Every take a gander at Ford performance mags. Increase stroke, cams, intakes head work and etc. The power is there naturally aspirated and Ford has the resources to pull it off. SC an engine is a fairly simple add on thats why its done frequesntly.

I don't see the OHC engines as a hiderence at all. Compare the power curves of the 5.4l and 6.8l modulars the peak hp and tq curves are down pretty low in the rpm. Do some research. The OHC motors are smooth, don't know how you can say otherwise. PSD smaller than a 4.6l or 5.4l a PSD shure as hell won't fit in an explorer, mustang or sport trac.

The 5.7l yota motor is DOHC and seems to work well. The modulars are an improvement in power and longevity of many of Fords past pushrod motors. If you don't like modulars don't buy them.

 

The 3 valves don't have much left. But the 4 valves sure do. And 300HP from a 4.6L V8 is not a joke, when you consider the low end torque. Going by that, 310HP from the Dodge 4.7 is also a joke, the 345HP of the 2008 5.7L hemi is also a joke GMs 300HP from a 5.3L V8 is a joke as well!

 

Not true. For whatever reason (some say cost) Ford went to a 3 valve head.

Further refinement of the 4 valve head would have made the Modular more than competitive with the comp.

The current NA DOHC 5.4 in OZ is at 400HP, or what GM needs 6.2l to create.

Supercharging does make up for the lack of cubes in some instances, like when a 5.4 makes as much power as a 7.0L (GT-500 vs LS7)

Tim

 

I partially agree with what you are saying, and I am a "fan" of the mod motor design.
Valve actuation has very limited impact on "power", it will give you the ability to have more air enter/enter the engine with a multivalve design and is less prone to valve bounce at higher rpm's (as well as typically being smoother).

The 5.4 (in particular) negates many of the benefits of having an OHC design by:
Small bore & large stroke limits the port size as well as the ability to have a high redline and benefit from a simpler valvetrain (in comparison to a pushrod).

The current Chevrolet engines are also the best examples of any pushrod engine, I have always staunchly believed that it was archaic to have a pushrod engine in todays world, but the light, powerful, compact (and surprisingly low NVH and rev happy) engines of Chevrolet's current generation certainly put up a solid argument about the benefits...

However I don't think there is many gas engines engine on the market which has the proven reliability record of the mod motor.
I mean, pull one apart with some miles on it (I did when I changed the head gaskets for fatter units on my 5.4) and the darn thing looks like new.
I think in all forms they are well set up for boosted performance applications as well.

They certainly are a "generation behind" the current 380hp+ Hemi, Toyota and Chevies (and even the Titan's 5.6), but their real world proven reliability does in some ways make up for it.
Not stating that the other engines aren't "unreliable" - but none of the other engines (5.3 etc. Chevy being a moderate exception) have covered nearly as many miles as the Modular motors.
Its 420hp ya whipper snapper.

 

I hardly find OHV engines archaic, especially when they have multi-displacement systems, cam-in-cam variable valve timing, dual sparkplugs per cylinder, variable geometry intakes, etc..DOHC is only about 8-12 years older then OHV anyways.

 

Ok , compare these curves to what? the chevy and dodge pushrod motors with lower rpm peaks? not sure what you are trying to say here.

Im not sure anyone said they were no smooth, however, all those cam drives and extra spinning shafts just below a plastic valve cover are quite a bit noisier. There was no advantage in the trucks by doing this.

the physical dimensions of each of these engines is well published.

The 302 is almost 19" wide. the 351 21" The 4.6 sohc is 25.5 wide, the DOHC 30"

the 302 and 351 are 21 and 24" tall respectively. the 4.6Sohc is 26" tall, the DOHC is 30" tall.

Why dont you quote us the sizes of the PSD since you entered a little smiley face...Im sure you wont mind.

the 460 shares nearly the same dimensions as the SOHC. but is dwarfed by the DOHC. Yeah. REAL convenient.

They are? the 5.4 is 10 years old. Nearly every single one of the first few years has been replaced. How many here have had a 302 or 351 replaced - EVER - with less than 1/4 million miles on it? You can maybe make that statement 40 years from now, if you accumulate the same track record, which based on the previous - you wont. The 4.6 is older. They are hands down the worst quality motor ford ever produced. Worse than the pinto engine, or the 2.3 in the mustang which was so bad it cracked pistons on the dealers lot. from the first miserable day they showed up in a town car or crown vic. I dont think too many people are braggin about them.

and as for power - for every modular motor, chevy is building a pushrod motor that is smaller, lighter, costs less to build, has fewer moving parts, has a better track record, that makes more power and torque. Are you telling me ford could not do the same? Criminy, even the fake-hemi dodge motors are doing the same.

Dont worry, I have managed to avoid them thus far. well except for the ones I have to fix.

 

Hate to break it to you, but the 5.4 has the lowest peak torque RPM out of the bunch.
Yes there was, it makes it easier to actuate more then 2 valves per cylinder, which is important on the modulars because of their long stroke to bore. And, in case you don't know, that is favorable to low end torque. Add some more valves, and you have the capability of high RPM power to add on to that low end torque.

7.3 PSD. 29.4" wide, 36.6" tall. The PSD is much bigger then 4.6, even the DOHC.
Where is your proof that nearly every single modular 5.4 has been replaced. That is such a rediculous claim. I'ver personally never seen a 302 or a 351 with more then 160k that wasn't blown up. I have a friend who bought a fine truck with a 302 that was taken care of, had around 200k on it, blew a bearing within a few months.

The modular engines are built so much more durable then the Windsor series. The windors have two bolt mains, the modulars have 6 bolt, cross bolted main bearings. The engine is just overall built larger and stronger. There are plenty of Mod motors running over 200k, theres even a 2valve that made it to over a million
GM 5.3, 315HP @ 5200 RPM, 338 lb-ft @ 4600
Ford 5.4 310HP@500 365 ft-lb @ 3500.
GM 6.0 360HP @ 5600 RPM, 380 lb-ft @ 4200RPM.

Where is this magical more power and more torque at lower RPMs from the same displacement?

 

Lead Head covered it..... Thank You sir.

My 6.8l is super smooth and quiet, even after 5 years. My 302 is much louder and rougher. I have nothing against pushrod motors, I like my 302 but I know its not on the same level as even the 2V modulars.

Its not just the physical size of the PSD long block. You also have to consider all the other parts and accessories needed to make the engine functional and the overall weight. Even in the SD the PSD is cramped. The modulars are fairly large because of the degree of the V and tall heads OHC heads.

5.4l soffered in the current E-series: (Peaks pretty low in rpm range)

5.4l 16 Valve : 255hp @ 4500rpm and 350tq @ 2500rpm

 

i gotta disagree on the 4.6 being the worst motor Ford ever built..

i had one in my '96 Gran marguis.. had well over 200K KMs and althou i did burn a "small" amount of oil, it ran perfectly..in fact i never had to do a lick of maintainence (other then oil/filters of course) to the engine while i owned it..

sadly the rear end started to go so i sold it off, before it packed it in completly..

im not sure how much better a engine has to be then 100% brreakdown free track record...but to me the 4.6 ( and later the 5.4 i had in my 2000 F-150) is a great motor..

 

I love havin all this info handy. thanks guys! I have been a ford fan because I know first hand how tough the older ones are. I am willing to choose a truck with less than superb looks if it is truck like and has what im lookin for but these newer ones are so darn ugly in my opinion, but when i look at a chevy interior i just wanna get in and drive it away. Also i dont mind having low end torque and being a little slower than others but the margin now is ridiculous, I am young for awhile longer and want somethin that pushes me back in my seat. I figure If I gotta get a heavy load going faster ill just push the pedal harder. just my thoughts.

 

The limited HP rating on the N/A versions of the Modular engines is due to air flow. The very small bore and bore spacing of the block, makes them impossible to put larger, fre flowing valves in the heads. The new 6.2L series of engines fixes this problem with larger bores and wider bore spacings while still using the OHC deign. It should be the best of both worlds.
Jack Roush has a 7L version in a Mustang making about 800hp N/A on E-85 right now.
The Raptor due out next year has a 500hp version of the 6.2L while the standard 6.2L due in 2011 will be 400hp/400lb/ft at last I heard.
As for design, the LSx series of GM engines are very potant and very efficient. Too bad the rest of the vehicles are not so great.

 

Ill give it to the 6.0 it is a fast engine, but it wasnt fast enough, Me and my buddy pulled up next to each other doing 20 and hit it all the way to 100 and he couldnt pull away from my 04 sport trac with the 4.0, now if we had kept going to over 100 he would have slowly pulled away.

 

Wow then your buddy wasn't trying then those sport tracs are nice but very weak with a 4.0. he should have pulled you with no problem.

 

his 6.0 and my 4.0 are not stock

 

Amen to that. Don't get me started.