Talk:Ford Modular engine

message: How do we change the valve covers in these things?
Hahah... You're funny. But in seriosuness, does anybody have any idea what separates the Triton from the MOD? Is it the application (truck vs. car)? I have been making some little additions to both pages trying to keep them separate, based on what I have read...This could be a little better if we have more info on why these are separately named. One problem I have had is with Ford of Australia. They use 5.4 MOD V8s in their cars. Are these MOD or Triton MOD? Same point with the 2000 Cobra R. 70.26.11.45 02:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Triton is just Ford's marketing term for modular V8s used in truck applications. As for Ford Australia, the way I understand it is that the 5.4 liter Modular V8 used in the Falcon are very similar to the 2000 Cobra R's engine, putting out the same power and torque. I've read that the blocks are made in North America but that heads are locally produced in Australia but I'm not sure if that is the case or not. So to break it down, if it's in a truck, it's a Triton (which is a modular engine) but if a modular engine is in a car, it's refered to as a modular engine.
*I know. I'm logged in now. I was the one who added the Australian info from a ford press release. IOt is a source of confusion. I think the Tritons come from Windsor (predominantly), and the car engines, except the Aussies come from Romeo. The fact that Tritons are available at both or that trucks can use Romeo engines complicates matters. So better not go there just yet. Have a look on a mustang/modular "modular motors explained" or something site for clarification between Romeo and Windsor MODs. There are honestly enough differences (internal materials, wrist pins, cross bolts, cranks, cam bridges, timing covers etc. etc.) even among "Tritons" of the same year from these two plants to give one a headache. So we can more or less assume TRITON is a marketing name for customer's benefit. Evenutally I would like to discuss it on this page, once it is unravelled. -C  CJ DUB 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Cammer was DOMINANT in 2005. The cars using the Cammer won the manufacturer title, and had a podium finish in almost every race of the 2005 season (8 of 10 races?). That counts as dominance in any race mandate, short of winning every race, which nobody has done. The iditoic new rules they brought in resulted in making the M3 too competitive, rather than giving the mustang parity, due to the restrictors and the ridiculously low weight they now allow for the M3. What a joke. Now you see why the GTO is not competitive. They are heavily weighted and restricted. CJ DUB 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cammer Dominance 

message: Hey, I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing, I just created the account actually, but I noticed that the article was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 Mustang Cobra (aka Terminator) uses the aluminum DOHC. They actually put a cast iron in to handle the extra power that was added from the supercharger. Someone who is more familiar with the system can change that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajerman (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003-2004 Cobra is not an aluminum block, it's cast iron. 

message: It would be nice if we had this data for all the Ford engines, since it is an integral part of how they dvelop power, TQ, and their characteristic Ford sound. GMs for example fire quite a bit different. As far as I know 4.6 modular, (all of them) are 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8. 192.197.71.189 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The LSxs use the Ford 351/302HO/Modular firing order, not the old SBC firing order.  The reason the LSx firing order looks different on paper is because GM numbers the cylinders differently, in reality the firing orders are identical.  TheBalance (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firing order 

message: The 2-valve 4.6 iron block was also used in the F-Series from 1997-?? I would assume 2004 when they switched the 5.4 to the 3-valve.  I'm unsure as to whether they still offer it.
Sorry, I don't have time to do any research right now.
-Kris
--65.208.138.225 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some additions... 

message: Right now, after a brief glance at the article, it looks like the example cars are all Ford Co products. What about customer cars, such as the Panoz Roadster and the Qvale Mangusta. I know they're not high volume vehicles, but some mention of the Ford engines in non-Ford products should be made. Gentgeen 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far only the Koenigsegg has been mentioned.  Why don't you make the additions?  TheBalance 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Customers

message: the article states they started using th aluminum crossover in 2002, when they became standard halfway through all the 2001 year models. Most all Romeo based new edges have the aluminum cross-over on the intake manifold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MustangAficionado (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intake Manifold Defect 

message: The Boss replaces the V10.  The 6.2 is optional in the Raptor, and the base SD engine.  Yes, the base engine is the current SD is the 5.4 3V, but look at it like the Expedition in which the optional 5.4 eventually became the only engine offering, they simply phased out the 4.6 in that application.  Similar is happening with the SD, in which the V10 successor becomes the base engine.  The Modular lives on in v2.0 as the Coyote, which is the 4.6/5.4 replacement.  6.2 fuel economy and HP goals were based on besting the V10, the 5.4 never factored into the equation because the 6.2 isn't intended as the 5.4 replacement...the Coyote fills those shoes. TheBalance (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boss 6.2 as Modular successor 

message: The performance parts aftermarket is slowly warming up to the "modular" engine. Trick Flow Specialties now makes a splayed valve 2V replacement head for the 4.6 PI. The stock heads have both valves tilted towards the outside, resulting in a restricting kink in the intake airflow. The TFS heads tilt the intake valves towards the inside. The stock camshafts, gears, chains, cam followers- every part aside from the heads, valves, springs, guides and retainers can be re-used from the original engine. I don't know if the heads will fit both the Windows and Romeo built 4.6 PI. According to the magazine article I read on these, simply changing to these TFS heads almost doubles the horsepower. They tested the stock and TFS heads with an aftermarket intake fitted with a 4V carburetor (a carb?! in 2010?!) and an aftermarket electronic ignition controller. Bizzybody (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermarket parts. 

message: These engines don't use camshaft bearings. The shafts run directly in bare aluminum saddles machined into the heads. Have there been any issues with failures? Keeping the oil clean would be extremely vital as getting something in there which scores the bearing surface means the head is ruined, rather than being able to replace a bearing insert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No camshaft bearings 

message: When the "modular" engine was first announced, I had visions of an engine line assembled from V-twin sections or modules so that (in theory) they could be bolted together as anything from a V-2 to V-10, or longer if the crankshaft and camshafts could be made. Imagine such with special intermediate sections for extra timing drives to reduce twist on the longer shafts. Would've been great for pulling competitions and land speed record vehicles.
But instead Ford misused the word modular to refer to I-4, V-6 and V-8 engines all having the same bore spacing and deck height, then only made V-8 versions, completely eliminating any link to "modular" design, yet still used the word. Modular became a marketing word with no engineering reality to back it up. Bizzybody (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modular. 

message: Hey guys, wiki usually scoops everybody...where is the 5.8L information?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.156.209 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.8L Road runner. 

message: I see someone listed the 5.8's bore size at 3.66 inches.  What is the source of this info?  I haven't seen anything definitive on the 5.8's bore diameter yet.  TheBalance (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MM&FF's latest issue had a big write up on the 2013 GT500 including a lot of details on the engine specifics straight from a Ford engineer involved with the car.  The engine has a 3.68" bore diameter which puts the displacement at 354.4 ci/5807.5 cc (rounded to 354/5808 for the article, in line with Ford Modular entry convention).  All earlier reports of this engine being a 351 are wrong.  References will be posted when MM&FF puts the article up on their website.  TheBalance (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 GT500 5.8 

message: I notice that the article says the redline has been verified up to 8400 RPM and has a citation, but I could not find that information anywhere within the link.  Any thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.220.21 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOSS Redline 

message: I was wondering where I could find a comprehensive list of differences in 2v 4.6s by year and model.  I tried googling these things and couldn't find it, I think it would make a great addition to this article.  I understand some info may be difficult to source but I believe bored people on forums may have already done this work and I was hoping someone may bring it to this Wikipedia article since I read about the modular and the f150 several times and couldn't find this info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.136.53 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2v 4.6 differences by year/model 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Modular engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330233352/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018063204/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33096 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33096
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5j5I9QjkI?url=http://www.matech-concepts.ch/img/construction/Specsheet-FGT3.pdf to http://www.matech-concepts.ch/img/construction/Specsheet-FGT3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Ford Modular engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=15388
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419211153/http://www.panozauto.com/EsperanteGTLMDetails.htm to http://www.panozauto.com/EsperanteGTLMDetails.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212163155/http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4341482.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4341482.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818142455/http://media.fordvehicles.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33066 to http://media.fordvehicles.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33066
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523090518/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=13635 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=13635
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212163814/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=17670 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=17670
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608003121/http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-energyefficient-engine-technology-30443 to http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-energyefficient-engine-technology-30443
*Added  tag to http://autosfans.com/2011-ford-shelby-gt500/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810082549/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=16767 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=16767
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020074002/http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/138_0309_yates_robert_engines/index1.html to http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/138_0309_yates_robert_engines/index1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522085519/http://www.koenigsegg.com/record_pressrelease.asp to http://www.koenigsegg.com/record_pressrelease.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Ford Expedition is missing from the list of models utilizing the modular engines (4.6L, 5.4L). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  14:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed twice for the 5.4 L engine (once for 2-valve and once for 3-valve). Feel free to add it for the 4.6 L engine.  Stepho  talk  14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford Expedition