The OHC Ford Triton engines are also OHV ... does that make them better? OHV=OverHead Valve - unless we're running flatheads ...

Anyway, OHC is more efficient, and I think Ford has proven that a long timing chain can be made to work for a LONG time...

Spitting plugs seems to be a problem though.

As for the IFS in a Cherokee? Yuck... always wanted one, just to hot-rod, because it's a solid front axle. Oh well, gotta get an older one now...

 

I disagree with the friction part. You have a ton of pressure on a OHV engines cam. With an OHC you have two shafts but you have divided the spring pressure in half and then some due to the lesser amounts of required pressures to begin with. One would think that longevity would be an issue but I have seen so maqny 300,000 mile modulars that that theroy kinda gets blown out of the water.

 

Independant rear suspension can't handle the power...this is a Ford forum right? Anyone ever hear of a 427 Cobra? But I still prefer a solid axle for long term street use.

Overhead cam vs pushrod...well I've read a lot of theory here but the fact is the 5.4 holds no huge power or fuel mileage advantage over it's pushrod competition. And compairing it to the old 351 Windsor is apples to oranges since Ford stopped development on the 351 years ago and has poured millions into trying to wring every ounce of power out of the modular since then.

On the other hand in the real world (not theory) with the OHC modular we have a small displacment engine that is so oversized externally that some dealers remove the entire cab from the frame just to pull the cylinder heads from a full sized truck! Time is money. Now let's discuss another real-world consideration...cost of repair. This is something any truck fleet operator will find very important, which engine cost A LOT more to repair/replace a modular or a windsor? Which engine can be quickly and easily repaired and put back in service by a mechanic of average skill (not sent back to the dealer). And which engine is more durable given the type of maintenance (very little) and abuse the average fleet vehicle gets, remember these trucks are driven by employees that think "oh well it aint mine!"

This light weight/low friction valve train theory is correct but the benifit really is negligable on a V8 that lives on low RPM torque and has the same 6000RPM rev limit as it's pushrod predecessor. The OHC advantage is benificial in high RPM race engines and that has little compairson to the type of engine a truck needs.

But over head cam 3 valves per cylinder variable valve timing V8 sounds "high tech" when the salesman is talking "S" on the showroom floor! And Ford gets a .25 MPG fuel mileage improvment due to the lower friction...but whats the real cost? Is it worth it?

I love my truck but I'd have liked a modern design pushrod V8 even better.

 

Maybe I'm the one confused here....my wife's 97 Explorer with the OHC 4.0 would literally run rings around my 98 Ranger with the OHV 4.0...and I'm guessing the Explorer is heavier to boot!

Give me the OHC motor ANY day!

My 97 Cobra was stout enough for me and would stomp a 5.0 Cobra (which I have in my 93 Cobra) into the ground!!!!! WITHOUT a Blower, in stock form!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes...it was rated at 305HP vs 235 for the 93, but I still believe the OHC motors are better. (IMHO)

Regards,
Scott

 

I don't see how a Ford pushrod motor is any easier to fix than the OHC modulars. Cost-wise, modular parts are all over the place. Maybe more expensive than the pushrod counterparts, but that's because of normal supply-and-demand based marketing. Newer parts are more expensive. Older motor parts get cheaper and cheaper, and then go way up after a point where there is existing stock but low supply.

You mention fleet operators' expenses of replacing motors, and then say they don't maintain them anyway? I wouldn't call it a "fleet" if they don't do regular oil changes, or have to "send vehicles back to the dealer". If their mechanics aren't trained on new motors and they don't have the right tools to do it themselves, then they aren't a "fleet" except for volume buying discounts.

 

Krewat posted:You are kidding right?
Why not call a dealer and price a cylinder head replacment on a modular vs a windsor engine...but then again you seldom ever need to replace a windsor head because they are made of iron and are a lot stronger than the aluminum modular heads. How about pricing a timing chain replacment on these two engines. Or if you are a do-it-yourself type get a manual for each engine and read the proper procedure for these repairs, see which one takes twice, or three times longer to do. The answer of course is the OHC modular engine repair will take a LOT more time to complete and as I said before time is money.

Regarding fleet operators there are many types of "fleets" there are huge fleets for big business with trucks numbering into the hundreds and there are a lot of small companies that might have 10-15 trucks and do their own maintenance themselves. Either way, like I said time is money either they pay their own mechanic or the dealer's mechanic to repair the engine and if the job takes 3 times longer on a modular engine then they have to pay the higher cost in hours to the mechanic plus the truck is down (not earning money for the company) 3 times longer. And back to the cylinder head example, price 1 modular head vs 1 windsor head...big difference.

And I'll say it again, for all of it's extra complexity and higher cost the OHC modular engine enjoys no outstanding power or mileage advantage over it's pushrod competition.

 

The Windor is GONE. Parts are cheap. It ran a long time, and prices came way down over it's almost 40 years of production. 40 years is a long time to make a design bulletproof. When the small-block came out (back to the 221/260) guess what? Parts were expensive. Plenty of people thought "hey, why can't they just keep using the Y block?". The 221 and 260 had their fair share of rod-bolt and other strength problems. It was only after all the problems with the 221/260 did Ford come out with the 289 that addressed all the problems. Power and reliability. Sounds like the 4.6/5.4/V10 sequence of events. If Ford uses the modular for the next 20 years, the parts are going to be CHEAP by the time they kill the line.

Whether Ford made a new OHC or a new pushrod motor, the parts would still be expensive. It's not the design itself, it's the fact that they are new motors. If they came up with a small-block replacement that had pushrods, you think it wouldn't have aluminum heads?

And, besides mileage and power, you're forgetting EMISSIONS. OHC allows you to alter the spark plug angle and valve angles to the point where it would be impossible (or at least difficult) to do it with pushrods.

I've done a lot of things on my modulars that were QUICKER than a Windsor, or even my old FE 390. The water pump took less than half the time it would have taken in a late-model Windsor. Spark plugs? A dream to replace (or check), they aren't crammed down on the side of the motor covered by A/C or emissions piping. I still believe, just looking at my t-bird 4.6L, that it would be at least as easy to replace a head on the 4.6L as a 5.0 in the same car, except for the timing cover, and half of the accessories have to come off anyway.

If you have real fleet statistics that modular repairs and maintenance have driven up their maintenance/repair costs, then I concede the argument, but it's not about OHC vs OHV, it's about Windsor vs ANY new design. The OHC design doesn't make it more expensive, the newness of the design does.

I just checked around on Google, and there are people (with REAL fleets) reporting the 4.6L going over 200K (up to 500K!) miles easily with regular maintenance. They say they are MORE reliable then the 302/351. Look around on here about the V10, there are people getting more than 200K miles easily. Sure, you can say the modular head is more expensive than a 302/351, but when do you have to replace it? After a plug blows, the gasket leaks or you overheat it (owner's fault, not Ford). How many times has that happened in any fleet? Where's the facts?

 

Well, I owned a '99 4.0L OHV before this one, and it would destroy this OHC 4.0L off the line. I test drove a few different OHC 4.0Ls because I thought there was something wrong with the first one I drove. Nope...turns out they are all like that. Very weak until you hit high RPMs.

Now, if you lined them up at 60 mph and punched it, I think the OHC feels a tad stronger. But in everyday driving, there is no way you can tell me a OHC 4.0L will run circles around the OHV version. I've owned both in the last 6 months and I know that's bologna.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but I owned a 97 SOHC Explorer and I still own my 98 OHV Ranger and I'm tellin' YOU that the Explorer would absolutely SMOKE my Ranger (from stand-still or roll-on... maybe I've just got a sick Ranger - it would make sense with all the problems I've had with it!!!!!!!

Regards,
Scott

 

The Windsor is very much alive. Ford even offers crate engines. The aftermarket is full of parts. Jegs just came out with a new sbf head. I highly doubt the current mods will be around in 10 years much less 20.

How can a blown sparkplug or a leaky gasket be anything other than design faults? Fail safe cooling is supposed to do away with overheating.

 

All of the leaky gaskets that I have seen come out of the Fords have looked like they got crimped somehow either during manufacture, shipping or most likely during assembly. They did not appear to have just blown due to poor design.

 

A girl at work is driving her brothers bone stock 01 Ranger 4.0 SOHC. She let me drive it today. Its even an auto and it will absolutely smoke my pushrod 4.0 in my 93. The 01 I drove is an Ext. CAb 4x4. Mine would maybe hang with it to about 2000 RPM and that's when the power just comes on with that OHC. WXboy I don't know why the ones you drove and are driving now seem weak, maybe you just had a heck of a pushrod 4.0 before, but the three I have driven are in a whole other league as far as power goes compared to my Ranger. And I thought mine had good power. It was disapointing to get back into my truck after driving that 01.

 

THANKS Ag4.0!!!

I though I was losing my mind (NOT!)
Glad to know someone else experienced the same thing I have with the 4.0 comparison...

Regards,
Scott

 

Posted by krewat...You are correct! I forgot emissions so I'll add that too. The Ford modular OHC engines posess no significant power, mileage OR emission advantage over the modern pushrod competion. They all meet the current emission regulations from the EPA or they could not be sold in new trucks. Thanks for reminding me.

The reason for the 289 and later 302 was more power, not design problems. Remember back in 1962 Ford had few small cars in which the 221 would be enough power when the Falcon and Mustangs came out the engine was ready for this size vehicle, the 221 came out in 1962 and in 3 years (1965) the 289 was ready for those cars. Which brings us to the bore diameter and spacing, with the original Windsor design it was relatively easy to open the cylinder up to it's final size of 4 inches because the original design allowed for it, the modular engines, big externally as they are, are limited in their bore size and spacing.
Ford's modular V8s have been in production for over 13 years now! So when are these parts prices going to start coming down?

I'm not saying Ford should bring back the windsor just design a new modern pushrod V8 with a strong iron block capable of a 4 inch bore. And you can get a center plug combustion chamber with pushrods...remember the Ford Boss 429! Want low friction? Ok so use roller rocker arms and cam like the 1993 Mustang Cobra 5.0L. Keep the engine compact so when placed in an actual vehicle it can be easily serviced, the real reason the 5.0L V8 stayed in production longer than Ford planed was because Ford wanted a V8 oprion for the 96 Explorer and the OHC 4.6L was too "fat" to fit so they had to use the more powerful (at that time and emission clean) 5.0L.

Again, I'm not saying bring the windsor back, just design an all new pushrod V8 TRUCK engine and leave the OHC high RPM engine to the cars.

 

The modulars ARE lower emissions without all the tricky things they had to do with the 5.0/5.8 - they also produce more torque with less cubes.

I didn't mean they came out with the 289 BECAUSE of the weaknesses of the 221/260, I meant that they ADDRESSED them when they designed the 289.

Have you looked at the aftermarket lately? Used heads all over Ebay, even 4V Cobra heads (used) for only $500... 351W heads rebuilt are going for $250-$500 too... the Cobra heads came with cams and timing components, the 351W/302's didn't.

I simply do not understand your wanting pushrods. What specifically do you think is easier to work on with pushrods? Collapse a lifter? On a modular, it's right under the valve cover. On a pushrod, it might be possible with just the valve cover off, but more than likely, you'll have to pull the intake to get it out. The only thing I see that takes longer is removing the head or doing a timing chain - which isn't usually required on a modular EVER because they used a REAL chain, not the wafer-type of the small-block stock chain.. As for strength, the modular iron block has cross-bolted main caps. I haven't heard of any modulars cracking their blocks, have you?. Sure, you can't punch it out to 4", but why would you? In a truck you want STROKE, the modulars have more stroke than bore. Yeah, that Boss 429 made it into a lot of passenger cars and trucks, right? Again, it's not just friction, it's reciprocating weight... my 4.6L's rev more easily than any pushrod motor I've ever driven. My V10 (at 415 cubes) has more grunt then my FE 390 that's WORKED... sure the 390 pulls good at high RPM, but the V10 is still probably putting out at least as much if not more torque at peak and puts out 80% of it's torque at only 1000RPM. And this is with a STOCK motor. How do they get the extra torque? Getting rid of the pushrods probably loosens up at least 10-20 ft/lbs at least. The V10, except for the spark-plug blow, has proven to be a heavy-duty TRUCK motor - the V10 does not differ greatly in design from the 5.4L/4.6L except that it has a steel crank (because of the split-pin design). My V10 doesn't rev very high - by design - nor do the 5.4's. Yet, I seriously doubt it would be possible to get this much power with the exact same valve timing and displacement with pushrods vs OHC. Even at low RPM, that heavier valve-train WILL take a toll.

I'm done. All the advantages of OHC have been gone over and over in this thread. If you don't see that for yourself, I think you're just pining for the good-ole days .