Pushrods vs Modulars

[ZWilson07]

I was just thinking and figured id ask, but what actually is the difference between the Modulars and Pushrod Ford engines?

I dont mean that as necessarily all the little specs, but more of why did they decided to go to Modulars? Just better fuel economy, other things are better, or what?

Ive always been more of a pushrod style guy myself and I find it easier to work on those , specially when starting out, but acourse any engine can be made somewhat easy to work on if you learn how it works. It just seems like there is alot more complications and more things to go wrong on the modulars, and things such timing chain issues is such a big deal and cause such a headache. Plus most of those issues are things that most regular people can't fix and is alot more complicated to work on, and the tools for it to even fix it are much more expensive.

I realize whether pushrod or modular, both can have problems, break down, etc, but just curious if it was really worth changing over to the new motor style and for what reasons and purposes that it serves.

Thanks

 

[thomas91169]

Is it 1996 again?

 

[virginiafiveo]

good question. I'm gonna say overall efficiency. I can't imagine them going to it for no reason. I think higher level modular motors are far more efficient though. example. 4.6 new edge GT vs a 99-01 cobra or mach1 the cobra's and mach's got great gas mileage and obviously more power. I routinely got between 25 and 27 depending on the fuel and how I was driving on the highway. pretty good for about 300hp back then.

 

[ZWilson07]

Is it 1996 again?

Not really sure what thats supposed to mean, I was only around 7 in 1996 so I apologize if I didnt get to read up and know all the details on it. I understand this is about to be 2012 and the pushrod style is super outdated and weve moved on to bigger and better things, but I was just curious of all the actual reasons why the move was made.

good question. I'm gonna say overall efficiency. I can't imagine them going to it for no reason. I think higher level modular motors are far more efficient though. example. 4.6 new edge GT vs a 99-01 cobra or mach1 the cobra's and mach's got great gas mileage and obviously more power. I routinely got between 25 and 27 depending on the fuel and how I was driving on the highway. pretty good for about 300hp back then.

Yeah I just was curious what all the reasons were specifically, obviously fuel efficiency is one of them but was just posting to see if anyone had alot of knowledge on the subject.

 

[thomas91169]

Honestly in SOHC form vs pushrod, id go with the pushrod for efficiency.

DOHC is where overhead cam efficiency really shows.

Id touch more on the subject but really we didnt see a n/a modular motor at its best until ford could put the right R&D into the program and we got the Coyote as a result.

 

[dsmith26]

Look up the word " modular" and I think you'll find out WHY. My understanding was they did this to pump out long blocks on the assembly line without a need to switch equipment. The same line could be used to build all of Fords lineup. I could be totally wrong and I probably am.

 

[97desertCobra]

Fuel economy was a nice improvement because the design of the DOHC is more efficient than the pushrods. From 95 to 96 you dropped .4L of displacement and gained 60hp. Where the modular Ford motors hurt is their lack of ability to increase displacement. You can stretch a 4.6 to a 5.0 with a stroker crank but you can't bore out the cylinders much further than .03. Some have taken it out to ,07 but thats playing with disaster IMO. Plus the power gains with stroker are pretty small in a n/a Ford modular.

The modulars respond very well to boost though thanks to thier efficiency and the high flowing cylinder heads. Particularly in the new generation of modular engines with the Coyote 5.0 and the Boss 5.0.

I think Ford made a smart move in 96. But in 99 they should have stepped up the game a little more. However, the 99-01 really paved the way for the 03 Cobra because Ford realized the Cobra was under powered compared to the Camaro so Colleti(SP?) pushed for a supercharged 4.6 and ushered in the era we are currently in. Now we have a 5.8L supercharged V8 in the GT500. ****ing bad ass.

As for the is it 1996 again........ Seriously. This topic was the big discussion in 95-00.

 

[Demonio]

Hahaha....funny

 

[ZWilson07]

Fuel economy was a nice improvement because the design of the DOHC is more efficient than the pushrods. From 95 to 96 you dropped .4L of displacement and gained 60hp. Where the modular Ford motors hurt is their lack of ability to increase displacement. You can stretch a 4.6 to a 5.0 with a stroker crank but you can't bore out the cylinders much further than .03. Some have taken it out to ,07 but thats playing with disaster IMO. Plus the power gains with stroker are pretty small in a n/a Ford modular.

The modulars respond very well to boost though thanks to thier efficiency and the high flowing cylinder heads. Particularly in the new generation of modular engines with the Coyote 5.0 and the Boss 5.0.

I think Ford made a smart move in 96. But in 99 they should have stepped up the game a little more. However, the 99-01 really paved the way for the 03 Cobra because Ford realized the Cobra was under powered compared to the Camaro so Colleti(SP?) pushed for a supercharged 4.6 and ushered in the era we are currently in. Now we have a 5.8L supercharged V8 in the GT500. ****ing bad ass.

As for the is it 1996 again........ Seriously. This topic was the big discussion in 95-00.

Thanks for the info guys, and yeah like I said from that time era I was like 6-10 lol so I wasn't big into cars and vehicles like I am now, which is why I guess I missed all of that. Hell I dont think I even got a computer until maybe 2002 or so, so you will have to excuse me on missing the big topic during the late 90's lol.

 

[sidewinderl]

I think Ford made a smart move in 96. But in 99 they should have stepped up the game a little more. However, the 99-01 really paved the way for the 03 Cobra because Ford realized the Cobra was under powered compared to the Camaro so Colleti(SP?) pushed for a supercharged 4.6 and ushered in the era we are currently in. Now we have a 5.8L supercharged V8 in the GT500. ****ing bad ass.

They had the supercharged 4.6 the entire time (they even used the Mach III hood on the 96-98 Cobra for cryin out loud), it just took 10 years for them to grow a pair.

So they made a smart move going to the 4.6, but they bunted instead of knocking it out of the park, because it was the 90's and 305 was "good enough".

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

Look up the word " modular" and I think you'll find out WHY. My understanding was they did this to pump out long blocks on the assembly line without a need to switch equipment. The same line could be used to build all of Fords lineup. I could be totally wrong and I probably am.

yep, that's where the 'modular' family name came from. the 4.6l, 5.4l, and 6.8l were all put together on the same assembly line, and the new 5.0l is also being built on that line. it's still pumping out 5.4s and 6.8s right now actually for fleet vehicles(though the GT500 5.4l is put together on the specialty line).

 

[chrisheltra]

Timing is super easy on a modular. It takes about 10-15 minutes after you get the timing cover off.

 

[ZWilson07]

Isnt just the 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8 modular based engines? I thought alot of the others such as the 4.0 v6, 3.0 Duratec, etc based off older v8 style engines?

And I realize that it might better streamline the assembly line, and better for Ford as far as money is concerned (which acourse as a business is more than likely the most important thing) but just doesn't seem like originally that would be the best option to switch over to bigger and bulkier v style engines that originally and for a while were pretty poor power to size especially NA. I obviously realize the newer ones like the 5.4 and new 5.0 does very well power wise but its been alot of years since then.

I could be wrong, im sure there are alot of guys on here that are much more knowledgeable than I am, but just throwing ideas out I guess.

 

[assasinator]

neither is "better". period.

modulars do not require a stronger block up to 1000hp, and if you have a teksid 1200-1400hp. also 4v modulars ('b' and 'c' heads) only need mild porting for 1k rwhp under boost.

there is money to be saved there.

if you purchase good after market heads and an A4 or equivelant block a pushrod motor has a cubic inch advantage and has all of the efficency of a modular. IE yates D3, Y302, 225 CNC Twisted wedge heads.

the cost of matching modular power is more expensive in the long run. but it IS easier to get 1k rwhp from 347-408 cubic inhes.

IMO

if you are trying to compare E7 headed 351w of 302w to a modular it is not a competition at all.

 

[Mach1USMC]

Forgive me for being simplistic here- but isn't modular just a fancy way of denoting an Overhead Cam Configuration be ir SOHC or DOHC? That being the case while Ford didn't technically go to a "modular" V8 until the Lincoln MarkVIII in 93 - but other manufacturers have been going the modular route (including domestics) for DECADES...... AMIRIGHT?

The move was to be able to make more power more efficiently, with bigger wt savings, better rev range etc etc......

 

[MachME]

is it 1996 again?

1991*

 

[Fox-4]

forgive me for being simplistic here- but isn't modular just a fancy way of denoting an overhead cam configuration be ir sohc or dohc? That being the case while ford didn't technically go to a "modular" v8 until the lincoln markviii in 93 - but other manufacturers have been going the modular route (including domestics) for decades...... Amiright?

The move was to be able to make more power more efficiently, with bigger wt savings, better rev range etc etc......

no.

contrary to popular belief, the modular engine did not get its name from its design or sharing of certain parts among the engine family. Instead, the name was derived from a manufacturing plant protocol, "modular", where the plant and its tooling could be changed out in a matter of hours to manufacture different versions of the engine family.

 

[Mach1USMC]

no.

YES

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Modular_engine]Volvo Modular engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Fox-4]

YES

Volvo Modular engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is Volvo's description of their modular engine family, not Ford's engine family.

 

[mrlrd1]

Timing is super easy on a modular. It takes about 10-15 minutes after you get the timing cover off.

:??:

Timing a SBF with the timing cover off takes about 30 seconds. Not really sure where you're going with that one, as the mod motors are one of the least friendly domestic engines to work on.