Events at Ford Motor Company have been silently spelling the end for their bread-and-butter V8 of the last two decades. With the cancellation of the Panther platform (Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car) and Ford’s movement to a predominantly V6 based lineup in their F-150′s, the smooth and hardworking 4.6 liter V8 is almost extinct.
The 4.6 liter engine was the replacement for the Windsor family of Ford V8′s. Having been introduced in the 1962 Ford Fairlane as the 221 cubic inch V8, the Windsor engines would ultimately be found in many familiar sounding sizes (289, 302, and 351) and would power everything from Falcon’s to F-350′s. It was quite a versatile engine yet it had lived its life. It was time to move on and Ford definitely did not allow for much confusion when it created the 4.6.
The 4.6 liter V8 was the first of what was dubbed the “Modular Engines” from Ford. Many have misinterpreted the meaning of “modular” in describing the 4.6 and 5.4 liter V8 plus the related 6.8 liter V10; “modular” was used to describe a manufacturing process, it was not a reference to parts interchangeability. With a bore of 90.2 mm and a stroke of 90.0 mm, this engine was very nearly a square bore. At the time of its introduction in the 1991 Lincoln Town Car, it was the only V8 produced by a United States manufacturer to have an overhead cam valve train (Update: also the limited-production Corvette ZR-1). After roughly forty years of American consumers having lived with overhead valve V8′s the overhead cam was a distinct difference – and perhaps part of why the 4.6 is periodically a misunderstood engine.
With its introduction in the ’91 Town Car, Ford was wise. Lincoln buyers likely didn’t care what engine their car had as long as it was smooth and made good power. The 4.6 was certainly a smooth engine and a good power plant for a 4000 pound Lincoln. Rated at 190 horsepower that first year, the new 4.6 created forty more peak horsepower than the outgoing 5.0 liter V8. Fuel economy was the same with an EPA rating of 15 city and 22 highway (as per current EPA methods).
The 4.6 would be standard equipment in 1992 for the updated Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. This engine would be the exclusive power plant for the Panther bodied cars until their demise in 2010.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/thunderbird_10gen/thunderbird_10gen_lx/1996.html
As the 1990′s unfolded, the 4.6 would continue to emerge in a greater variety of Ford Motor Company products. 1994 would see the 4.6 between the fenders of the Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar where it would remain an option until the temporary termination of the Thunderbird in 1997. A 1996 Thunderbird is shown here.
www.edmunds.com
1996 would see the 4.6 liter arrive in the Mustang GT, much to the initial chagrin of the Mustang and 5.0 liter faithful. In its initial appearance in the Mustang, the 4.6 liter engine was rated at 215 horsepower.
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-250/1997/
1997 would see the expanded versatility of the 4.6 with its placement in the new F-150 and the E-Series vans that had been redesigned for 1992.
While the intent of this article is to focus on the 2 valve version of the 4.6, it needs to be noted there were 3 valve and 4 valve versions offered at various times. The 4 valve version was introduced in 1993 as the InTech V8 for use in the Lincoln Continental and Mark VIII. As initially found in the Mark VIII, it produced 280 horsepower and 285 lb-ft of torque. The 3 valve version was first used in the 2005 Mustang and later in the ’09 F-150. Interestingly, the 3-valve was rated at 300 horsepower in the Mustang and 292 horsepower in the F-150; both were rated at 320 lb-ft of torque. That should be viewed as a testament to refinement and ever-expanding engine technology.
In the interest of full disclosure, this author owns or has owned four vehicles powered by the 4.6 liter V8; a 1992 Crown Victoria, a 1996 Thunderbird, a 2001 Crown Victoria, and a 2007 F-150. These engines were anywhere from brand new (in the case of the Thunderbird) to having 140,000 miles on the ’92 at the time it was sold.
The general driving characteristics of the 4.6 were remarkably different from what most operators were accustomed. Let’s look again at the ’91 Town Car as compared to the ’90 Town Car. The ’91 is rated at 190 horsepower whereas the ’90 generated 150 horsepower from its 302 cubic inch (5.0 liter) V8. However, the ’90 generated its peak horsepower at 3,200 rpm, a full 1,000 rpm lower than the ’91. Similarly, when discussing torque, the ’90 had a 10 lb-ft advantage over the ’91; the ’90 also generated its peak torque at 2,000 rpm whereas the ’91 generated its peak at 3,200 rpm.
The author has observed several instances of people’s misperception of the capabilities of the 4.6 liter in pickup applications – where torque truly is king. Recently, he was approached by a field employee requesting a 3/4 ton pickup. As this employee would soon have a periodic need to pull a 4,000 pound trailer, the employee was concerned about damaging his 4.6 liter powered pickup. Despite providing Ford’s engine rating of 248 horsepower and the towing capacity chart for ’08 F-150′s to the employee, there was still an above average level of skepticism. A field visit to take turns pulling this trailer resulted in the employee being convinced while saying, “that’s a really small engine; it’s a lot stronger than I thought.”
As introduced in the ’97 F-150′s, the 4.6 made 220 horsepower at 4,750 rpm with maximum torque of 265 lb-ft at 4,000 rpm. When compared to the 5.0 liter in the 1996 F-150, the 4.6 has a 21 horsepower advantage at 550 more rpm’s; torque is within 5 lb-ft at 270, but it is fully available at only 2,400 rpm. By current measuring standards, the EPA rated the 4.6 liter in model year 1997 two-wheel drive applications as being capable of 20 mpg – 3 mpg better than the 5.0 liter V8 from 1996.
The 4.6 simply revs more to generate its power. For many accustomed to the immediate torque of pushrod V8′s, this was a distinct difference.
While the 4.6 is a stout engine, its 20+ year production run hasn’t been free of blemishes.
www.rockauto.com
Information on the valve guide seals is rather scattered. From what can be gathered, the valve guide seals in the 1995 model and older 4.6 liter engines have a tendency to deteriorate prematurely. For this engine it is a more complex than normal repair given the overhead cam drivetrain. Repairs can be made without removal of the heads, but it does require special tools to work around the camshaft. This repair does pose a higher degree of complexity than a similar repair on an overhead valve engine.
It is still not unusual in this part of the United States to find cars powered by early versions of the 4.6 to be blowing smoke upon acceleration. The author’s ’92 Crown Victoria had a similar issue that burned a quart of oil approximately every 500 miles. Posts on various message boards will have claims of twice the oil consumption in some instances. Claims are made that this began at as little as 75,000 miles with 100,000 to 130,000 miles being the general range of the seals beginning their decline. 1996 is the general claim on when this problem was effectively corrected from the factory.
www.steeda.com
Changing the spark plugs on the 4.6 liter V8 has been a distinct issue for some. While the location of the plug itself is unusual – it is accessed adjacent to the intake manifold and is quite deep in the valley of the engine – the bigger concern of many is the breaking of spark plugs during removal. Ford has even issued a technical service bulletin to address this issue. The causes are varied yet it appears the issue revolves around two items: the temperature of the engine during removal and the aluminum heads of the engine.
Let’s take a better look at where the plugs are located. On the left side of the picture, you can see two plastic connectors pointed straight at the spark plug holes.
Fortunately the author has not encountered this on any of the 4.6 liter engines he has owned, yet the issue is real. Common advice found is to change the plugs only when the engine is cool and to be gentle throughout the process. Any experiences by the commentators on this or any other challenge described is welcomed. There is a similar issue with spark plugs on the 3 valve 4.6 liter engines due in part to the construction of the plug itself, although that is outside the focus of this article.
Beginning in 1996, Ford placed intake manifolds on the 4.6 liter engines constructed of a nylon composite manufactured by DuPont. This worked well for a while.
In time, many of these intake manifolds would fail in the area coolant was routed. This picture shows a failure along the front of the manifold; various sources will show various locations of failure. The author experienced an intake failure on the engine of his 2001 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor at 128,000 miles. This particular failure was a crack in the thermostat housing that dumped coolant on the ground overnight after a 25 mile trip. As Ford has classified these manifolds as a wear item, an aftermarket unit with an aluminum coolant passage was installed.
In the early 2000′s, there was a class action lawsuit brought against Ford due to the failure of these intake manifolds. Ford did provide replacements as part of the settlement, albeit for a very short period of time.
Ford’s 4.6 liter V8 has had a few issues during its lifetime, however none of these directly relate to the overall durability of the engine. Finding stories of 4.6 liter engines with over 300,000 miles is not hard to do; on a recent trip to Kansas City the author rode in a Crown Victoria taxi with 362,000 miles on the odometer. These are robust engines that can often be found in very tortuous use, such as police and taxi service.
As mentioned for the Mustang, this power plant was not readily met with enthusiasm by the performance crowd. Times have changed as the aftermarket has caught up with demand. Further, the 4.6 is now a popular engine for transplants into other vehicles, such as Rangers and older Ford products from the 1950′s and ’60′s.
Despite the production of this engine currently being in E-Series vans only, these little power plants will continue to power current and future Curbside Classic’s of many varieties for countless years to come.
www.therangerstation.com
Had one in my civilian model 2001 Crown Vic. Even with the restrictive factory air filter box and wimpy single exhaust, it felt pretty stout. Once I modified the airbox and added dual exhaust with low-restriction turbo mufflers, I could roast its mushy Michelin touring tires at will.
I still kinda miss that car sometimes, but after nearly five years of ownership I was ready to move up. Traded it in on an 80,000 mile ’95 Lexus LS400 and don’t regret the decision one bit.
What about Chevy’s LT5 in 89…that was a DOHC engine…
You mean the Lotus designed, Mercury Marine produced, limited production LT5.
yeah that one…sorry I couldn’t resist.
Limited production is sort of a cop out…it was only limited production for two reasons…1) they didn’t sell many because not many were bought…and 2) it would have been limited by the production capacity of Mercury Marine if they had sold many
I always chuckle when I see cars listed as “limited production” or “super rare”…the majority of the time this only happens because no one buys them in the first place
Er, didn’t the ZR1 package add more than $30,000 to the list price? From that, I would conclude that Chevrolet wasn’t expecting to sell a lot of them…
I’ve never heard of the early engines having problems with the spark plugs breaking off, that is a 3 valve version thing. Now the first version of the PI (performance improved) head only had about 3 threads for the spark plugs and they are known for blowing out of the head particularly if someone, or the machine at the factory, overtorqued the plugs.
Only removing the plugs on a cold engine if it has an aluminum head is a long standing practice. The different expansion rates of the metals mean that there is more interference in the threads and you can strip them if you remove them hot.
In regards to the oil consumption and the valve guide seals, I have not seen it as a big of an issue as many make it out to be. I’ve had several with lots of miles that did not smoke or use excessive amounts of oil. My current 92 has over 190K on it and it does not use more than 1 qt per 1000-1200 miles. The 93 that I sold to my buddy is at over 280K and while his is leaking some from the front seal it uses about the same amount of oil as mine.
All in all the modular engine family is one of the best engines ever.
I know the thread issue was a problem in the 5.4, I didn’t know it was an issue in the 4.6. I do know the two-piece plugs in my ’06 5.4 are the dumbest spark plug design I’ve seen in a modern vehicle. It’s pretty much a given that some will break if you wait until 100K to change them out. It’s not uncommon to cost $1200 or more to change plugs.
If they are charging that much for spark plug replacement in a 3 valve they either do not know what they are doing, or are flat out ripping you off. Yes it does take longer than most vehicles since the procedure is to crack them loose 1/8 of a turn or so, add a table spoon of carb cleaner to each spark plug well and then let it sit for an hour. Then if they don’t turn easily at that point add another little bit of carb cleaner and repeat. If the shell does break free then there are tools to remove it relatively quickly. So even if you do leave a shell or two in the engine it still should not be more than a 3 hour or so job.
The spark plug access problem reminds me of the frequent complaints levied against big block Mustangs: Unless you were Plastic Man, getting at the plugs on an FE engine in one of the smaller Fords was dangerously close to being an engine-out job.
Was it the Boss 429 that required either the engine to be jacked up to get at the last spark plug, or was it the brake master cylinder had to be removed?
It’s recalling the high-maintenance those ‘legendary’ engines required that takes the legend down a bit for those who actually had to live with them.
When the 4.6l powered Crown Vics and Town Cars started showing up en masse as taxis and police cars I remember nearly every one of them eventually having a blue cloud of smoke following it around… but that was only the early models and this is in a driving environment where these cars got a lot of abuse. Likewise, I had a ’95 Grand Marquis that was smoking by 150k miles – but it lived a tortured life. My brother has a ’97 with about the same amount of mileage/abuse and it never burns a drop of oil.
2004 F150 Heritage standard cab, aftermarket flat bed, 90,000 miles, dual exhausts installed, everything else stock in the drive-train. Burns a 1/2 quart every approximately 5,000 miles between oil changes, usually in the mid 20s hwy fuel economy (and I drive 75mph).
Good power, very solid and decent. Recently scared me coming out of a car wash. Tires were wet but I didn’t think it had enough power to do anything other than chirp the tires. I wanted to get ahead of traffic that was coming. Did a fast and furious imitation. I was reminded to respect the V8. (FYI that aftermarket flat bed is heavy, even unloaded so I was startled by still having enough power to spin them like that.)
My mother replaced an 85 Crown Vic (5.0/AOD) with a 93 with the 4.6 and the electronically controlled tranny. Huge, huge difference. I am surprised at the difference in the torque numbers, as the newer car always felt much stronger even off the line. The 93 had a very aggressive throttle tip-in, so maybe this was on purpose to disguise a shortage of torque on the very low end. Also, the electronically shifted gearbox was a huge improvement, as the AOD had really hampered the earlier car with the Windsor engine. A properly shifted and geared 351 in my 94 Club Wagon was a real torquemonster.
I still own the 93. We started seeing oil consumption issues not long after getting the car in 2005 (at around 63K) and I would say that about 1000 miles per quart is about right. Each of my children has learned how to check and add oil. I will also add that the 4.6 has nowhere near the tendency for cooling system leaks as found in the Windsor.
The spark plugs are interesting, waaaaay down in a deep little well. I once spent an hour trying to fish a teeny piece of walnut shell out of one of those plugwells. Not fun. Thank you, squirrels. All in all, I have been quite happy with the service I have received out of mine. The way things look, this engine (at 22 years) is not going to match the longevity of the Windsor engine (well over 30).
Personally having owned a pair of early 92 CVs with the mechanically shifted AOD I prefer it to the electronically shifted AOD-E I had in the 93. With the AOD I always knew when it was going to shift, the AOD-E not so much. They did improve the shifting schedule on the later AOD-E that was renamed the 4R7x(w) and the ones in our 02 GM and 03 Marauder do not annoy me like the one in the 93 did.
The first 4.6 was only competitive as a truck engine for a short time. It’s certainly not desirable with the F-150 crowd.
I mean really, a guy wanting a 3/4 ton to pull 4,000 pounds is a bit of a dolt to begin with. You don’t even need a full size for that. Once he was into a full size, he may as well have stepped up to the 5.4 in 08, as there is little to no difference in real world economy on that generation and resale on the 4.6 trucks was not good. F-150 forums are full of people disappointed with the perfomance, economy, and resale of their 4.6s. Reliability seems to be good though.
Techincally the 2011-current Coyote 5.0 is derived off the modular 4.6 as it shares the same block dimensions and bore spacing with it., Though, parts interchange is virtually zilch between them now
Great and very informative article! I recall the angst Mustang GT owners had when they learned their 5.0 was to be replaced with this 4.6! And consider the power inroads Ford had made with the 5.0 302 in the way of the Cobra version with the GT-40 cylinder heads and a speed parts market just overflowing with 302 goodies, I can understand their frustration, especially when the new 4.6 was down on power big time, compared to the GM twins. But I’ll tell you what, the later 4.6 Mustangs, when equipped with an aftermarket exhaust like Borla or Flowmaster, had an unmistakeable sound of it’s own! And of course, the speed parts merchants quickly caught up to the 4.6.
My folks had an early 4.6 in their Town Car. I do rememeber the pinging and detonation on occasion with it. What struck me though was when an oxygen sensor went bad one time, the Ford dealer tech told my Dad he was lucky the faulty sensor was on THAT bank (could not recall which side it was), for the other bank required removal of the engine, as it was that tight between sensor and firewall. Anybody ever run into that problem, or was this just one of those days at the dealership?
I’ve replaced both side sensors in early 4.6 Panthers and neither required engine removal. IIRC the driver’s side is harder to get to but not impossible.
Eric, that’s kind of what I suspected; a little additonal profit margin for the service department’s take at the end of the week!
Nice write up! My dad has a 4.6 in his ’07 shelby GT. Good engine, great exhaust note, and great power!
The 4.6 in the Panthers never die. I’ve seen junked CVPIs turned into taxis with over 400,000 miles on them that are driven to the yard and junked becuse of some other expensive non-drivetrain issue. Hell I’ve ridden in taxis with over 300,000 miles on them and the 4.6 just keeps chugging along. Taxi drivers usually beat the hell out of their cars (at least in Chicago) and the 4.6 takes it in stride. Another piece to the 4.6 longevity puzzle is the 4R70W. The 4R70W is the ultimate evolution of the AOD and it’s later iterations are virtually indestructible. The 4.6+4R70W is probably one of the toughest drive trains every produced for a car or light truck.
I’ve driven both 4.6 and 5.0 powered Fords yet I still have a fondness for the good old SEFI 5.0 HO. I think it’s that magical combination of off idle torque and the sound that it generates.
I found a website, http://www.millionmilevan.com in which a guy with a ’97 E-250 had about 1.3 million miles on his 5.4 powered van when it finally crapped out. He changed the oil every 10,000 miles, never flushed the transmission, and once went 50,000 miles between oil changes. He was a delivery driver and would often haul loads of around 3000 lbs. It was purchased with 40,000 miles.
It would have been great for inclusion had it been born with a 4.6; with the 5.4 it would have been out of place.
I’ve come across that guy’s story before, sorry to hear it finally bit the dust. I think the most amazing part is that the original exhaust lasted 900k miles driving primarily in the rust belt.
If only he had changed the oil a little more frequently he’d probably still be driving it… and Ford might even have bought him a new one. If I’m remembering correctly, they weren’t interested in using his van in their advertising because he’d been so negligent in maintaining it.
I’ve been in cabs with over 600k miles on them. Any time I get one I always check the odometer or ask the driver, and most of them where I live are ex-CVPI’s or ex-NYC taxis. Very rare to catch one with under 200k miles.
The first time we had a 4.6 in for a plug change the disaster that they are known for happened to us. The problem carried forward to the 5.4, too. It is a real nightmare when it happens.
What is the “disaster that they are known for” I have not seen or heard of a problem with the 2v 4.6 when changing the plugs. Now if you don’t do it right with the heads that only have the 3 threads then yes you can have a disaster on your hands but that won’t usually show until the engine has been through a few or hundreds of cycles.
We had problems with the ones with the three threads mostly because the techs had not done it before. We had to eat a new head on the first one we did. The tech never made that mistake again! The later ones were much better and the 5.4 is really a great motor in my opinion.
I had a bit of similar experience: the first time I changed plugs on my Crown Vic, I discovered that the previous owners had experienced “the disaster that they are known for” when changing plugs and fixed it in a very economical way: big globs of JB weld: it held for several thousand miles after I bought the car and the plug in question finally blew out upon ignition in the parking lot one day. Fortunately there was enough head left to tap new threads into the socket: I made sure to put in a stainless-steel sleeve with many more than three threads.
So it was user error. The old “I’ve changed 1000′s of spark plugs I don’t need no stinking manual” syndrome.
Part of the reason it isn’t popular in swaps is that it is physically huge. Size of the old big block motor.
I encountered this very picture when researching for this. You are correct, the physical size is prohibitive to many applications. Previously I found a website showing how to convert a Galaxie to a 4.6/5.4. It would be interesting to see one post-conversion.
An F-150 with the 4.6 is in a first place tie as my all time favourite fleet half ton. GM trucks with the 4.8 were just as good. Decent power, decent mileage, and if you followed a reasonable PM program they never broke if used as intended. I guess no one but commercial customers will miss either one, but there’s a lot to be said for proven components. The 4.6 was a pain to work on, true, but you didn’t have to do it very often in my experience.
So Jason do you notice much difference in power between your 92 Vic (190 HP) and 01 (220hp)? I’ve got an 01 grand ma and is curious how the difference in driving feels between the older coil pack 4.6 and newer coil on plug ignition.
My ’92 was a police model as was the ’01. State surplus auctions are a beautiful thing. The ’01 definitely had more punch, but the ’92 tended to get a bit better fuel mileage.
An engine I have essentially zero experience with. I always find it amusing when folks think they’re going to damage an engine like the 4.6 V8 from pulling a 4,000 lb trailer or such. Geez; in the old days, medium sized trucks used six cylinders smaller than that, with half the hp. It might wear out a wee bit faster, but who’s going to notice that?
I understand that the “Modular” name applies specifically to the ability to produce different versions on the same assembly lines, but that doesn’t negate that there are numerous modular aspects to these engines. Don’t the heads on the 4.6 and 5.4 interchange? And I suspect that the 6.8 V10 shares much in common parts-wise with the 5.4, given that it’s essentially a 5.4 with two more cylinders.
My understanding is interchangeability with the engines was a nice by-product of their construction method – such as swapping heads side to side. I did learn, which was no surprise, that Ford would make a running change on some element of the engine which precluded the ability to put the updated piece on an older engine.
My thought was the same as yours on pulling a 4000 lb trailer. When I pulled a 6% grade at 55 mph in said F-150 tugging two tons of weight, I created a convert. I’ve pulled 6000 lbs with an ’84 F-150 that had a 300 straight-six that made about 23 horsepower…definitely no rocket sled, but it did what was asked of it.
In 2010 we drove a Grand Marquis (Ultimate Edition!) 2700 miles from O’Hare to Detroit, Pittsburgh, Niagara, Boston, Belfast and down to NYC – 3 up and luggage. The car was an enjoyable ride but the handbook disclosure that there was a 4.6 V8 under the hood was a surprise. Sure it was smooth and quiet and relatively economical but the acceleration was glacial. It about matched the 2.3 Mazda we’d left at home. The 4 litre DOHC 6 cyl Falcon we’d just surrendered to the leasing company would leave it for dead. Full disclosure: the home fleet includes a 200K mile 450 SEL 6.9 so we do have some experience with torque – the 4.6 was not stellar in that regard.
The 2.73 gears in the later Panthers don’t help the acceleration, the earlier cars with less HP are quicker with their 3.08 gears. 3.23s in a HPP car or 3.55 in a LX-Sport change thing dramatically and really don’t kill the MPG. My 3.23 equipped CV consistently bettered the 3.08 and 2.73 equipped GMs in hwy MPG. granted it was only about .5mpg but still better. Part of the reason was the 3.23 geared car could pull hills in OD that the others needed to downshift for and there are lots of hills in my area. The other reason may have been due to the better aerodynamics of the early CV body shell compared to the upright rear window on all GMs and 98+ CVs.
I’ve either heard or read that there were some very Mercedes-like qualities in the design of this engine. Has anyone else ever heard this, or can it be confirmed?
So, can one of those 3-valve torquey Mustang engines be swapped into a Town Car? (No smog inspection problem where I live.) If so, how much real world difference does it make?
If it is a TC with the AOD-E then mechanically it is pretty much a bolt in affair, The problems come in the electronics side as the 3 valve was never put in front of a 4sp AT. Now you could use a computer for a 3 valve backed by a MT and one of the stand alone transmission controllers.
MT like manual transmission? Maybe not for a Town Car. What kind of automatic was the 3 valve paired with? Could the engine/trans combo be swapped into the TC? Or does that create more issues, trans mounts, driveshaft length etc.
Before reading this piece I actuially was not savvy to the 3 valve version. Previously I had always thought about swapping in a Mark VIII InTech 4-valve engine into a TC. Is that easier? For that matter, what is in a Marauder?
Yes like manual trans, I wasn’t suggesting putting it in a TC just using a engine controller for a MT vehicle so it isn’t looking for the AT and then using the stock trans and a stand alone controller.
The Marauder engine is basically the same as used in the Aviator and Mach 1 but only in the Marauder was it backed by a 4R7xW so you need a Marauder controller. The Mark VIII is a very similar engine and it was backed by the 4R70W.
Funny, I just bought this, a `99 Grand Marquis LS:
The HPP sway bars are like $47 and $54 dollars from and make for a good quick upgrade. Then for your summer tires you want the 17″ wheels from a 2002 Crown Vic LX-Sport. Reproduction versions can be had for $100 each on E-bay. Or get some of the 5 lug Fox stang wheels and 1″ spacers. Then wrap them with some 255/50 BFG KDWS or 235/55 BFG KDW. It will make a world of difference in the handling.
I was considering picking up some HPP wheels for daily duty, and leaving the stocks for when I autocross it. I love the idea of running Mustang wheels, but using spacers is something that always makes me nervous, especially if using while autocrossing.
There aren’t really any HPP wheels. For a few years before 98 the HPP cars did get 16″ wheels while the standard version still rode on 15″. However when they increased the size of the brakes in 98 all cars had 16″ wheels and you could get the wheels that had been used on the HPP cars on non-HPP cars. Nowadays there just aren’t many good tires available to fit the 16″ wheels, heck it’s even hard to find good tires for the 17″ wheels.
Is it just me or did the old 289/302/351 Windsor family of small V8s sound better than the new modular Ford V8s? The 4.6Ls sound pretty sterile.
Not sure about better or worse, but the modulars definitely sound different than the Windsors. I can only speak from the experience of driving fleet-spec, company issued Crown Vics from 1988 to 1998, but the modulars seemed more willing to rev higher (not surprising for an OHC engine), while the Windsors seemed to emit a throathier, torquier sound under accelleration. It’s definitely a subjective thing, but that sound difference may be a large part of why Mustang fans weren’t exactly thrilled when the modular showed up in the GT.
In another kind of CC syndrome, there was an article in my local newspaper today about the MV-1 wheelchair accessible taxi that is being produced in limited numbers on a line in the AM General plant in Mishawaka, Indiana (South Bend) by VPG Autos. It is a rwd vehicle and also uses the Ford 4.6 mated to a 4 speed auto. The makers of this taxi could be in for some trouble if/when Ford pulls the plug on this engine.
If only it had a Studebaker badge on it!
Do these ever have timing chain issues? I have been waiting 20 years to get a chance to replace the chains on one of these, but they never seem to break!
The early engines have bullet proof timing chains since they are true roller double row. When the 4.6 was coming out I read an extensive article on them where they interviewed the engineers who designed it. They said in their inititial testing where they stuck them in CV Boxes and gave them to taxi and police fleets that the guides tended to be in need of replacement at 350-400K while the chains themselves were good to 500K which was as long as they ran any of their test fleet. That article was one of the reasons I was willing to buy my first Panther that had very high miles for a 2 1/2 year old car.
Funny, my parents both have 4.6′s in their vehicles which were both bought new, and both now have a lot of miles on then. Dad has a F-150 XLT with a 4.6 and 4×4, that truck just keeps going and is a ’99 I think?
Mom has a ’01 Mustang GT that she got new, and has lived a hard life. It now has over 160k of in-town miles, and aside from the intake issue you detailed and some fix-ups here and there, it’s never had a major mechanical. Even the transmission and rear end have survived amazingly.
My brother bought a ’01 F-150 Sport extended cab, 4 wheel drive last year and it has the 4.6. He bought it with just shy of 200k on it, and has since taken it on a couple of road trips while also driving it daily. Previous owner towed a sprint car with it for a couple of years, but you would never know.
You hit it on the head with these engines. I really love my Dodge, but I often wonder when I’m going to cave and trade it in on a F-150 or a Subaru.
I remember Hot Rod Magazine doing a big tech article on the Modular family of motors when the debuted and I’m 99.996% sure I remember reading that Ford planned on 90 degree V6′es and inline 4 & 5 cylinder engines to go along with the 4.6l, 5.4L & 6.8L V8s and V10 we did get – a real family of Modulars. I think there was supposed to be a smaller V8 too, maybe 4.2L.
Some of the architectural oddities that limited the potential of the motor over its life span – like, why is it so huge for a relatively small displacement V8? Why was their no room growth in displacement? Why such tiny bores that shroud the valves, negating much of the OHC advantage? – are a product of the time the motor was in development and where Ford saw the future of large engines going.
At the time, must’ve been the mid-80′s when the new V8 motor was on the drawing board, it was still obvious to everyone that large displacement V8s were going the way of the Dodo bird and that ever tightening emissions and mileage requirements would make combustion efficiency even more critical. Current thinking was that small bore, long stroke motors would be easier to control emissions in (better swirl if I remember correctly). Narrow bores also allowed closer cylinder spacing which meant a shorter over all motor in length which fit in well with future plans since they were anticipating putting I4, I5, V6 and even V8 versions in transverse FWD vehicles (the Lincoln Continental did infact get a transverse 32V 4.6L V8) and shorter (less long) motors would be easier to fit between the shock towers. Long strokes led to tall and wide blocks and with taller OHC heads perched on top, you’ve got a motor with the bulk of a traditional big block but nowhere near the displacement and little room for growth because the tight cylinder bore spacing and the long throw stroke. The only solution was a taller deck for the 5.4L and an extra set of cylinders in the 6.8L V10.
GM had the benefit of a few more years with their all new, ground up design of the LS series and by that time it was clearer that the V8 was not dead yet and a few new tricks had been learned when it came to combustion efficiency allowing an OHV, large bore, short throw motor to thrive.
Ford took everything they’d learned from the Modular program and everything they’ve picked up along the way from other engines and put it all into the magnificent Coyote 5.0L. Unfortunately, the Coyote is saddled with the worst traits of the Modular, namely the basic dimensions meaning it will always be a physically large motor with no room for growth with out getting even larger. At the moment, it appears that motors will have to get smaller in the future, as it did in the 80′s – time will tell if that actually happens or not. Maybe Ford was right to refurbish the Mod motor to squeeze a few more years out of the factory tooling instead of a truly clean sheet design with better architecture for a motor without a long forseeable future – kind of like they did with the Fox platform, turning it into the SN95 and keeping it alive for another decade. Not sure why they developed two completely different V8s at the same time instead of pouring all resources into one V8 family – the actually have three different V8s going currently with the old 5.4L Modular spray-bored out to 5.8L to go with the 5.0L Coyote and Boss 6.2L.
The 2V 4.6L is a good motor but the Mustang GT deserved better (and probably the T-Bird and Cougar too). My theory is that the SN95 Mustang was always intended to get the 4V motor but with out high volume runs of FWD 4V I4s econoboxes to spread the costs around of those complex heads, it became economically unviable. Ponycar sales figures say it didn’t matter in the end though but he 96-’04 GTs’ legacy suffers for it.
The Modular name did refer to the manufacturing process but there is a lot of modularity which opens up any number of combinations when upgrading a plain 4,6L 2V motor.
There is a lot of potential hidden inside all those Mod motors, even the 2V – checkout Hot Rod’s junkyard buildup of a 2V – but the gross HP numbers can’t compare because of the displacement disadvantage and at the end of the day, they’re still very large for the displacement. The 4V motors are beautiful though.
I’d love to see some in depth info on the development of the Modular program. I think its a fascinating motor – a modern, OVC V8 from one of the big three and available in normal cars, an engine that was so outstanding in so many ways but then held back with some seemingly bizarre design choices.
Great stuff – I remember that Hot Rod article being very interesting. I don’t usually buy (or read) that magazine but I picked that one up since I’d never really seen anything else in-depth on the Modular V8 before.
Personally I think V8′s will be around for as long as people keep buying SUVs and full-size pickups. The experiment Ford is doing with the V6 in the F-150 right now they have done before, as has GM, and people always end up wanting the V8s back even if they offer no real world advantage for most buyers. I’m not even really a “V8 dude” but there’s just something awesome and distinctly American about them that I think is worth holding on to.