I'm surprised no one has made a "scaper" or tried some other mechanical means to keep the oil from climbing the chain. I'd think it would be better to stop this in the first place instead of trying to figure out how to deal with it once it happens...
Calling all Ford 4.6 engine owners
- Thread starter nickmckinney
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't say it like that, all engines have problems IMHO. I think main reason for Ford was to meet fuel economy specs. Some of the 4.6 have crank scrapers on the front side from what I remember reading, Cobra, etc. From what I am learning (I am new to the 4.6 myself) the trick is to keep the oil away from the front of the crank shaft.
Only way to tell on your model is to get another set of valve covers for your motor, cut open the top, run it up to about 3000RPM, and see how much oil sits there after a few seconds. Higher RPMs only get worse of course. Does yours have the newer 3 valve heads?
I don't know what type of heads are in the engine. I bought the vehicle for my mother a couple of years ago and she rarely drove it so I started driving it. I think that it has about 11k on it now. I changed the oil over to a full synthetic 5w-30 at about 4k miles and so far so good. After reading your post though, I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't change to a 5w-20 synthetic oil or better yet, get rid of the car. It doesn't sound to me like the 4.6 Ford motor has a very long expected life.
Billmac there are umpteen hundred police departments that put umpteen gazillion miles on the 4.6L Crown Vic motors every year on every kind of motor oil imagineable that will tell you the 4.6L is a very durable motor. My department has used Americas Choice recycled 5-30 at 5K O.C.I's for years. The engines generally outlast the service life of the cars.Look at all the taxi cabs that use the 4.6L. Keep the Grand Marquis.That is a good safe car. Reasonable O.C.I. and a good 5-20 or 5-30 will keep it alive longer than you'll want to keep the car.
My wifes inherited 94 Town Car has 175K and runs great. In limo use they last a long time too. One thing to remember is that the chains are tensioned by oil pressure so a thin oil is needed to stop the chains from flopping around as soon as possible.
That 4.6 will live longer than the rest of the car if taken care of IMHO. I think its one of Fords best designs ever, and I have both a 460 and a 351W stroker in the garage on stands getting built for friends. I know I pick on its little flaws, but overall I just love it, its my favorite design now to work with.
Square bore and stroke
Overhead cam, and new timing chains are dirt cheap
Good flowing aluminum heads
Super trick and light plastic intake
Can take near 10:1 compression on 87 octane (almost).
6" long rods
Cast crank that won't break
Pistons stock with coated skirts
Bore and hone quality that is simply outstanding
Super strong block
You can get an aluminum block engine core in good shape from a junkyard for under $1000, even near $500
You can buy a brand new machined iron block for $299 plus freight.
Do the above combo with a 350 Chevy and you will see that the 4.6 Ford is right there for the street and race guys power and dollar wise, especially with the aluminum block option. There are people getting well over 1000HP on the aluminum blocks coming out of the junkyard that were in the Mark VIII in the 90's.
With the aluminum block you have an engine that probably weighs around 300lbs fully dressed and dripping wet. To compare the 5.0 it replaced weighed 460lbs, the Ford 460 that they used up until very recently in the trucks weighed 640lbs! They get really good gas mileage too I find, even when abusing them.
I have a 05 ford van! this replaced a 98 chevy with the 350! THE 4.6 IS A WASTE OF A MOTOR!!! it turns the alternator,powersteering, and a/c and moves from A to B! dont expect to pass anybody! And I race a 87LX with a 347 I have some knowledge about FORDS!
Why did you buy it if you didn't like it?
A lot of Mustang guys who come from the pushrod 5.0 are suprised when they first drive a 4.6 powered Mustang. They are used to the low end grunt of the 5.0 whereas the 4.6 is a higher revving motor.
To each his own, we are all entitled to our preferences.
To each his own, we are all entitled to our preferences.
I can't understand a thing he said. And what's with all the exclamation marks?
Is it your contention then that Ford engineers discovered their design flaw and went to a XW20 oil as a cheap fix instead of correcting the problem? I have a 2003 Gran Marquis with the 4.6 engine and I'm wondering if it still has the same design flaws as your '97.
I was wondering what that noise was when I first start the car in the morning. It's the slack in the timing chain(s). Thanks dickwells for sharing that info.
I guess I will hang on to the car since it's paid for even though I hate trying to get the oil filter off. Working on my Dodge CTD pickup is a lot easier.
is this true? everyone i speak to is dissatisfied with the 4.6l. i have no complaints. my 97 has a 4.6 windsor and a 5-speed and it has always been my opinion that my truck is always happier with a load on it. could it be from the higher r.p.m.s required to move the load?
I have a 1994 ford thunderbird sc with a 4.6L it will do 110 with no problem, now to the problem does anyone know how much oil a 4.6l holds? I am no mechanic but it has to hold at least 5-6 quarts right?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Bobio
A lot of Mustang guys who come from the pushrod 5.0 are suprised when they first drive a 4.6 powered Mustang. They are used to the low end grunt of the 5.0 whereas the 4.6 is a higher revving motor.
To each his own, we are all entitled to our preferences.
But the reason the 302 had more "low-end grunt" is that it was air-choked by the factory heads and intake. You remove those restrictions, and they want to rev. My basic H/C/I 302 made peak torque at just over 3,000RPM. That was with a mild aftermarket cam. Peak HP came close to 6K. Both of those are significantly higher than stock. If you want to make power out of limited displacement, you need RPM.
A lot of Mustang guys who come from the pushrod 5.0 are suprised when they first drive a 4.6 powered Mustang. They are used to the low end grunt of the 5.0 whereas the 4.6 is a higher revving motor.
To each his own, we are all entitled to our preferences.
But the reason the 302 had more "low-end grunt" is that it was air-choked by the factory heads and intake. You remove those restrictions, and they want to rev. My basic H/C/I 302 made peak torque at just over 3,000RPM. That was with a mild aftermarket cam. Peak HP came close to 6K. Both of those are significantly higher than stock. If you want to make power out of limited displacement, you need RPM.
Originally Posted By: mortician
I have a 1994 ford thunderbird sc with a 4.6L it will do 110 with no problem, now to the problem does anyone know how much oil a 4.6l holds? I am no mechanic but it has to hold at least 5-6 quarts right?
Who swapped a 4.6L into a SC? Seems so silly.
I have a 1994 ford thunderbird sc with a 4.6L it will do 110 with no problem, now to the problem does anyone know how much oil a 4.6l holds? I am no mechanic but it has to hold at least 5-6 quarts right?
Who swapped a 4.6L into a SC? Seems so silly.
Originally Posted By: lanteau
Originally Posted By: mortician
I have a 1994 ford thunderbird sc with a 4.6L it will do 110 with no problem, now to the problem does anyone know how much oil a 4.6l holds? I am no mechanic but it has to hold at least 5-6 quarts right?
Who swapped a 4.6L into a SC? Seems so silly.
Idiots. Supposed to do that with a 5.0.
Even though the SC is SUPERCHARGED H.O. 4...
Idiots.
Originally Posted By: mortician
I have a 1994 ford thunderbird sc with a 4.6L it will do 110 with no problem, now to the problem does anyone know how much oil a 4.6l holds? I am no mechanic but it has to hold at least 5-6 quarts right?
Who swapped a 4.6L into a SC? Seems so silly.
Idiots. Supposed to do that with a 5.0.
Even though the SC is SUPERCHARGED H.O. 4...
Idiots.
Quote:
It is really foolish engineering and manufacturing practice to build different engine designs in different factories and then mix-n-match them in vehicle production. It is hard to believe that Ford carried on such foolishness in modern times.
Nasser era Fords were very much like this due to mid year supplier changes to save a few bux. The new era Fords are not as much like this. Thank you Alan.
It is really foolish engineering and manufacturing practice to build different engine designs in different factories and then mix-n-match them in vehicle production. It is hard to believe that Ford carried on such foolishness in modern times.
Nasser era Fords were very much like this due to mid year supplier changes to save a few bux. The new era Fords are not as much like this. Thank you Alan.
One think I know is that Ford modular motors absolutely love boost.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked