Final Ford 4.6-Liter Rolls of Assembly Line
#1
05-13-2014, 02:38 PM
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final Ford 4.6-Liter Rolls of Assembly Line
This notice comes from a user over on F150Online who mentioned the last 4.6-liter V8 is rolled off the assembly line last Friday.
Now, there hasn't been a lot of fanfare about that from Ford, but it's a pretty big deal. The 4.6 was one of Ford's backbone V8s for over twenty years now. That it's finally going away is surely the mark of an end of an era.
What're you're thoughts on the 4.6? How about Ford's determinedly turbocharged future?
[Ford-Trucks Blog Post here!]
Now, there hasn't been a lot of fanfare about that from Ford, but it's a pretty big deal. The 4.6 was one of Ford's backbone V8s for over twenty years now. That it's finally going away is surely the mark of an end of an era.
What're you're thoughts on the 4.6? How about Ford's determinedly turbocharged future?
[Ford-Trucks Blog Post here!]
#2
05-13-2014, 08:44 PM
This notice comes from a user over on F150Online who mentioned the last 4.6-liter V8 is rolled off the assembly line last Friday.
Now, there hasn't been a lot of fanfare about that from Ford, but it's a pretty big deal. The 4.6 was one of Ford's backbone V8s for over twenty years now. That it's finally going away is surely the mark of an end of an era.
What're you're thoughts on the 4.6? How about Ford's determinedly turbocharged future?
[Ford-Trucks Blog Post here!]
Now, there hasn't been a lot of fanfare about that from Ford, but it's a pretty big deal. The 4.6 was one of Ford's backbone V8s for over twenty years now. That it's finally going away is surely the mark of an end of an era.
What're you're thoughts on the 4.6? How about Ford's determinedly turbocharged future?
[Ford-Trucks Blog Post here!]
#3
05-14-2014, 08:15 PM
I really like the Mod motors (with reservations) and am sad to see the 4.6 go. I've got 120k on my 4.6 in my '02 E150 and it uses less oil now than it did when new.
Unfortunately mine was an early Romeo PI engine and got a new pair of cylinder heads under warranty (thank God I bought an extended warranty). And the engineers who designed and allowed the minimal spark plug threads on the 2V engines and the deep sleeves on the 3V versions should have been fired. Maybe they were the same guys who screwed up the early Romeo PI heads.
I think that Ford choosing to use an overhead cam in this whole series of long stroke engines was basically stupid (I think the purpose was "gee whiz" advertising or something). They are not high rev engines and end up larger than the old 460. They are solid day-in, day-out running engines that typically go a lot of miles but don't fit in hot rods and make servicing difficult because they're huge.
I also think Ford's having separate Windsor and Romeo engine versions with NO MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES was stupid in the same way that they had 3 different 351 engines in the old days. Why? Seems like it would only end up costing Ford more money in the long haul having to carry 2 sets of parts...
Frankly, the small block Chevy V8 was a far more sensible design in terms of size. My 4.6 runs fine and I like it, but I think Ford would have done better to design their version of the small block Chevy and keep the cam in the block....Ford would have more money in the bank if they had done this.
As for turbos, they are nice for "gee whiz" advertising purposes and saving a bit of gas, but I'm not in line to buy one. I blew up the 2.2 turbo in my old '86 Lancer (thankfully under warranty) and don't see turbos as being 250k mile engines like the small block Chevy, or even the mod motors. It'll take a few years for me to see if I'm wrong, but I don't see lawn crews driving clapped out and under-serviced 300k mile pickups with EcoBoost engines in the future.
George
Unfortunately mine was an early Romeo PI engine and got a new pair of cylinder heads under warranty (thank God I bought an extended warranty). And the engineers who designed and allowed the minimal spark plug threads on the 2V engines and the deep sleeves on the 3V versions should have been fired. Maybe they were the same guys who screwed up the early Romeo PI heads.
I think that Ford choosing to use an overhead cam in this whole series of long stroke engines was basically stupid (I think the purpose was "gee whiz" advertising or something). They are not high rev engines and end up larger than the old 460. They are solid day-in, day-out running engines that typically go a lot of miles but don't fit in hot rods and make servicing difficult because they're huge.
I also think Ford's having separate Windsor and Romeo engine versions with NO MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES was stupid in the same way that they had 3 different 351 engines in the old days. Why? Seems like it would only end up costing Ford more money in the long haul having to carry 2 sets of parts...
Frankly, the small block Chevy V8 was a far more sensible design in terms of size. My 4.6 runs fine and I like it, but I think Ford would have done better to design their version of the small block Chevy and keep the cam in the block....Ford would have more money in the bank if they had done this.
As for turbos, they are nice for "gee whiz" advertising purposes and saving a bit of gas, but I'm not in line to buy one. I blew up the 2.2 turbo in my old '86 Lancer (thankfully under warranty) and don't see turbos as being 250k mile engines like the small block Chevy, or even the mod motors. It'll take a few years for me to see if I'm wrong, but I don't see lawn crews driving clapped out and under-serviced 300k mile pickups with EcoBoost engines in the future.
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wes97FT
Modular V8 (4.6L, 5.4L)
2
10-10-2011 02:06 PM
