So there is this thing with Fords they call the modular motor.
Based on the name and the manufacturers reputation for excellence in manufacturing engineering, you'd think all kinds of things were interchangeable.
They are not.
So, my gearhead family did not know that until relatively recently. My parents own a 2003 Ford Explorer with a 4.6 V8 that recently expired due to oil starvation... a thing that apparently happens to high mileage mod motors. The oil pump housing gets fatigued, and refuses to supply the required oil pressure.
A replacement 5.4 V8 engine was sourced from a 1999 Expedition with half the mileage. We replaced the wear items - Timing chains and improved oil pump; added longevity items - windage tray and trans front seal; and proceeded with swap. The plan was to use adapter plates for the intake manifold, and the Explorer fuel/ignition equipment.
It turns out:
The torque converter doesn't fit the flex plate due to outside diameter. a trip to the machine shop. [bang]
The 5.4 starter and the 4.6 starter are different. [bang]
the AWD Explorer has a special oil pan and pickup... they get swapped from the old engine. [thumbsup] We found out we needed to swap pickups when we tried to put the 5.4 oil pan on the 4.6...
The power steering pump reservoir bracket from the Explorer will not fit the 5.4 engine... neither will the pump. [bang]
Because the power steering pump doesn't fit, neither does the radiator supply/oil filter housing. [bang]
Neither power steering pump allows the pressure line to the rack to fit. [bang]
The engine mounts fit, but the aluminum block 4.6 has 4 bolts, and the cast iron block 5.4 has only 3... should be fine. [coffee]
The AC compressor bolts up. [thumbsup]
You can't swap valve covers between the engines because Ford doesn't care about interchangeability... the heads are supposed to be the same, but if they come from the Romero plant the only parts you can use are Romero parts. Windsor parts have a different bolt pattern for the valve covers because... [bang] So if someone dropped the engine and broke the oil fill thing, you can't just swap the valve covers over....
More to follow... my embellishment-prone brother tells me we are the only people who have done this. [roll]
One of the reasons I quit f@*king with cars.
Many moons ago ~'92, the SBC in my '70 C-20 Camper Special gave up when the exhaust valves hit coolant due to no lead in the gas.
The replacement rebuilt short block... had a different dipstick configuration... forcing purchase of the matching dipstick assembly.
So then, the only oil pan to available to work with the different dipstick was a make the beast with two backsing chrome POS, just for a scruffy horse-trailer and racebike-hauler.
And the pistons had a 1/4" chamfer on the top edge, for make the beast with two backsall what reason, but the CR was in the toilet.
And then some sort of bullshit on the replacement heads, can't remember exactly what shit sandwich that was.
And the brand new Doug Thorley tri-Y headers hit components two places on both sides, both the first and (replacement) second sets....
"There must be something bent on your truck, did you fit new motor mounts?"
"No, nothings bent, and yes, I fitted new mounts. The problem is you guys can't thread 1.5" tubes through a gap big enough to stick my whole leg through."
A veritable parade of dumbmake the beast with two backsery that made the Three Stooges look like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and Isaac Newton.
On a good day, that engine ran like it was dead on two holes.
Sorry. :-[
Bad memories triggered a rant.
I feel your pain, and wish you all the best in sorting it out.
Henry and Louis would wear out a hundred pairs of boots kicking asses if they were around today.
I don't know who sold you the line of shit about a 'modular motor', but Ford parts are kinda like Ducati red...
no two are the same. It's been that way for as long as I remember. :-\
Yup.....and....I find life is easier if you put the same thing back in.
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 22, 2017, 07:04:34 AM
Yup.....and....I find life is easier if you put the same thing back in.
pfft, what fun is that?
Quote from: lethe on January 22, 2017, 07:22:26 AM
pfft, what fun is that?
Well, one ends up with less vehicles to hold up walls, but some prefer it that way.
Cold
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 22, 2017, 07:29:22 AM
Well, one ends up with less vehicles to hold up walls, but some prefer it that way.
none need to do extra work these days and my running vs non running ratio is now over 50% woohoo
The thing was already holding up walls... and the engine was $free.99.
Other reasons:
More is better, and 5.4L > 4.6L.
Now when the old man goes on road trips he'll be driving something he can actually get parts for, and fits on a trailer behind my truck in case of failure (in both cases entirely unlike a 1966 F350 with a 6-354 Perkins).
Um... because?
[/reasons]
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 22, 2017, 07:04:34 AM
If the state had not cut funding for the mental institutions, this project could never have happened.
I find your sig line very dissonant with your current naysaying :P
I'm not naysaying-I'm heckling, and mostly Lethe.
Good luck with your swap.
Tell us more about the F350.
The F350 is just the latest home for this particular venerable diesel.
The 6.354 Perkins diesel and Clark 5-speed overdrive were my father's senior project at CalPoly Pomona in the 70's. Junkyard truck motor he rebuilt and installed in a 1962 pickup (IIRC, the model years may have gotten confused in my head).
The same combo then transferred to a standard E350, a box truck E350, and now back to a pickup.
In the latest installation, the lack of money for a gear ratio upgrade was originally mitigated by running the output of the Clark through a 4-speed overdrive out of an early 70's Torino as a second overdrive. On the inaugural long haul mission towing a trailer full of household goods, a guy apparently transporting a repossessed 5th wheel travel trailer with a Dodge Cummins decided to hitch a ride at 3am. The trailer was trashed, household goods, tools, and random bits of trailer were strewn across the highway. The truck still drove but the hitch was done, so first rescue mission.
The flatbed was trashed, but a military trailer had since shown up in the yard. Frame rails are 34 inches apart, just like on the truck. New bed with sides!
The coupling between the two transmissions was overwhelmed by harmonics and the hammering of the big diesel, and the drive home was slow going. It turned out that in addition to externals, the Clark needed a new input bearings. They are NLA from any source. So he bought some sintered bronze and made bushings, complete with oil groove and everything.
Then we came across a 3.55 rear end out of a more modern Ford, swapped that in and did away with the Rube Goldberg setup. That ran well around town, but on the inaugural long trip it started using coolant. All of it. Twice. He pressed on until the transmission started making horrible noises, too. He's 320 miles away, and he calls just after midnight on a Tuesday morning for rescue the second.
With the military trailer bed it won't fit in my enclosed trailer, so I grab his 16 foot flat deck. It turns out the wheel base is about 15.5 feet, and the weight distribution of the estimated 6000 lbs is about 75/25. The trailer tires were horrifically dry-rotted, so I bought a new set of 4. We were still speed limited by the sashay of death due to the poor weight distribution on the trailer.
Upon inspection, not only had it blown the head gasket but the modern low sulfur diesel acts like metal termites on the valves. The sintered bronze bushings in the transmission had been mostly returned to their pre-manufacture state of bronze powder.
Needless to say, I'd rather swap non-modular Mod motors at home than fetch that thing from the side of the road again. :D
I know this will prove something is wrong with me but...
....I kind of want it.
Was there ever any question?
No [laugh]
i suspected as much. ;D
This will bolt right up!
https://worcester.craigslist.org/pts/5963764546.html
[evil]
Careful...she's watching.
They wouldn't trade it for either kid, so I guess I'm not tossing it in the Chrysler anytime soon.
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 22, 2017, 04:29:29 PM
They wouldn't trade it for either kid...<snip>
Probably right. You should sell them and go with cash.
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/zl9cMXg1nSzNXgikyMV7sqJjrDkRrt82-VLr_0mrcZu-gqbdSua116pX_yoNbSFOV8pMv4G8DS-DFA=w1920-h1080-rw-no)]
I tried to mitigate some of the effect of wind on the towing situation by removing the hoops on the bed... the thing must have been 20 feet tall on the trailer.
Surrounded of course by the detritus of a hundred projects.
On a side note, why did I have to view the source code for the page to get that link?
Quote from: Dirty Duc on January 22, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/zl9cMXg1nSzNXgikyMV7sqJjrDkRrt82-VLr_0mrcZu-gqbdSua116pX_yoNbSFOV8pMv4G8DS-DFA=w1920-h1080-rw-no)]
I tried to mitigate some of the effect of wind on the towing situation by removing the hoops on the bed... the thing must have been 20 feet tall on the trailer.
Surrounded of course by the detritus of a hundred projects.
On a side note, why did I have to view the source code for the page to get that link?
The craigslist link?
It's right there, and clickable for me.
What browser...or are you surfing from a phone?
It's not a forum problem. That's actually a photo I shared using Google plus. In the past when I wanted to share one of my Google plus photos, I would find the part that gave me the option to copy link. And when I pasted it here inside IMG tags it worked. Not so today.
I was using chrome. But I'm pretty sure it's a Google problem. The link starts the way I remember the other links starting....
Ah, I see... Ford is still hard at the same shenanigans they were up to with pushrods.
[roll]
Like Speeddog, I'm also glad I hit the 4-wheeled vehicle project's eject button long ago...
Best of luck! Seems like you've got a fair bit of it sorted.
Quote from: Dirty Duc on January 22, 2017, 06:33:05 PM
It's not a forum problem. That's actually a photo I shared using Google plus. In the past when I wanted to share one of my Google plus photos, I would find the part that gave me the option to copy link. And when I pasted it here inside IMG tags it worked. Not so today.
I was using chrome. But I'm pretty sure it's a Google problem. The link starts the way I remember the other links starting....
Google photos doesn't work good on forums for some reason.
I was considering putting a chevy small block in my 380SL a while back until I found out what a pain that was going to be.
At this point I just want stuff to work. If it doesn't then it goes.
Quote from: Duck-Stew on January 22, 2017, 11:56:24 PM
Ah, I see... Ford is still hard at the same shenanigans they were up to with pushrods.
IIRC:
Early 221's to 289's w/5-bolt transmission mounting
Later small blocks all had 6-bolt
221-302 (circa 1980?) were 28oz crank imbalance
1980?-onward were 5.0's (pushrod) and had 50oz imbalance (NOT interchangable)
1980-1982? had a 255cid V8 w/round intake ports, nothing swaps with these
351cid engines from the Windsor plant were essentially tall-deck 302's
But, they couldn't decide on deck height. 1969 351W was 9.480" & 1970-on were 9.503"
351W had larger main bearings than 302's.
351cid engines from the Cleveland plant were COMPLETELY different (excepting motor mounts and transmission mounting)
1975-1982? 351C's weren't the same as 1969-1974, they changed all the transmission mounting to mimic the 429/460 big-blocks and increased the size of the main bearings.
They called that motor the 351M. It eventually got a stroker crank and they called that the 400M...
That's just the small block crap that's still lodged in my head...
Ford's transmissions?!? Christ, they're even worse!
You're not making me look forward to finding another SBF to toss in my brother's Falcon, Stu.
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 04:36:13 AM
You're not making me look forward to finding another SBF to toss in my brother's Falcon, Stu.
I've got a few laying around if you get desperate in your search [laugh]
Quote from: Duck-Stew on January 24, 2017, 01:27:48 AM
IIRC:
Early 221's to 289's w/5-bolt transmission mounting
Later small blocks all had 6-bolt
221-302 (circa 1980?) were 28oz crank imbalance
1980?-onward were 5.0's (pushrod) and had 50oz imbalance (NOT interchangable)
1980-1982? had a 255cid V8 w/round intake ports, nothing swaps with these
351cid engines from the Windsor plant were essentially tall-deck 302's
But, they couldn't decide on deck height. 1969 351W was 9.480" & 1970-on were 9.503"
351W had larger main bearings than 302's.
351cid engines from the Cleveland plant were COMPLETELY different (excepting motor mounts and transmission mounting)
1975-1982? 351C's weren't the same as 1969-1974, they changed all the transmission mounting to mimic the 429/460 big-blocks and increased the size of the main bearings.
They called that motor the 351M. It eventually got a stroker crank and they called that the 400M...
That's just the small block crap that's still lodged in my head...
Ford's transmissions?!? Christ, they're even worse!
All that, and now throw in the production date changes in between.
There's a reason Ford parts guys drink. ;)
Quote from: lethe on January 24, 2017, 04:38:27 AM
I've got a few laying around if you get desperate in your search [laugh]
I was looking for a 289 or a 302, ideally with a manual transmission already mated to it, just to make life easier.
Quote from: ducpainter on January 24, 2017, 04:40:33 AM
All that, and now throw in the production date changes in between.
There's a reason Ford parts guys drink. ;)
Heh.
Just the other day I deciphered some casting numbers for a friend to determine what exactly was in a '67 Mustang he bought. He was sort of amazed. Funny how that stuff sticks in your head.
It's sort of like a curse...
Quote from: Speedbag on January 24, 2017, 05:12:43 AM
Heh.
Just the other day I deciphered some casting numbers for a friend to determine what exactly was in a '67 Mustang he bought. He was sort of amazed. Funny how that stuff sticks in your head.
It's sort of like a curse...
It's finally been long enough that
some of the basic numbers have left my brain.
Some are still stuck there, along with prefix and suffix.
A curse indeed.
The C4 transmissions alone are enough to make someone a life-long alcoholic.
Finding a 302 mated to a standard trans is easy. Just be sure to get a 5.0 instead of a 302. WAY more common.
BTW: The 302 in the Falcoon is a rebuilt 1990's Truck 302 mated to a late 80's T5 5-speed stick with a stock flywheel.
They ain't the same thing?
(http://advrider.com/styles/advrider_smilies/becca.gif)
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 05:00:48 AM
I was looking for a 289 or a 302, ideally with a manual transmission already mated to it, just to make life easier.
the 302 I have was in an '85 Thunderbird originally and had an AOD behind it which is one of a couple sitting in some corner.
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 06:38:29 AM
They ain't the same thing?
(http://advrider.com/styles/advrider_smilies/becca.gif)
Nothing is the same with Ford.
You could take the parts out of the same model and year, and they still might be different. [thumbsup]
I'm putting a 318 in this thing.
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 06:38:29 AM
They ain't the same thing?
(http://advrider.com/styles/advrider_smilies/becca.gif)
Only displacement. ;D
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 07:05:20 AM
I'm putting a 318 in this thing.
That's just silly talk... :-*
Quote from: Speedbag on January 24, 2017, 07:07:02 AM
Poly or LA? ;) [laugh]
or Magnum, I'm sure those have some worthwhile differences from the LA
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 07:05:20 AM
I'm putting a 318 in this thing.
It runs. It drives. You're lying because Paula won't let you touch it and everyone knows it. [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
So it turns out there was a running change on the connectors for the coils... new coils fit the older harness, not so the reverse.
Already can't find the later coils from the 4.6 [roll]
Quote from: Duck-Stew on January 24, 2017, 03:54:33 PM
It runs. It drives. You're lying because Paula won't let you touch it and everyone knows it. [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
No, no, this is for the other car.
Building two is just...twice the work.
Quote from: Satellite smithy on January 24, 2017, 07:41:59 PM
No, no, this is for the other car.
Building two is just...twice the work.
Why bother a 318? Just slop an LS3 into it & be done with it...
Quote from: Duck-Stew on January 24, 2017, 08:02:14 PM
Why bother a 318? Just slop an LS3 into it & be done with it...
Just go the easy route:
(http://cdn.silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Radial-Engined-Plymouth-Truck-1-1600x1067.jpg)
http://www.hemmings.com/parts/item/Engine/unspecified/Ford-427SOHC-Cammer-FE-complete-engine/11917.html (http://www.hemmings.com/parts/item/Engine/unspecified/Ford-427SOHC-Cammer-FE-complete-engine/11917.html)
Don't be a pansy. Go big, or go home.
8) 8) 8)
Quote from: Dirty Duc on January 24, 2017, 08:04:23 PM
Just go the easy route:
(http://cdn.silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Radial-Engined-Plymouth-Truck-1-1600x1067.jpg)
Why stop there? Might as well put in a double row radial like this R2800.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-2800_Double_Wasp
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-2800_Engine_1.jpg)
Double row? Why settle for less? Allow me to suggest the four row, twenty eight cylinder, Pratt and Whitney R-4360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major) available in turbocharged, super charged, and turbosupercharged configurations.
Quote from: 77south on January 26, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
Double row? Why settle for less? Allow me to suggest the four row, twenty eight cylinder, Pratt and Whitney R-4360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major) available in turbocharged, super charged, and turbosupercharged configurations.
I saw one of those at the Spruce Goose Museum when it was in Long Beach.
Hard core aircraft porn.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major_1.jpg/1280px-Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major_1.jpg)
By Highflier - Self-made taken at the USAF Museum; Dayton, OH, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2555072
Wikipedia chided me for attribution... [roll]
So, the week has been spent getting the "special" tool to take apart and swap connectors for the coils... that doesn't work. Back to the soldering iron.
Because the valve covers aren't swapable, and the oil fill is epoxied to the valve cover, the air filter housing doesn't fit. Also, because the 5.4 is a smidge taller, the coolant overflow/reservoir/fill tank hose (probably) doesn't fit. The two engines also have different connectors for the PCV setup.
The EGR, we just moved into place with brute force and a long lever.
We also needed a mix of serpentine pulleys, but I've forgotten which idler came from which engine.
Quote from: Dirty Duc on February 04, 2017, 07:52:14 PM
So, the week has been spent getting the "special" tool to take apart and swap connectors for the coils... that doesn't work. Back to the soldering iron.
Because the valve covers aren't swapable, and the oil fill is epoxied to the valve cover, the air filter housing doesn't fit. Also, because the 5.4 is a smidge taller, the coolant overflow/reservoir/fill tank hose (probably) doesn't fit. The two engines also have different connectors for the PCV setup.
The EGR, we just moved into place with brute force and a long lever.
We also needed a mix of serpentine pulleys, but I've forgotten which idler came from which engine.
so in other words, a text book straight forward swap? [laugh]
Quote from: lethe on February 05, 2017, 04:22:27 AM
so in other words, a text book straight forward swap? [laugh]
Pretty much. At least we didn't have to make the motor mounts...
Don't forget to swap over the frambis or you could shear off the connipoly pin.
And then the frangibulator will turn into shards of medtatium? Total replacement at that point, I'm sure.
And the make the beast with two backser lives.
Last minute swap of oil pressure senders, because the connectors again were not the same.
There are a couple of lurking issues, but it runs well enough to drive it the mile back to it's home. Still needs the exhaust re-jiggered, so it's a little loud at the moment. My decision on that was to take it to an exhaust shop. Its just not worth my time to fight with that BS. The lower radiator hose solution is likely temporary... it is leaking a bit, but not a problem that needs a workshop to solve. Still needs a little trans fluid, again, not a workshop problem.
It runs, drives, and shifts. From my perspective, the job is done. :P
At this point, I'm elevating Ford to Prince of Darkness levels of contempt.
Considering the philosophy that Henry used, one would think that Ford would be all about interchangeability.
Totally tracking on that sentiment. The marketing has far surpassed the engineering and manufacturing technology in Ford's case.
We did re-use the computer, without re-programming it seems to run okay with the 4.6 manifold and injectors.
It turns out somebody removed the flexplate when getting the adapter machined... and didn't torque it properly when re-installed. Somebody is R&Ring a horrible AWD transmission assembly in the dirt despite my offer of workshop space...
The bolts were properly torqued... red loctite has been applied. The cross member will be welded back in place due to mag-chloride issues. still not my problem anymore.
See LeMons thread for more shenanigans.