What the Ford?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Motor Trend 02 SS VS 01 Cobra


From Motor Trends testing.

Camaro SS
268.4/4400
280.8/4200
SVT Cobra
240.5/5900
257.6/4200

28 horsepower and 23 FT/lbs of torque difference

At the track that is the difference between 13.20 and 13.80 which is huge in the 1/4 mile


The Mod Motor in the Mustang was always weak until the blower.
 
The LS1 better have more power - it's got 1.1 Litres more of displacement.

Motor Trend got this for 1/4 mile:
Camaro - 13.49/107.34
Mustang - 13.79/103.34

And at the other type of track, you'd want the Mustang because of the IRS.

No lack of disrespect for the SBC but the Ford puts up good numbers with far less displacement. To put it in perspective - that Chevy engine is a Fiesta engine bigger than the 4.6!

Problem with the Modulars is you really need FI to wake them up. Still never understood why Ford didn't shoehorn a 5.4 in there - probably wouldn't have been much bigger than the 32-valve.
 
A bit off topic, but aircraft piston engines also use the pushrod, big bore, lower RPM formula. The reasons are many, but people have tried the "I'll do it better" routine for 75 years. To date, nobody has been able to beat the power to weight and fantastic BSFC of a conventional 2 valve, big bore, fuel injected aircraft engine.

There are a group of Subaru engine aircraft conversions and they universally report worse BSFC and higher cooling drag.

NOTE: Only recently did the Prius engine exceed the BSFC numbers of a conventional injected Lycoming aircraft engine. Even then, it only does so at partial load.

It's no surprise that a compact, efficient, lightweight, reliable and powerful engine design can't be easily surpassed.
 
Last edited:




Because who needs to blow a spark plug out at 15,000 feet.
wink.gif
smile.gif
 
I own a '06 Ranger. It was my first, and so far only, Ford vehicle. I'm less than impressed with it.

It really doesn't age well. It's my most recent vehicle out of 3 fairly modern ones I own, yet looks the most beat up.

I didn't care that it was an aged design at all when I bought it used in 2010. I even thought it was an advantage.

My logic was that it had been produced so long with so few modifications that it must be bulletproof. I even bought one with the ooooold 3.0 V6.

Mistake. Fords are cheaper used vehicles for a reason. It even rusts in spots where no rock could reach to chip.

One great thing though is that they sold many so they are easily found in junkyards and parts are also easy and cheap to get. If only I didn't have to replace them so often...

I gotta fix its badly sagging headliner soon.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
A bit off topic, but aircraft piston engines also use the pushrod, big bore, lower RPM formula. The reasons are many, but people have tried the "I'll do it better" routine for 75 years. To date, nobody has been able to beat the power to weight and fantastic BSFC of a conventional 2 valve, big bore, fuel injected aircraft engine.

There are a group of Subaru engine aircraft conversions and they universally report worse BSFC and higher cooling drag.

NOTE: Only recently did the Prius engine exceed the BSFC numbers of a conventional injected Lycoming aircraft engine. Even then, it only does so at partial load.

It's no surprise that a compact, efficient, lightweight, reliable and powerful engine design can't be easily surpassed.


Yep.
People have been grousing about these ancient Lycoming and Continental designs for years but nothing has come along that can replace them, certainly no mere car engine.
No car engine is built for the duty cycle an aircraft engine sees.
Think you can give your car full throttle and then just leave it there for as long as you want with no harm other than to your fuel bill?
You can do this with most NA or turbo-normalized aircraft engines.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08

Problem with the Modulars is you really need FI to wake them up. Still never understood why Ford didn't shoehorn a 5.4 in there - probably wouldn't have been much bigger than the 32-valve.

They did in the Cobra R, but only made 300 of them.
 
Originally Posted By: Broo
I own a '06 Ranger. It was my first, and so far only, Ford vehicle. I'm less than impressed with it...


Every brand makes some bad ones. My 2002 3.0 Ranger has over 216k on the original engine, auto trans, and most other things, and I have more confidence in it to get me places than even an unfamiliar new car. I haven't been to a junkyard in years, and the last time I went was mostly to browse and look for things like sill trim and door bumpers for my other Ranger, which is coming up on 25 years and 200k miles...something most vehicles never see, even Toyotas. I will say the headliner is trashed in the 1994, but it's perfect in the 2002. Maybe it's because the original A/C is perfect, so I don't drive with the windows down a lot.
 
Would love to hear from some owners who've put some hours on one of these installations.
I'd really wonder how well these engines would hold up in an aircraft.
Problem being that you'd have to build the aircraft in your garage to use this uncertified engine.
The installation you've shown photos of looks really neat and sanitary.
The radiator looks to have plenty of capacity but I wonder about its location.
This engine looks intriguing but I wonder how well it would work if used hard on a regular basis.
It would also require a whole lot of additional work to gain certification.
Things like fuel injection and ignition that rely upon the aircraft electrical system are generally not found in certified aircraft engines.
See the Porsche Flugmotor for details where everything in the engine electrical system had to be made redundant for the one type certified aircraft in which it was offered during its brief years of availability.
There is also the reduction drive which is found on very few certified piston aircraft engines.
 
So there are a few guys on the LS boards who have over 1000 hours on different swaps. I might send the one guy over. No issues in his. I don't think he sees full throttle all that often or so he says. I will have to go back and find it.

I know they use them at full throttle often in a lot of boat applications which is different.
 
Originally Posted By: Broo
I own a '06 Ranger. It was my first, and so far only, Ford vehicle. I'm less than impressed with it.

It really doesn't age well. It's my most recent vehicle out of 3 fairly modern ones I own, yet looks the most beat up.

I didn't care that it was an aged design at all when I bought it used in 2010. I even thought it was an advantage.

My logic was that it had been produced so long with so few modifications that it must be bulletproof. I even bought one with the ooooold 3.0 V6.

Mistake. Fords are cheaper used vehicles for a reason. It even rusts in spots where no rock could reach to chip.

One great thing though is that they sold many so they are easily found in junkyards and parts are also easy and cheap to get. If only I didn't have to replace them so often...

I gotta fix its badly sagging headliner soon.






strange because you see Rangers everywhere with high miles and they still run just fine.
 
Well, boat operations are pretty severe, probably the equal of light aircraft use.
How many hours can be expected from one of these guys in a boat?
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Well, boat operations are pretty severe, probably the equal of light aircraft use.
How many hours can be expected from one of these guys in a boat?


Those guys are getting lots of hours. Some of the guys in the keys are over 4000 already. Blows my mind.
I don't know how you put those hours on a boat. I need to retire.

Cop car use is different, but idle to full throttle and back to zero, but I know Caprice guys with 10,000 hours on the 6.0 L77. I only have 1500ish.
 
I prefer my iron block 302 or 250 I6 over any of the new engines i got my reasons because i seen to many LS or Modular engines suffer internal problems
 
The CVPI was the cop car of choice over many years and a major selling point was how well the car held up in actual service, including the Ford Mod 4.6. You still see a lot of these old Panthers on the road in police use.
Just don't drive one with the expectation of going fast, since you won't and the slushbox used doesn't help.
The Charger appears to have largely taken over that spot and the Australian Caprice was never a big fleet seller although a couple of nearby PDs have some of them. In Ohio, the state boys skipped right by the Chevy and went for the Dodge once the CVPI that they had used for years was discontinued. Most local departments in OH have also adopted the Dodge.
Now, 4K hours in a boat is pretty impressive since boat engines are often run hard.
 
Every 30 yrs I buy a Ford just remind me not to buy Fords. A Ford is engineered for ease of assembly and sale. Every other consideration is a distant 3rd. Granted 20yrs of 30yr old 528 e BMWs has spoiled me. They were built to be messed with.
grin2.gif
 
Every brand has their pluses and minuses. My friend had a 2001 Ford Ranger 4.0 SOHC. It wasn't the easiest to work on (spark plug replacement required removal of front wheel) but it also went 200k miles with very little repairs. I think he replaced the alternator, a few batteries, and some bulbs.

Another friend had a 2005 Silverado, and while easier to work on it was a constant electrical nightmare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top