modified and edited 25 May 99

Even though Ford's Modular engine has won awards for being one of the best engines in the world - it has a bad rap of being doggy on power. Consider Honda's new roadster for example. Its 2.0, four cylinder engine puts out 250 horsepower. The Mustang GT's 4.6 only puts out 10 more horses. Then you have the Chevy Impala's 3.8 V-6. It puts out 200 horsepower - as much as the Crown Victoria's single exhaust 4.6. . . .even though the Crown Victoria weighs considerably more.

The media's attention concerning the lackluster performance of Ford's Modular V-8 has been more than noticed by Ford. . . that's the prime reason for the production of the SVT Lightning, Cobra R and the Marauder . These products help set the image that the Modular engine is a reliable, durable and powerful V-8 engine. But not everyone agrees on that. We'd hate to have our new 1999 Mustang GT get smoked by a Honda Roadster. . .but that's just what's going to happen.

BlueOvalNews decided it was time to go on a mission. We sought out Ford and Roush employees hoping to answer some questions. We're leaving out the Roush employees comments for now.

FordWorld interviewed Powertrain Operations Vice President John Huston and asked: Ford has been criticized by some media for "underpowered engines," What is your response?

A/ This centers around "advertised horsepower versus torque" claims. For example, the new GM truck engine will have an advertised horsepower benefit, but our new Triton V-8 will tow more because our torque characteristics. Comparisons of peak rated horsepower alone can be misleading. The GM engines produce peak torque and horsepower at a relatively high engine speed. The Ford Triton engines have been designed to produce superior torque at low speed and throughout the useable speed range. That translates to the truck customer as improved trailor towing and overall performance.

Comments from another Ford powertrain employee:

Q/ We've heard that Ford might be revising the Modular V-8 or designing an entire new engine?

A/ We are always developing new technologies - Einstein once said "As the circle of light increases, so does it circumference of darkness." Often, the more we learn the less we really know. It's critical that we (at Ford) are always looking for ways to improve our existing products - it's a continual fight to be on the cutting edge of technology.

We've actually been revising the modular since its introduction. This has been achieved with the addition of an aluminum block, dual overhead cams, and different cylinder heads.

Why make any changes at all?

The changes we would like to make are due to the fact that the Modular engine was a compromised design itself. That is to say that the Modular engine was originally intended to be used for front wheel drive and light duty applications only. It wasn't until we were into the development that we learned the Modular engine would be the bread and butter V-8. . .not at all what we the design was intended for.

Q/ How was the Modular engine compromised?

A/ We had to make the Modular engine fit not only in a front wheel drive applications, its original intent, but also in all rear wheel drive applications as well. This means that we have to compromise various attributes that we would not normally do. When you demand various expectations on a product, but place limits on its design - it all becomes relative of its function.

Q/ What are some of those compromises?

A/ The overall length of the Modular engine had to be within a given measurement to allow it to be packaged into the Continental. This length and relatively low power requirement, for instance, limited our total bearing shell width. What's ironic is that the Continental might be changed - or might not even continue to use the Modular engine at all. But that's a consequence of compromised engineering.

Q/ Is Ford working on bringing the Windsor series back into production?

A/ There are rumors that we are in the process of developing a new "Windsor" engine. It's no secret how people feel about the modular engine in some truck applications, so it's something that we have to address. It's obvious that something has to be done. While a program does exist, I cannot verify if anything will actually come out of it.

Q/ How similar will it be to the 302/351 of a few years ago?

A/ We like to call it a Windsor, but in reality it isn't one. We're working on taking the finest engineering traits of the Windsor and the Modular and combining them into one durable package.

Q/ What changes would be implemented in the new V-8, if there is one?

A/ I'd like to see an extension of the Modular engine - although an entire new design isn't out of the question either.

In a revision, what we would be doing is revising the current design to make it more durable. Specifically - we would be increasing the crankshaft bearing journal widths so that they can take more load. We would also be looking at eliminating the rocker arms on all versions of the engine.

This is primarily in response to the fact that the Modular engines were not really intended to be used as heavy duty and high performance engines. That's a key factor in the Modular Marine V-8.

Q/ Were you in favor of cutting the 302 out from production?

A/ That's really a question that has mixed answers. It's first important to understand that the decision to discontinue production of the 302/351 was a marketing one. After the marketing people started publicly comparing the attributes of the Modular series to the 302/351 engines, they really painted themselves into a corner. They held the Modular engine in such a high regard that the media started to question the reason behind keeping the 302/351 alive. We gave the media all the tools that they needed to both exploit and question the 302/351, which are excellent powerplants.

Q/ Were the Windsor's outdated?

A/ That's not a yes or no answer. In certain ways yes. Let's use the engine's cylinder heads as an example. The Windsor heads really remained basically unchanged since 1962 when they were first introduced on the 221 V-8 engine. These same heads were essentially the same through the 260, 289, 302 and 351Windsors service life. We really didn't see any significant changes in the design and it wasn't until the Mustang 5.0 gained such popularity that the after market started offering aluminum heads. Ford itself really didn't invest anything in the Windsor engine from 1962 until present where it is still used in the Explorer and the Mountaineer. So is the Windsor outdated? Can an engine that was designed in the 1950's and will still be used in 2000 be all that outdated?

The Windsor engine is without a doubt the most successful Ford engine ever made. It's an extremely stable powerplant and has won in every racing event it has ever been used in. How many V-8 engines were as successful as the Ford Windsor in all types of racing classes around the world? None. Not even the Chevy V-8 has been that successful. Not on a global scale.

Q/ What do you think Ford would have done differently today if they were faced with keep or replacing the 302/351?

A/ Well there are many contributing factors you would have to consider when answering that question. From an engineering standpoint the 302/351 didn't require any real investment. From an environmental standpoint, the Modular engine is more efficient and cleaner burning. But let's not forget that we're talking about 1950's technology compared to that of 1990's. And let's not forget my prior statement - the key in any engine's function, the cylinder heads remained virtually unchanged. From a manufacturing, service and distribution standpoint it's cheaper to have only one V-8 engine in production. It's all give and take and relative to the situation at hand.

From my prospective? We should have kept the 302/351 around for some of our truck applications. Obviously there are many pros and cons to either keeping or killing the 302/351 but I think there is a good case for having kept the 302/351 around longer. We don't receive engine quality complaints from Explorer and Mountaineer owners which use the 5.0 engine.

Q/ General Motors recently created a team of engineers who are already testing a five (5) cylinder inline engine. Does Ford have anything planned?

A/ As far as I am concerned, inline engines still have their place in truck applications. Their simple design doesn't promote extreme piston thrust angle wear. This places less stress on cylinder walls and promotes longer piston/ring life. They are extremely durable and long lasting - specific traits that really make them truck friendly.

Q/ Would you like to see an inline engine in a Ford truck again?

A / Yes. Naturally. I don't even hesitate upon answering that question. GM has the right idea by developing an inline engine for their truck line.

Q / If you could, what would you do to improve Ford's engine line up?

A / The inline engine would without question be back into the F-Series. The Modular would not. Some of my colleagues believe that there will be a point when the Modular engines will fall out of favor with trucks.

Q/ What would you do with the Modular engine?

A/ The Modular is a fine engine, but clearly, and CERTAINLY not for every product that we offer. It's not a good choice for trucks. But let's not believe that the Modular is a failure in every application because it isn't. It's an extremely smooth and efficient powerplant for Crown Victorias, Lincoln's and some Mustangs.