I wanted to get some opinions of the 4.6 engine vs the 351. Has anyone switched from the 351 to the 4.6 that can outline some of the pros and cons? I appreciate the input. What kind of performance can you achieve with the 4.6? Wes
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
from the Sean Hyland web site:
Quote: The Sean Hyland 600 HP Crate Engine utilizes our 6 liter aluminum block, billet steel main caps, forged steel crankshaft, forged H beam rods, forged pistons. The Ford GT 4 valve cylinder heads use SHM camshafts to operate the valves. A 4bbl Demon carb sits on an aluminum intake, and the ignition is provided with a crank trigger system. The engine comes complete with air filter, water pump, and one wire alternator. Perfect for street rods and project cars.
1 year warranty $14,995
http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/
This motor is based on the Ford modular V8, the six liter version is using the taller deck (same as the 5.4 liter
Ford) block. The modular V8s are shorter, they do not protrude into the Pantera passenger compartment, thereby allowing a flat firewall (no hump between the seats). These are 4 cam, 32 valve motors; distributorless ignition; the option of 4 barrel carburetors or fuel injection, all alloy blocks & heads. They are current production engines, not 40 year old technology.
your friend on the DIC
Quote: The Sean Hyland 600 HP Crate Engine utilizes our 6 liter aluminum block, billet steel main caps, forged steel crankshaft, forged H beam rods, forged pistons. The Ford GT 4 valve cylinder heads use SHM camshafts to operate the valves. A 4bbl Demon carb sits on an aluminum intake, and the ignition is provided with a crank trigger system. The engine comes complete with air filter, water pump, and one wire alternator. Perfect for street rods and project cars.
1 year warranty $14,995
http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/
This motor is based on the Ford modular V8, the six liter version is using the taller deck (same as the 5.4 liter
Ford) block. The modular V8s are shorter, they do not protrude into the Pantera passenger compartment, thereby allowing a flat firewall (no hump between the seats). These are 4 cam, 32 valve motors; distributorless ignition; the option of 4 barrel carburetors or fuel injection, all alloy blocks & heads. They are current production engines, not 40 year old technology.
your friend on the DIC
Attachments
Images (1)
Wes,
If you go the 4.6 route, I may be able to take the Weber EFI setup you got from Tom off your hands
Larry
If you go the 4.6 route, I may be able to take the Weber EFI setup you got from Tom off your hands
Larry
George, since the mod motor let's you go flat firewall, would there be enough room fro a supercharger belt drive if you left the hump??????
You don't need the hump for a supercharger either.
Sean Hyland sells blown modular V8s that use the same accessory drive belt system to drive the blower.
George, CFH
Sean Hyland sells blown modular V8s that use the same accessory drive belt system to drive the blower.
George, CFH
Wow. Thanks George. It is nice to know because sooner or later we will all have to be putting mod motors in. Eventualy we will be fitting fusion reactors to these things, but I will be long dead by then and I will let the future owner worry about that. 
DeTom,
Nix the fusion reactor my friend, install a flux capacitor and go backwards or forwards in time to whatever year you want.
LOL ...........
Nix the fusion reactor my friend, install a flux capacitor and go backwards or forwards in time to whatever year you want.
LOL ...........
> It is nice to know because sooner or later we will all have to be putting
> mod motors in
Not me. I'm no fan of the mod motor and apparently I'm not alone.
Ford has revived the Hurricane program to introduce a new V8 to
compete with GM's LS-series and Daimler-Chrysler's Hemi.
Dan Jones
> mod motors in
Not me. I'm no fan of the mod motor and apparently I'm not alone.
Ford has revived the Hurricane program to introduce a new V8 to
compete with GM's LS-series and Daimler-Chrysler's Hemi.
Dan Jones
I have yet to hear a mod engine that makes a good sound. I have listened to a Koenigsegg CCR with it's mod engine putting out apparently 800hp on an airfield drag strip, that didn't sound good, just kind of hollow like a V8 Esprit. I know turbos stifle the sound somewhat.
Every time I have seen the Gorgeous new Ford GT I have felt disappointed by the sound. I have also heard one with a modified exhaust, this was rather forgettable also.
For me the Pantera is all about looks, power and sound. I would never even consider a mod engine. I am still firmly in the push rod camp. I just love that sound.
And what about weight saving? is there a weight saving to be had over a Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block?
Johnny
Every time I have seen the Gorgeous new Ford GT I have felt disappointed by the sound. I have also heard one with a modified exhaust, this was rather forgettable also.
For me the Pantera is all about looks, power and sound. I would never even consider a mod engine. I am still firmly in the push rod camp. I just love that sound.
And what about weight saving? is there a weight saving to be had over a Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block?
Johnny
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> It is nice to know because sooner or later we will all have to be putting
> mod motors in
Not me. I'm no fan of the mod motor and apparently I'm not alone.
Ford has revived the Hurricane program to introduce a new V8 to
compete with GM's LS-series and Daimler-Chrysler's Hemi.
Dan Jones
What?? Are you serious?? Ford is going back to the push rod?? Oh they will screw this up somehow. They will try and make it run on hydrogen or something and they will totaly screw it up.
quote:And what about weight saving? is there a weight saving to be had over a Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block?
Well judging by the new SHelby GT mustang, I would say the mod motor is a real porker in the weight department. But this isn't something we want to do but will be forced to do because of the passage of time. WHen we get to be 90 years old and want to get a new thermostat for our cars, the punk ass kids behind the parts counter will laugh at our request. He will say Ford made that like a hundred years ago. We only sell Flux capacitor parts now, get out of hereyou old coot. So we will be forced to keep up with the times if we want to keep our cars running.
> And what about weight saving? is there a weight saving to be had over a
> Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block?
The engine is heavy for it's displacement. The block architecture was
compromised for transverse applications (Ford thought the engine would
be used in front wheel drive cars) and also for manufacturing reasons
(ability to manufacture 2V and 4V heads on common tooling). The DOHC
heads and cam drives are quite bulky. The small bore andlong stroke
requires a tall deck height. Combine the large cylinder head castings
with a tall deck and you get a very wide and tall engine. Aluminum
is 1/2 the weight of iron but is also not as strong, so more of it needs
to be used. The trade publication "Design News" lists the weight of
the aluminum block and heads 4.6L DOHC engine at 521 lbs. The iron block
4.6L and taller 5.4L block are heavier. Ford's published number for the
all aluminum, dry sump, supercharged GT 5.4L DOHC is 315 Kg (695 lbs.).
My Fontana should come in at a bit over 400 lbs.
> What?? Are you serious?? Ford is going back to the push rod?? Oh they will
> screw this up somehow.
Quite serious. No real details are known about the engine but Ford
had a program to counter GM and Daimley-Chrysler but dropped it due
to budget cut backs. However, given the limitations of the mod motor,
they simply can not compete without it. Whether or not it is a pushrod
engine, is not known at this time. Here's a story on it:
Hurricane Watch
Ford hopes high-performance V-8 blows away rivals
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
The Hurricane is back.
A year after Ford Motor Co. killed its planned Hemi-fighting V-8 to the dismay
of horsepower junkies, Ford Americas group chief Mark Fields has put the
high-performance engine back in the company s product pipeline, according to
sources familiar with the project.
Fields revived the engine three months ago as part of a new restructuring plan
for the automaker. The decision offers a telling insight into how serious
Fields is about shaking things up at Ford, underscoring his repeated assertions
that nothing is off the table when it comes to reshaping the automaker s
troubled North American auto operations, which lost $1.6 billion last year.
Ford nixed the Hurricane project because of concerns about development costs
and rising gasoline prices. Now, Fields has decided that maintaining Ford's
leadership in the pickup truck market against mounting challenges from rivals
General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group trumps those
concerns.
Many analysts were dismayed by Ford s decision to halt development of the
Hurricane, which will likely get a new name before hitting the market.
"It was a dumb program to kill", said Jim Hall, an analyst with AutoPacific
in Southfield. Hall said Ford got spooked by soaring fuel prices last spring,
which seemed to spell bad news for thirsty high-horsepower engines. However,
he said long-term analysis shows that, while demand for big engines may ebb
and flow as a result of gasoline prices or other factors, it remains steady
over time.
Erich Merkle, a brand analyst with IRN Inc. in Grand Rapids, is not surprised
Ford decided to revive the Hurricane.
"They've got to do something from a powertrain perspective if they're going to
hold on to the F-series lead, he said, noting that both GM and Chrysler have
more powerful engines on the market, particularly in their trucks and sport
utilities.
"Ford has nothing", Merkle said. "Without those bigger options, they are going
to have a hard time competing."
Ford does have some big engines, but none that can compete with the 425
horsepower 6.1-liter Hemi or the 403-horsepower Vortec that will equip the
2007 Cadillac Escalade SUV. With its 300-horsepower Triton, Ford s2007 Lincoln
Navigator will have a hard time keeping up with the Escalade.
When it comes to engines, few have captured the public's imagination like
Chrysler's Hemi.
The Hemi's roots go back to the 1950s, but the vaunted powerhouse disappeared
from production cars in 1974, a victim of new government fuel economy
requirements. Chrysler reintroduced a new Hemiin the 2003 Dodge Ram Heavy
Duty pickup.
Ford wants the Hurricane to more than a match these engines and help ensure the
automaker stays on top of the hotly-contested truck segment. As Chrysler has
shown with Hemi, however, automakers also can command a price premium for
high-performance powertrains. That means the Hurricane could help Ford's bottom
line.
Merkle said Ford's Cleveland casting plant has received orders for a new
6.2-liter engine block, with work to begin next year.
"We believe that would be the Hurricane, he said.
However, the Hurricane is not likely to make landfall before 2008. It will
probably debut in Ford's F-series pickups. A team has visited Ford's Dearborn
Truck factory, where F-150s are made, to assess what changes will be needed to
accommodate the new engine on the line there.
But sources say the Hurricane also will be used in other platforms.
While Ford's engine may not incorporate the sort of cylinder deactivation
system found in the Hemi and Vortec, sources say it will offer similar fuel
economy.
Other approaches that could be used to realize these gains include using the
sort of multi-valve systems found on some German engines.
Whatever method Ford employs, the emphasis will remain on horsepower.
> Well judging by the new Shelby GT mustang, I would say the mod motor is a
> real porker in the weight department.
That it is. Plus, to make any sort of respectable power, you have to
supercharge the things. The Ford modular V8 packaging was severely
compromised for transverse mount installations. When the engine was
designed, Ford believed many of them would be installed in front wheel
drive applications. This dictated the engines be as short as possible
longitudinally, so they would fit in the planned engine compartments when
installed transversely. The bore spacing is very narrow, resulting in
very small bores and long strokes for their displacements. The 4.6L and
5.4L V8's have bores about the size of my little Buick 215 cube V8. To
get the displacement desired, the blocks had to be relatively tall.
The small bores limit the valve curtain area and, ultimately, the
maximum flow the heads can achieve and power the engine can develop.
This forced the designers to 4 valve per cylinder heads for the high
performance versions. Unfortunately, the heads and cam drives were
made very bulky. Combine the enormous cylinder head castings with the
tall decks needed to contain the long stroke cranks and you get an
engine that is tall, wide, heavy and expensive to manufacture.
With the limited bore spacing, stroke and extra cylinders are your only
ways to get extra displacement. The 5.4L V8 (with a taller deck to
accomodate the longer stroke crank) and 6.8L V10 are the direct result.
The 5.4L V8's have an even worse bore/stroke ratio than the 4.6L, resulting
in very high piston speed at a given RPM. The limited bore spacing also
limits the crank journal width, limiting the crankshaft strength. A
bunch of Lightning truck 5.4L engines have snapped connecting rods and
ventilated blocks due to this.
> When we get to be 90 years old and want to get a new thermostat for our
> cars, the punk ass kids behind the parts counter will laugh at our request.
You can still buy all the parts you want for a flathead Ford V8.
I have nothing against DOHC engines. The package particularly well on
an inline engine. On a vee engine pushrods make a lighter, more compact,
less expensive package. The engine neither knows nor cares where the cam
is located. If you design a good set of cylinder heads, a pushrod V8 is
a very tidy package that's hard to beat. Ford needs to use their canted
valve D3 race heads on a cross-bolted 9.5" deck height aluminum block.
The taller deck height (compared to GM's LS-series) and bore spacing would
allow them to one-up GM and go safely to nearly 440 cubic inches (versus
the LS7's 427 cubes). The D3 heads are superior (by a lot) than the heads
GM uses on the LS7. Even with a small port size, the D3 heads can flow
over 430 CFM and have excellent low lift flow. Increase the cam main
diameter so more aggresive hydraulic roller profiles can be used and
combine with beehive valve springs would be a killer package.
Dan Jones
> Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block?
The engine is heavy for it's displacement. The block architecture was
compromised for transverse applications (Ford thought the engine would
be used in front wheel drive cars) and also for manufacturing reasons
(ability to manufacture 2V and 4V heads on common tooling). The DOHC
heads and cam drives are quite bulky. The small bore andlong stroke
requires a tall deck height. Combine the large cylinder head castings
with a tall deck and you get a very wide and tall engine. Aluminum
is 1/2 the weight of iron but is also not as strong, so more of it needs
to be used. The trade publication "Design News" lists the weight of
the aluminum block and heads 4.6L DOHC engine at 521 lbs. The iron block
4.6L and taller 5.4L block are heavier. Ford's published number for the
all aluminum, dry sump, supercharged GT 5.4L DOHC is 315 Kg (695 lbs.).
My Fontana should come in at a bit over 400 lbs.
> What?? Are you serious?? Ford is going back to the push rod?? Oh they will
> screw this up somehow.
Quite serious. No real details are known about the engine but Ford
had a program to counter GM and Daimley-Chrysler but dropped it due
to budget cut backs. However, given the limitations of the mod motor,
they simply can not compete without it. Whether or not it is a pushrod
engine, is not known at this time. Here's a story on it:
Hurricane Watch
Ford hopes high-performance V-8 blows away rivals
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
The Hurricane is back.
A year after Ford Motor Co. killed its planned Hemi-fighting V-8 to the dismay
of horsepower junkies, Ford Americas group chief Mark Fields has put the
high-performance engine back in the company s product pipeline, according to
sources familiar with the project.
Fields revived the engine three months ago as part of a new restructuring plan
for the automaker. The decision offers a telling insight into how serious
Fields is about shaking things up at Ford, underscoring his repeated assertions
that nothing is off the table when it comes to reshaping the automaker s
troubled North American auto operations, which lost $1.6 billion last year.
Ford nixed the Hurricane project because of concerns about development costs
and rising gasoline prices. Now, Fields has decided that maintaining Ford's
leadership in the pickup truck market against mounting challenges from rivals
General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group trumps those
concerns.
Many analysts were dismayed by Ford s decision to halt development of the
Hurricane, which will likely get a new name before hitting the market.
"It was a dumb program to kill", said Jim Hall, an analyst with AutoPacific
in Southfield. Hall said Ford got spooked by soaring fuel prices last spring,
which seemed to spell bad news for thirsty high-horsepower engines. However,
he said long-term analysis shows that, while demand for big engines may ebb
and flow as a result of gasoline prices or other factors, it remains steady
over time.
Erich Merkle, a brand analyst with IRN Inc. in Grand Rapids, is not surprised
Ford decided to revive the Hurricane.
"They've got to do something from a powertrain perspective if they're going to
hold on to the F-series lead, he said, noting that both GM and Chrysler have
more powerful engines on the market, particularly in their trucks and sport
utilities.
"Ford has nothing", Merkle said. "Without those bigger options, they are going
to have a hard time competing."
Ford does have some big engines, but none that can compete with the 425
horsepower 6.1-liter Hemi or the 403-horsepower Vortec that will equip the
2007 Cadillac Escalade SUV. With its 300-horsepower Triton, Ford s2007 Lincoln
Navigator will have a hard time keeping up with the Escalade.
When it comes to engines, few have captured the public's imagination like
Chrysler's Hemi.
The Hemi's roots go back to the 1950s, but the vaunted powerhouse disappeared
from production cars in 1974, a victim of new government fuel economy
requirements. Chrysler reintroduced a new Hemiin the 2003 Dodge Ram Heavy
Duty pickup.
Ford wants the Hurricane to more than a match these engines and help ensure the
automaker stays on top of the hotly-contested truck segment. As Chrysler has
shown with Hemi, however, automakers also can command a price premium for
high-performance powertrains. That means the Hurricane could help Ford's bottom
line.
Merkle said Ford's Cleveland casting plant has received orders for a new
6.2-liter engine block, with work to begin next year.
"We believe that would be the Hurricane, he said.
However, the Hurricane is not likely to make landfall before 2008. It will
probably debut in Ford's F-series pickups. A team has visited Ford's Dearborn
Truck factory, where F-150s are made, to assess what changes will be needed to
accommodate the new engine on the line there.
But sources say the Hurricane also will be used in other platforms.
While Ford's engine may not incorporate the sort of cylinder deactivation
system found in the Hemi and Vortec, sources say it will offer similar fuel
economy.
Other approaches that could be used to realize these gains include using the
sort of multi-valve systems found on some German engines.
Whatever method Ford employs, the emphasis will remain on horsepower.
> Well judging by the new Shelby GT mustang, I would say the mod motor is a
> real porker in the weight department.
That it is. Plus, to make any sort of respectable power, you have to
supercharge the things. The Ford modular V8 packaging was severely
compromised for transverse mount installations. When the engine was
designed, Ford believed many of them would be installed in front wheel
drive applications. This dictated the engines be as short as possible
longitudinally, so they would fit in the planned engine compartments when
installed transversely. The bore spacing is very narrow, resulting in
very small bores and long strokes for their displacements. The 4.6L and
5.4L V8's have bores about the size of my little Buick 215 cube V8. To
get the displacement desired, the blocks had to be relatively tall.
The small bores limit the valve curtain area and, ultimately, the
maximum flow the heads can achieve and power the engine can develop.
This forced the designers to 4 valve per cylinder heads for the high
performance versions. Unfortunately, the heads and cam drives were
made very bulky. Combine the enormous cylinder head castings with the
tall decks needed to contain the long stroke cranks and you get an
engine that is tall, wide, heavy and expensive to manufacture.
With the limited bore spacing, stroke and extra cylinders are your only
ways to get extra displacement. The 5.4L V8 (with a taller deck to
accomodate the longer stroke crank) and 6.8L V10 are the direct result.
The 5.4L V8's have an even worse bore/stroke ratio than the 4.6L, resulting
in very high piston speed at a given RPM. The limited bore spacing also
limits the crank journal width, limiting the crankshaft strength. A
bunch of Lightning truck 5.4L engines have snapped connecting rods and
ventilated blocks due to this.
> When we get to be 90 years old and want to get a new thermostat for our
> cars, the punk ass kids behind the parts counter will laugh at our request.
You can still buy all the parts you want for a flathead Ford V8.
I have nothing against DOHC engines. The package particularly well on
an inline engine. On a vee engine pushrods make a lighter, more compact,
less expensive package. The engine neither knows nor cares where the cam
is located. If you design a good set of cylinder heads, a pushrod V8 is
a very tidy package that's hard to beat. Ford needs to use their canted
valve D3 race heads on a cross-bolted 9.5" deck height aluminum block.
The taller deck height (compared to GM's LS-series) and bore spacing would
allow them to one-up GM and go safely to nearly 440 cubic inches (versus
the LS7's 427 cubes). The D3 heads are superior (by a lot) than the heads
GM uses on the LS7. Even with a small port size, the D3 heads can flow
over 430 CFM and have excellent low lift flow. Increase the cam main
diameter so more aggresive hydraulic roller profiles can be used and
combine with beehive valve springs would be a killer package.
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by pantera874:
...Current production does not mean new technology. Maybe it's new for you, but internal of those engines is more than 40 years old technology...
What technology are you refering to, and what production engine provides more modern technology?
quote:Originally posted by Johnny Woods:
...I have yet to hear a mod engine that makes a good sound ...For me the Pantera is all about looks, power and sound. I would never even consider a mod engine...And what about weight saving? is there a weight saving to be had over a Cleveland by going to a 4.6 (iron block?) or a 5.4 ally block...
Johnny, I would think an exhaust can be designed to sound any way a designer wishes. Production cars must meet ever more restrictive national maximum sound volume standards. So it may not be fair to compare the sound of the unmodified exhaust of any modern car to the modified exhaust of a Pantera. It is true however that the modular motor was designed with better water jacketing wich reduces noise coming from the engine block.
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
...What?? Are you serious?? Ford is going back to the push rod?? Oh they will screw this up somehow. ...
Ford is being hush hush about the architecture of the motor, but one story I read a while back specifically stated the motor would retain over head cams and 3 or 4 valves per cylinder.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...I'm no fan of the mod motor and apparently I'm not alone. Ford has revived the Hurricane program to introduce a new V8 to compete with GM's LS-series and Daimler-Chrysler's Hemi...
Ford has produced both a 351 cubic inch V10 and a 427 V10 based on the mod motor. But for some reason they seem reluctant to put them into production. I'm guessing its the cost. It seems they want to build a larger displacement V8, and hence the new motor program. The impetus for a new motor is all about cubic inches, and not about any deficiencies in the design of the modular motor, don't be surprised if the new motor is nothing more than a bigger mod motor.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...You can still buy all the parts you want for a flathead Ford V8...I have nothing against DOHC engines. The package particularly well on
an inline engine. On a vee engine pushrods make a lighter, more compact, less expensive package...
You can still purchase parts for a flat head, but you have never been able to buy the proper thermostat for a Cleveland. LOL...
Overhead cam engines have two advantages, one in the RPM limit of the valve train, and the second in the freedom to design ideal intake & exhaust port architecture. I think this remains true today, although the limits of both architectures is higher today than in decades past, and I would not argue with you Dan that an OHV design can be made to rev plenty for a street car, and make good bhp numbers too.
Oh, and by the way, the 4.6 was used in a front wheel drive car, the Lincoln Continental.
your friend on the DTIC
I Like (not implying everyone should like)
For the Pantera (not specifically for a new car or anything else)
Because of the era, petina and style (not because anything else wouldn't be better)
Large CI pushrod engines in the Pantera. The size, the simplicity and the brute. To me it is what makes the beast. It contrast it to complex Ferari's with highere reving more complex engines.
I see a complicated engine bay with turbo chargers, overhead valves, flux capacitors, it's all great...Just not MY vision of the car (could be some one elses though).
Gary
For the Pantera (not specifically for a new car or anything else)
Because of the era, petina and style (not because anything else wouldn't be better)
Large CI pushrod engines in the Pantera. The size, the simplicity and the brute. To me it is what makes the beast. It contrast it to complex Ferari's with highere reving more complex engines.
I see a complicated engine bay with turbo chargers, overhead valves, flux capacitors, it's all great...Just not MY vision of the car (could be some one elses though).
Gary
Couldn't talk you into a flux capacitor?
Ha, ha, ha ...
Ha, ha, ha ...
Good point Roland. My dad has a 1902 Oldsmobile with an "Overhead Cam!"
Our term for modern technology is not always a good term. Technology has existed for over 100 years to do many things we are developing applications for now. In our time how technology is implemented has far more impact then when it was developed. Often how it is marketed and how available is more important then how good it is. I don't see a shortage of pushrod engines for as long as I can see. Pick up a Jegs catalog and they are selling more now then they ever have (aftermarket).
Our term for modern technology is not always a good term. Technology has existed for over 100 years to do many things we are developing applications for now. In our time how technology is implemented has far more impact then when it was developed. Often how it is marketed and how available is more important then how good it is. I don't see a shortage of pushrod engines for as long as I can see. Pick up a Jegs catalog and they are selling more now then they ever have (aftermarket).
quote:Originally posted by george pence:
Couldn't talk you into a flux capacitor?
Ha, ha, ha ...
If they were comon parts at autozone and easy to hook up maybe. Right now they are just too complex for my little mind!
Roland,
the 1936 American Duesenberg SSJ had an in-line 8 cylinder motor, dual over head cams, 4 valves per cylinder, supercharged, made 400 bhp.
I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make. Is it that no production motors offer new technology?
your friend on the DTIC
the 1936 American Duesenberg SSJ had an in-line 8 cylinder motor, dual over head cams, 4 valves per cylinder, supercharged, made 400 bhp.
I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make. Is it that no production motors offer new technology?
your friend on the DTIC
Attachments
Images (1)
Maybe Roland is saying we do need a flux capacitor to wake up the automotive world. Heck I remember they kept saying that by now we would all have flying cars. So why don't we have jet engines and nuclear reactors, like we are supposed to?? Where is George Jetson when you need him???
I been thinking, and yes I know that is dangerous. But maybe, just maybe, people are dissapointed in the Mod motors because they approach them like they would and old school V8?? Maybe instead of trying for more cubes, which you can't get, go for more RPMS instead. Build it like you would a formula one engine. De-stroke it, put in variable cams and variable intakes. Put in needle bearing main bearings. Balance everything within an inch of its life. Shoot for a 16,000 RPM redline. Put in a turbo charger that can spin at 170,000 rpm. Make that sucker wail like you are holding a fire to its tail!!
I bet then people would like that engine.
I bet then people would like that engine.
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
I been thinking, and yes I know that is dangerous. But maybe, just maybe, people are dissapointed in the Mod motors because they approach them like they would and old school V8?? Maybe instead of trying for more cubes, which you can't get, go for more RPMS instead. Build it like you would a formula one engine. De-stroke it, put in variable cams and variable intakes. Put in needle bearing main bearings. Balance everything within an inch of its life. Shoot for a 16,000 RPM redline. Put in a turbo charger that can spin at 170,000 rpm. Make that sucker wail like you are holding a fire to its tail!!
I bet then people would like that engine.
I don't desire that at all.
One of my friends made an interesting point. He said the Pantera is the Harley of the car world. A Pantera is a product of LOOKS, SOUND and BRUTE POWER. The key word being "BRUTE". I some ways if you change that recipe do you really still have a Pantera?
OK then, we have two "NO" votes. Although the F1 scream is cool, it may be out of place in the P-car. So that makes three neys. Anyone else care to vote???
Hi Roland,
I was referring more to the emotional response of the community to the Pantera. Yes, a Harley is a Harley but the Pantera is a Pantera. The essence of each defines it's appeal.
Wes
I was referring more to the emotional response of the community to the Pantera. Yes, a Harley is a Harley but the Pantera is a Pantera. The essence of each defines it's appeal.
Wes
> Ford is being hush hush about the architecture of the motor, but one story
> I read a while back specifically stated the motor would retain over head
> cams and 3 or 4 valves per cylinder.
If they do that, sell your stock. I still wonder if they aren't looking
at a dual cam pushrod design with either 3 or 4 valves per cylinder. GM
originally looked at that for the LS7 but decided the 2 valve route was
simpler and would meet their goals.
> Ford has produced both a 351 cubic inch V10 and a 427 V10 based on the mod
> motor. But for some reason they seem reluctant to put them into production.
> I'm guessing its the cost.
Cost, size, weight and they still don't match the power of GM's (the 6.8L V10
is still down 40 HP to the equivalent GM pushrod truck V8). The Mustang is a
porker with the mod motor V8's and would be much worse with a V10.
> The impetus for a new motor is all about cubic inches, and not about any
> deficiencies in the design of the modular motor, don't be surprised if the
> new motor is nothing more than a bigger mod motor.
It's precisely the design deficiencies of the mod motor that has put them
in this situation. The small bore spacing limits the maximum displacement
and the valve area and therefore the cylinder head flow.
> You can still purchase parts for a flat head, but you have never been able
> to buy the proper thermostat for a Cleveland. LOL...
I've never had any trouble buying the proper thermostat.
> Overhead cam engines have two advantages, one in the RPM limit of the valve
> train, and the second in the freedom to design ideal intake & exhaust port
> architecture.
True.
> I think this remains true today, although the limits of both architectures is
> higher today than in decades past, and I would not argue with you Dan that an
> OHV design can be made to rev plenty for a street car, and make good bhp
> numbers too.
Agreed. Torque follows displacement and horsepower follows RPM (and airflow).
Reliability is inversely proportional to RPM (squared). On a big inch pushrod
V8 street engine, there's little need for extreme RPM so the valve train is
not the limiting factor. The D3 pushrod heads outflow the best mod motor
DOHC heads by over 100 CFM and the D3 heads are not an all out pushrod design
head. They are constrained by NASCAR rules limitations. If one were to
revise the intake port to have an entry more like Gurney Weslake, it could
be improved on. Also, the inherent compactness of a pushrod V8 provides more
room for efficient exhaust within production car constraints.
> Oh, and by the way, the 4.6 was used in a front wheel drive car, the Lincoln
> Continental.
Yes but the vast majority of them are in rear wheel drive vehicles.
The limitations placed upon the mod motor design to make it FWD friendly
has severly limited the engine's potential.
> But maybe, just maybe, people are dissapointed in the Mod motors because
> they approach them like they would and old school V8?? Maybe instead of
> trying for more cubes, which you can't get, go for more RPMS instead.
> Build it like you would a formula one engine. De-stroke it, put in variable
> cams and variable intakes. Put in needle bearing main bearings. Balance
> everything within an inch of its life. Shoot for a 16,000 RPM redline.
"The candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long (and you have
burned so very brightly, Roy)".
Dan Jones
> I read a while back specifically stated the motor would retain over head
> cams and 3 or 4 valves per cylinder.
If they do that, sell your stock. I still wonder if they aren't looking
at a dual cam pushrod design with either 3 or 4 valves per cylinder. GM
originally looked at that for the LS7 but decided the 2 valve route was
simpler and would meet their goals.
> Ford has produced both a 351 cubic inch V10 and a 427 V10 based on the mod
> motor. But for some reason they seem reluctant to put them into production.
> I'm guessing its the cost.
Cost, size, weight and they still don't match the power of GM's (the 6.8L V10
is still down 40 HP to the equivalent GM pushrod truck V8). The Mustang is a
porker with the mod motor V8's and would be much worse with a V10.
> The impetus for a new motor is all about cubic inches, and not about any
> deficiencies in the design of the modular motor, don't be surprised if the
> new motor is nothing more than a bigger mod motor.
It's precisely the design deficiencies of the mod motor that has put them
in this situation. The small bore spacing limits the maximum displacement
and the valve area and therefore the cylinder head flow.
> You can still purchase parts for a flat head, but you have never been able
> to buy the proper thermostat for a Cleveland. LOL...
I've never had any trouble buying the proper thermostat.
> Overhead cam engines have two advantages, one in the RPM limit of the valve
> train, and the second in the freedom to design ideal intake & exhaust port
> architecture.
True.
> I think this remains true today, although the limits of both architectures is
> higher today than in decades past, and I would not argue with you Dan that an
> OHV design can be made to rev plenty for a street car, and make good bhp
> numbers too.
Agreed. Torque follows displacement and horsepower follows RPM (and airflow).
Reliability is inversely proportional to RPM (squared). On a big inch pushrod
V8 street engine, there's little need for extreme RPM so the valve train is
not the limiting factor. The D3 pushrod heads outflow the best mod motor
DOHC heads by over 100 CFM and the D3 heads are not an all out pushrod design
head. They are constrained by NASCAR rules limitations. If one were to
revise the intake port to have an entry more like Gurney Weslake, it could
be improved on. Also, the inherent compactness of a pushrod V8 provides more
room for efficient exhaust within production car constraints.
> Oh, and by the way, the 4.6 was used in a front wheel drive car, the Lincoln
> Continental.
Yes but the vast majority of them are in rear wheel drive vehicles.
The limitations placed upon the mod motor design to make it FWD friendly
has severly limited the engine's potential.
> But maybe, just maybe, people are dissapointed in the Mod motors because
> they approach them like they would and old school V8?? Maybe instead of
> trying for more cubes, which you can't get, go for more RPMS instead.
> Build it like you would a formula one engine. De-stroke it, put in variable
> cams and variable intakes. Put in needle bearing main bearings. Balance
> everything within an inch of its life. Shoot for a 16,000 RPM redline.
"The candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long (and you have
burned so very brightly, Roy)".
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by Wtrandall:
Hi Roland,
I was referring more to the emotional response of the community to the Pantera. Yes, a Harley is a Harley but the Pantera is a Pantera. The essence of each defines it's appeal.
Wes
Wes what I got from what you said is a Pantera with a mod motor in it is like a Harley with a Kawasaki engine in it. It may be a better engine but no longer has the feel and patina of a Harley.
Gary
quote:"The candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long (and you have
burned so very brightly, Roy)".
Dan I just love reading your posts. I love that engine theory stuff. Don't forget to send me an email through my profile about the valves you got for sale. I still want to check them out.
Also, way back when in high school shop class, my teacher told us he knew a guy who ran a flat head Ford backwards. In other words he had changed the cam so that the exaust was now the intake and theintake was the exaust. Would that work bettr? Because when you think about it, cold air coming in from the bottom, hot exaust coming out from the top, wouldn't that flow better as a system?? Plus it waould make a bundle of snakes type system much easier to construct.
> Don't forget to send me an email through my profile about the valves you
> got for sale. I still want to check them out.
Just sent you a message.
> Also, way back when in high school shop class, my teacher told us he knew
> a guy who ran a flat head Ford backwards. In other words he had changed the
> cam so that the exhaust was now the intake and the intake was the exhaust.
> Would that work better?
It can, depending upon the particulars of the specific engine. It's easier
to empty a cylinder than fill it so you need more intake flow relative to
the exhaust. If the heads are such that the exhausts flow better, than
reversing them can improve power. Also, it may be easier to optimize the
intake and exhaust for a particular package. For instance it may be easier
to construct intake stacks where the exhaust was and do a bundle of snakes
in the interior of the vee. The Ford Indy DOHC V8 was that way.
Dan Jones
> got for sale. I still want to check them out.
Just sent you a message.
> Also, way back when in high school shop class, my teacher told us he knew
> a guy who ran a flat head Ford backwards. In other words he had changed the
> cam so that the exhaust was now the intake and the intake was the exhaust.
> Would that work better?
It can, depending upon the particulars of the specific engine. It's easier
to empty a cylinder than fill it so you need more intake flow relative to
the exhaust. If the heads are such that the exhausts flow better, than
reversing them can improve power. Also, it may be easier to optimize the
intake and exhaust for a particular package. For instance it may be easier
to construct intake stacks where the exhaust was and do a bundle of snakes
in the interior of the vee. The Ford Indy DOHC V8 was that way.
Dan Jones
quote:For instance it may be easier
to construct intake stacks where the exhaust was and do a bundle of snakes
in the interior of the vee. The Ford Indy DOHC V8 was that way.
Wolud it work better with forced induction? That way the small intake is not as bigg a deal.
> Would it work better with forced induction? That way the small intake is not
> as big a deal.
A small intake can be a big deal with forced induction and can actually choke
the flow and overheat the blower.
Dan Jones
> as big a deal.
A small intake can be a big deal with forced induction and can actually choke
the flow and overheat the blower.
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by Wtrandall:
One of my friends made an interesting point. He said the Pantera is the Harley of the car world. A Pantera is a product of LOOKS, SOUND and BRUTE POWER. The key word being "BRUTE". I some ways if you change that recipe do you really still have a Pantera?
That's an art rather then a science. Since the Pantera isn't a package added vehicle like an SVT Cobra Muatang and defined by that package there seems to be more latitude.
I would point out that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
I think a key element here may be a 351C Ford with a ZF.
Consider that throughout most of the post Ford years that was still the factory powerplant.
It only changed because new supplies became exhausted at some point not because Windsors are better.
I think that the car has most desire as a restomod. I always remeber the red factory GT4 that Ford had show at Dearborn.
Some how to me that became the ultimate statement of the car.
Especially with the Webers and 180's.
Sounds good to me! The Harley with the Kawasaki analogy is pretty close. I think it would be better to describe the Harley with a more debatably sophisticated Honda V-twin installed. In that case you get something that looks similar but doesn't quite have the same sound and possibly not the same appeal. A Pantera builder friend here in Southern California said he'd build a modular Pantera for every day driving and a huge horsepower, aluminum SVO monster to tear up the streets on weekends. The first Pantera is a suit and tie model. The second Pantera is the rock and roll rebel with tatoos and attitude! Wes
quote:Originally posted by Wtrandall:
... the Pantera is the Harley of the car world. ...
Wes, as a life long motorcyclist, I consider a Harley an expensive boat anchor!
I don't think the comparison with the Pantera is a good one. A better comparison for the Pantera in the motorcycle world would be a Ducati.The bottom line however is that it is your choice, and none are necessarily wrong. A large displacement pushrod V8 is old school, a fuel injected DOHC 32 valve motor is "new tech".
the cowboy from Hell
George I wa having some exhaust work done to the Jeep at a local mieneke. I walked down to the Harley shop as they had a dyno set up. As I walked around I thought it was halloween. Everyone had their expensive leathers, chaps, boots, etc. They were runing bikes on a dyno and many guys who ran them were not Harleys.
What I really found funny is a group of guys all trying to figure out exactly what a clutch was. But they did look good in their $500 boots!
What I really found funny is a group of guys all trying to figure out exactly what a clutch was. But they did look good in their $500 boots!
George,
I think we are thinking along different lines. It wasn't the machines I was comparing so much as the loyalties and emotions generated by them. As for being boat anchors, when comparing a Harley to a Ducati in terms of racing, that probably makes sense. However, I ride my boat anchors with the same pride I drive my Panteras! Wes
I think we are thinking along different lines. It wasn't the machines I was comparing so much as the loyalties and emotions generated by them. As for being boat anchors, when comparing a Harley to a Ducati in terms of racing, that probably makes sense. However, I ride my boat anchors with the same pride I drive my Panteras! Wes
George,
Also, something to consider in the comparison might be the variety of customizations we see that reflect the personalities and passions of the owners.
Wes
Also, something to consider in the comparison might be the variety of customizations we see that reflect the personalities and passions of the owners.
Wes
George / Gary,
I'm with you on the Harley thing .. I can understand why Harley Guys gotta dress up ?? There slow and load .... and not many of them can even find the gas tank with there bellies in the way.
George ....The cammer " OLD TECH ? remember this ?? Not necessarily Old Tech ?? LOL In some ways the cammer has the block skirt like an FE.
Ron
I'm with you on the Harley thing .. I can understand why Harley Guys gotta dress up ?? There slow and load .... and not many of them can even find the gas tank with there bellies in the way.
George ....The cammer " OLD TECH ? remember this ?? Not necessarily Old Tech ?? LOL In some ways the cammer has the block skirt like an FE.
Ron
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by Wtrandall:
... the variety of customizations we see ... reflects the personalities and passions of the owners...
Absolutely Wes, since it is OK in our hobby to modify Panteras, each Pantera is a canvas that reflects the thoughts, dreams, passions, creativity and priorities of its owner.
I'll defend each owners right to restore, customize, race or drive his Pantera as he sees fit. And each of us will support that owner the same way we ourselves would like to be supported. That's what makes Pantera owners the best group of enthusiasts in motorsports.
quote:Originally posted by george pence:quote:Originally posted by Wtrandall:
... the Pantera is the Harley of the car world. ...
Wes, as a life long motorcyclist, I consider a Harley an expensive boat anchor!
The bottom line however is that it is your choice, and none are necessarily wrong. A large displacement pushrod V8 is old school, a fuel injected DOHC 32 valve motor is "new tech".
the cowboy from Hell
Funny you should say thatGeorge. Because I think at one time DeTomaso owned Ducatti. It was one of them Italian bike companies, either Ducatti or Moto Guzi. Can't remember right now which one it was.