Cammer engine?

Clayton,
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the Sean Hyland website. Some nice stuff. He seems to know his "mod" engines.

Regarding "makine a pushrod comply". Here in Australia, the tseting process is very difficult. Up nitil recently, the emissions laws were reasonable for "kit cars", but nowdays we are (in my state anyway) forced to comply to "Euro2" emissions liks brand new vehicle manufacturers /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif. And it is not enough to just say that this engine or that does comply overseas. The onus in on the car owner/builder (our GT's are generally registered as "individually constructed vehicles - ICV's) to PROVE, ie test the car's emissions. Now we have, i think, three places Aus wide this can be done: Ford, Toyota, Orbital Egine Co. For an individual, this is a very expensive task! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif This is why we are seeing Lexus et al engines appearing in Cobras and GT40's.
I agree that a pushrod with efi and all the smog goodies could be made to comply, BUT one person doing it does not mean (under our stupid rules) that that same setup can be used again by others under the same test result. So Jo Bloggs spends $10-15K on a 302, EFI sensors, MoTec etc., THEN another $10K on testing and certification. And if luck is on his side he gets his car on the road. Crazy yes, but that's how it is.
We are all aware of Peter Delaney's major agro in passing tests here. And that was under the OLD levels. New ones are worse.
So to stick true to the Ford marque, AND have a GT40, the 4.6 Mod is where i'm headed. I just hope i get a good one /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif And of course, once it is registered........i think i'll buy that book by Sean Hyland /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Ron Earp]

Get a 5.4 supercharged motor then if you have to go mod. It will fit, and, make some power. The 4.6 naturally asprirated 2V ones are not good. 4Vs are better, but not making a lot of hp. Do you have 5.4 blown motors as OEMs in your cars/trucks? Maybe the F150 or the Falcon?

 

Ron,
Our Falcon only has the 5.4 N/A. Not sure about the F-series trucks. As far as i know, Robert tried the 5.4 engine but it was just that bit taller than the 4.6 and posed too many problems to fit in. I am happy with the 4.6. I just get a bit nervous when i hear stories (from sources other than here) of build problems. As i mentioned, we'll get it on the road, and then see what happens. I'm not looking for a RACE car, i have my clubman for that...........famous last words. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Upgradeitis is sure to set in at some stage.

 

[Gary Gibbs]

The basic problem with the mod motor is the bore spacing is small. That means that the max bore is small and thus displacement is small. All high winding performance engines have the bore equal to or greater then the stroke. The 4.6L has them equal and the 5.4L has a longer stroke then bore (like a truck motor should). Thus the top end of the motor is set to wind with overhead cams, but the botom end is RPM limited due to long stroke (kind of like a transvestite /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ). The supercharged versions work great because you are making more power down low, but you are adding mass and size to an already huge engine.

 

[Keith]

Has anyone thought of (or tried) the injected Jaguar AJ-8 motor? It is a cammer and although ultimately a Ford corporate product, it is an entirely different beast than the 4.6 mod. In fact, it was allegedly designed by Jaguar before the Ford takeover. The fact that it nearly won Trans-Am in it's first year with Tommy Kendall proves that this is a serious piece of kit, which, although down on ultimate hp compared with the pushrods, has a great deal of (reliable) grunt. And, as it's corporate Ford now, makes it a potential candidate for a 40 with a swift change of valve covers? Just a thought....

 

[Keith]

By the way, I am told in Trans Am it makes almost 670 hp @ 9,000 rpm.

 

[Keith]

Here's the real deal out of the horses mouth. "The Jaguar AJ-V8 engine uses the stock aluminum block and alloy heads from the Jaguar XKR road car. In fact, other than the connecting rods, crankshaft, pistons, injector hat, and ignition system, the engine is completely stock. The engine’s stroke has been shortened, and its bore was widened, raising the stock displacement from 4.2 liters to 4.5 liters for the race engine. The engine weighs approximately 100 pounds less than the current corporate pushrod V8 used in the Jaguar XKR (For corporate read Ford 311c.i.) and uses an all-new ignition system developed by Rocketsports and Bosch. It will rev to 9,000 rpms, up from 8,200 in the current engine. It also uses a dry-sump oil system."

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Try this.....
http://www.karkraft.com/engines.htm

Is a GT engine in a GT40 a hermaphrodyte?

Rick /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[BenL]

[ QUOTE ]
Try this.....
http://www.karkraft.com/engines.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the site...
"take your choice, a new GT engine or a Lincoln Town Car for same money!"

 

[Ron Earp]

Holy cow, that is expensive.

You could get a wrecked Lightning motor for $3k. Pull the Eaton blower off it, sell it for $600. Buy a Kenne Bell screw type blower for $3k, and have just as much or more power than that GT motor. Not aluminum or dry sump but a lot cheaper.

Always thought that Ford should put the blown mod motor into a Town Car to make a really cool "blvd bomber" type car - lots of room, full size, and fast.

 

[Lynn Larsen]

I don't know what the guys were smokin' when they created the blinking home page at Kar Kraft. What a PITA, so you are warned "Don't click on the HOME option in the menu!"

Cool site though, I like R2D2's ?girlfriend?

Lynn

 

[TimB]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron,
I am happy with the 4.6. I just get a bit nervous when i hear stories (from sources other than here) of build problems. As i mentioned, we'll get it on the road, and then see what happens. I'm not looking for a RACE car, i have my clubman for that...........famous last words. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Upgradeitis is sure to set in at some stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is resurecting a fairly old thread but since you are fitting a 4.6 inthe RF what trans is used? Is it still the audi unit? As for reliability of the modular in stock form they are hard to beat but as Ron aluded to when people push the envelope they are not real forgiving in stock form. The powdered metal rods in particular are prone to failure if reved to high. I read that above 6800 RPM they begin to stretch and by 7000 they don't snap back just disentigrate. Second weakest point are the pistons, if pushed too far with boost or detonation they will crack the ring land. All that said if you are sensible with your plans it is very difficult to kill one. My origional 4.6 in my daily driver went 210,000 before I spun a rod bearing and when I tore it down I could still see the hone marks in the cylinders. I have since installed an 02 explorer 4.6 which utilyzes an aluminum block and strapped an FRPP blower on top of it. I daily drive it 100 miles and have logged 60,000 with it so far at 6psi. Here is a good site for technical info on the modulars www.modulardepot.com
There a quite a few ex ford powertrain engineers that hang out there and a lot of associated knowledge to be had.

 

MN,
Thanks for the reassurance. I have read the book by Sean Hyland, and it does seem that rods & pistons are the first step in a power upgrade. We are running the Audi transaxle in the RF. The engine is a 2001 (i think) Cobra 32V. Thanks for the web site link, i shall have a look. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[TimB]

Thanks for the info Tim I am in the planning stages right now and although a 302 is easier I have a perfectly good spare 4.6 on a stand in my garage it would seem a shame not to use.

TimB (Formerly MN12 finally figured out how to change screenn name)

 

Count me in as a fan of the Mod Motor.

Frankly, this reminds me of the whole carb vs. EFI arguments when Ford changed the 5.0L from carb to EFI in 1986.

When it time comes when I purchase a GT40, I've already decided that it will have a 4.6 DOHC in it. Thanks to Premier, that will be possible. But there are a couple of other reasons. There's a huge potential in the 4.6/5.4, and let's face it, Ford's not going to throw away billions of dollars to come up with a new pushrod engine line.

Yeah, I've heard some arguments that for it's size and limitations (bore spacing etc), the engine just doesn't make the power compared to a good 'ole Windsor for the price. That may be true now, but you have to admit that the aftermarket hasn't caught quite yet with the 4.6. Admittedly the 4.6 is not cheap, but building a stroked 351W that makes over 500 hp is not cheap either. But it is my belief is that the foundation is there to turn the 4.6 DOHC into one of the best performance engines in the world. When you start seeing 4.6 DOHC heads from the likes of Roush and Edelbrock, then you know it's arrived.

Plus if there's one thing about these DOHC engines, it that's they love to breath. Can you imagine just how well a 4.6 with FR500 heads and a crossover exhaust will perform. Plus it will just sound brutal /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And as for perceived fragility. I've heard and read plenty of Mustang magazine articles anout blown Windsors and big blocks. So whether the 4.6 is more fragile than the 5.0 is a subjective IMO. I've taken my 2000 Mustang GT to redline on multiple occasions and the engine still runs like new. It all comes down to choosing the right parts and putting them together correctly. Admittedly Ford dropped the ball with the rotating components, but how many 5.0L owners do you know of who didn't change to forged assemblies before adding a supercharger?

In my view, it's just a matter of time before the market wakes up to the potential of the 4.6, and we'll soon be saying "LS7? Big whoop!"

 

[Mark Worthington]

[ QUOTE ]
Count me in as a fan of the Mod Motor.

Frankly, this reminds me of the whole carb vs. EFI arguments when Ford changed the 5.0L from carb to EFI in 1986.

When it time comes when I purchase a GT40, I've already decided that it will have a 4.6 DOHC in it. Thanks to Premier, that will be possible. But there are a couple of other reasons. There's a huge potential in the 4.6/5.4, and let's face it, Ford's not going to throw away billions of dollars to come up with a new pushrod engine line.

Yeah, I've heard some arguments that for it's size and limitations (bore spacing etc), the engine just doesn't make the power compared to a good 'ole Windsor for the price. That may be true now, but you have to admit that the aftermarket hasn't caught quite yet with the 4.6. Admittedly the 4.6 is not cheap, but building a stroked 351W that makes over 500 hp is not cheap either. But it is my belief is that the foundation is there to turn the 4.6 DOHC into one of the best performance engines in the world. When you start seeing 4.6 DOHC heads from the likes of Roush and Edelbrock, then you know it's arrived.

Plus if there's one thing about these DOHC engines, it that's they love to breath. Can you imagine just how well a 4.6 with FR500 heads and a crossover exhaust will perform. Plus it will just sound brutal /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And as for perceived fragility. I've heard and read plenty of Mustang magazine articles anout blown Windsors and big blocks. So whether the 4.6 is more fragile than the 5.0 is a subjective IMO. I've taken my 2000 Mustang GT to redline on multiple occasions and the engine still runs like new. It all comes down to choosing the right parts and putting them together correctly. Admittedly Ford dropped the ball with the rotating components, but how many 5.0L owners do you know of who didn't change to forged assemblies before adding a supercharger?

In my view, it's just a matter of time before the market wakes up to the potential of the 4.6, and we'll soon be saying "LS7? Big whoop!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked the DOHC modular engines too, until my 99 Cobra blew up at 15,230 miles. I still like it in a lot of ways...it sounds great at 7,000 rpm and the block and forged crank are great. But, IMO, it's just not the right engine for a GT40. It's much bigger than a Windsor, heavier, wider, even though the bores are 3.55 inches vs 4.0 inches in the Windsor. The DOHC is notorious for oiling problems and bizarre valvetrain harmonics that, coupled with el-cheapo stamped steel cam sprockets, causes lightly modded NA engines to explode. My upper intake cover was so porous you could see pinholes through it. Yeah, the stock heads flow great and that's why the engine responds so well to boost. But there aint enough room for a DOHC PLUS a blower or turbos in a GT40, so you're stuck with an NA application. And the significant gains in NA power will need more displacement, which is limited in potential due to the bore spacing, or high rpms, which taxes the engine and exacerbates the oiling problems. And the cost of getting a 4.6 or a 5.4 to 500 hp NA will significantly exceed the cost of a built 351 Windsor, which will end up smaller and lighter as well as cheaper, even with a race block.

Nice engine for a Lightning or a Mustang, or even the Ford GT when seriously worked over and dry sumped, but just not right for a GT40 IMO. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[40 Bud]

I was very suprised to see that Ford in Australia was still using the windsor engines in their current V8 sedan racers. This was in spite of there nice production line for FAV cars using 5.4 liter 290kw engines. I wonder why??

 

That probably has more to do with series regs than anything else. Remember, NASCAR still uses carbs even though they haven't been used in production cars for almost 2 decades.

 

[ChrisL]

40Bud,

The V8 category is a two model parity formula that uses the Ford/GM rivalry as the drawcard. That is, the intention is to make both models as equal as possible to make for close racing. Consequently, the Ford uses a 5.0 ltr Windsor (not used in their road cars) and the GM Holden uses a 5.0 ltr SB Chev (also not used in their road cars). Everything from the engines to the suspension mount points to the aerodynamics to gear ratios are tied down to a rule to achieve equality.

Here is an interesting piece of trivia though for all those who have always believed that the SB Chev had it over the Windsor. The Holden teams had been crying to the rule makers for years that they were at a disadvantage given the Windsor's superior design over the SB Chev. Finally GM teams got their “equality” when they were permitted to use "race special" heads that would allow them to make similar HP as the Windsor. Effectively these "race special" heads were Ford-like (non-siamesed) heads. Even with this gimmee, the Chev engines were still not able to match the Fords in the HP stakes, the final solution now being that the Holdens have been given an aerodynamic advantage to offset the lack of power.

Go the Fords /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice engine for a Lightning or a Mustang, or even the Ford GT when seriously worked over and dry sumped, but just not right for a GT40 IMO. Different strokes for different folks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Mark,
Here in my State (NSW) , and soon to be other states in Australia, the EPA (polution Nazis) require that individually constructed "kit cars" meet the same emmissions specifications (currently Euro2) as any other mass-produced car. It is no longer possible (economical, practical etc) to fit a SB motor in a GT40.
So, the upshot is, if i want a GT40 i have to fit a "current" emmisions compliant engine. Rather than fit a Lexus or similar, i wanted to stick with a Ford. So MOD 4.6 it is.. Robert at Roaring Forties has seen the way of the future here in Oz (as have DRB i believe) and run with it. Sure if we weren't hamstrung by the lawmakers, there'd by a nice SB in my car.
Different RULES for different Folks i guess... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif