaust (a GT40 application will need custom bundle-of-snakes exhaust), cold-air intake (GT40 application will require custom air inlet/filter location), and under drive pulleys (GT40 serpentine belt drive setup may require modification). Some stuff that would work would include the Accufab throttle body ( http://www.accufabinc.com/ ), ported heads and intake manifold, cams, and possibly higher compression pistons and a forged shortblock. You may want to talk to Mike Tymensky ( http://www.modularperformance.com ) or someone at Sean Hyland Motorsport ( http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com ), as these guys specialize in Ford’s modular engines. Personally, based on service experiences of others, I wouldn’t give my business to Hyland, but his catalog does contain a lot of modular goodies.

The 4.6 DOHC heads flow extremely well as cast, which is why these engines respond so well to forced induction. However, I don’t think there would be room for a centrifugal blower in a GT40 application, even a MkII, but Robert should know better than anyone. Another alternative to the forced induction route would be to source an Eaton twin-screw blower directly from Ford, as they are now used on the 2003 Cobra. However, I doubt that there would be enough vertical room in the GT40 engine bay to accommodate the roots blower/intake manifold/intercooler that sits on top of the 2003 Cobra engine. Again, Robert could provide clearance information.

I applaud Robert’s success in actually shoehorning a DOHC into an RF40, and the engine would sound great in that application, but I really don’t see any other advantages. Again, my experience has been that Ford’s modular DOHC is not anywhere near as reliable as the Windsor engines. It’s not for me, but if someone else wants to do it I say more power (and higher revs) to them.

Regards,
Mark

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Worthington ]

[Robert Logan]

Mark, and all,

Thank you for all the comments.

The project was started by a customer in the US and he wishes me to build a complete turn key with special options. This limited edition car and other similar cars will be marketed in the US.

The chassis option should be available when the first turn key car has been finished and fully tested which should be at the end of this year.

To me the major advantage of the project is the emmissions regulation of the newer engines. The old Windsor engines are inherintally "very dirty" because of their design. We had to work for over five months with Ford in Australia (we used their emmissions cell) to get the engine to better the current Australian requirements. These requirements are not as strict as many countries throughout the world and the 4.6 quad cam engine already complys with the more strict laws.

The project continues and I will keep you all up to date through this forum.

Best wishes,

Robert

[Mark Worthington]

Oh, yeah. Emissions. I forgot about that. [img]images/icons/blush.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

I'll look forward to see how that project progresses, Robert.

Regards,
Mark

[Robert Lawrence]

A well designd DOHC can and should provide a wider flatter, and taller torque (and therefore power) curve than a 2V motor.
They can be more tolerant of high compression, and therefore the 8% smaller capacity should not be an issue.
In theory!
(Just look at the Hondas in particular)

Does anybody have a published power/toque curve of these motors please?

[img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
[img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[ChrisL]

My 2 cents worth.

I don't doubt what Ron says about the current push-rod vs OHC, but the push-rod engine has almost reached the end of its design cycle, whereas the Ford OHC is still at the begining, and has therefore got far more potential for both power and reliability.

Admittedly, it may not be the right engine for some GT40 builders right now, but it may give an insight as to why Ford has taken the step. GM may well find itself playing catchup in the not too distant future.

For mine, I like the idea of a high-reving multi-cam V8 in the back of a race-bred car.