6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi

   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #102  
I personally do not like siamese bores myself. I am old enough to remember how that failed back in the 70's when GM utilized Siamese bores to punch out the otherwise outstanding 350 small block to attain a 400 small block from the factory. The 400 was pretty much an utter failure.
Sure glad the 400 in my 1976 GMC Terravan wasn't an utter failure. Drove that thing for 32-1/2 years! Unlike most though, my front main seal leaked, no problem with the rear main. No other engine problems...got rid of it when the body rotted out.
XR250 Terravan Cherry Valley 1986_editedr-1.jpg
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #103  
Not to hijack the hijack part of this thread.....but what defines an engine as modular?

Im not really a ford guy....so to be honest I have never heard the term "modular" used in describing an engine before.

I tried google....and there doesnt seem to be a consensus on what it actually means that I can find.

Some are saying it means a square engine (bore x stroke are the same). Like the ford 4.6 with a 90.2mm x 90mm. Or the 5.0 in the modular family with 92.2mm x 92.7mm .....but then there is the 5.4 with 90.2mm x 105.8mm so that makes this definition not make sense.

ANother possible definition was an engine based on the same block design, just different cylinders. Like a v6, v8, and v10 that all use the same design, pistons, rods, etc just tack on two extra cylinders for a V8 vs v6. Like fords V10 is the same as the 5.4 with just two cylinders added. But wouldnt that make the GM 4.3 and 5.7 modular? Or the dodge 3.9 and 5.2?

Some say that it is the ability to make various engines of similar design without having to re-tool a whole production line. But how would you NOT have to re-tool when "modular" engines can come in different bore sizes and different stroke lengths.

So.....just what does "modular" mean when talking about fords "modular" line of engines.
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi
  • Thread Starter
#104  
Not to hijack the hijack part of this thread.....but what defines an engine as modular?

Im not really a ford guy....so to be honest I have never heard the term "modular" used in describing an engine before.

I tried google....and there doesnt seem to be a consensus on what it actually means that I can find.

Some are saying it means a square engine (bore x stroke are the same). Like the ford 4.6 with a 90.2mm x 90mm. Or the 5.0 in the modular family with 92.2mm x 92.7mm .....but then there is the 5.4 with 90.2mm x 105.8mm so that makes this definition not make sense.

ANother possible definition was an engine based on the same block design, just different cylinders. Like a v6, v8, and v10 that all use the same design, pistons, rods, etc just tack on two extra cylinders for a V8 vs v6. Like fords V10 is the same as the 5.4 with just two cylinders added. But wouldnt that make the GM 4.3 and 5.7 modular? Or the dodge 3.9 and 5.2?

Some say that it is the ability to make various engines of similar design without having to re-tool a whole production line. But how would you NOT have to re-tool when "modular" engines can come in different bore sizes and different stroke lengths.

So.....just what does "modular" mean when talking about fords "modular" line of engines.

Not hijacking at all….heck I want to know too
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #105  
It’s easy to find a problem with any engine. In this case I’m talking about the Chrysler Hemi. There are some people that have wiped cams, timing chain problems, bad lifters etc. My opinion is these problems are probably not worse than other makes, for example Ford has had cam phaser problems on some F150’s along with high oil consumption on some of the newer 5.0 engines. Also there is something known as the ”Hemi tick”. They can be noisy and while I hate to say it’s normal but it kind of is. Are people getting parts replaced when it’s just a little noisier than they are used to?

If you frequent any forum about a specific brand you will see the common problems. The reason I know about the F150 issues is because I own one. The trick is to learn to read between the lines and learn what problems are normal/bad luck and what are really major on going issues.
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #106  
modular just refers to its design for manufacturing on a line that can build a lot of different engines all at the same time. so they are designed with similar bolt spacing, pick points, cart attachments, etc.

design for manufacturing is not about having something that is similar necessarily, but something that will fit within the working envelope of all the machines, and that is easily adapted to by the assembly line. eg: a robot is easily able to torque the head bolts on a v8 and a v10, or the cart they ride on has the same clamp point on the block, etc.
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #107  
modular just refers to its design for manufacturing on a line that can build a lot of different engines all at the same time. so they are designed with similar bolt spacing, pick points, cart attachments, etc.

design for manufacturing is not about having something that is similar necessarily, but something that will fit within the working envelope of all the machines, and that is easily adapted to by the assembly line. eg: a robot is easily able to torque the head bolts on a v8 and a v10, or the cart they ride on has the same clamp point on the block, etc.
IF that is indeed true....

Then the pages of debate about the 6.2L ford being modular or not....how would one even know unless they work in the specific ford factory that makes the engine. And more important....why would anyone even care?
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #108  
Some say that it is the ability to make various engines of similar design without having to re-tool a whole production line. But how would you NOT have to re-tool when "modular" engines can come in different bore sizes and different stroke lengths.

So.....just what does "modular" mean when talking about fords "modular" line of engines.

It‘s this^

IF that is indeed true....

Then the pages of debate about the 6.2L ford being modular or not....how would one even know unless they work in the specific ford factory that makes the engine. And more important....why would anyone even care?

Part of the reason is because the modular engines from the mid1990’s-2010 were rumored to be probelm-free or problem-prone, based on where they were manufactured. For example, the Windsor plant blocks are “known” to be better quality than the Romeo plant.

The Modular engine was a family of single overhead cam engines, during a time when almost no other manufacturer was building this engine type, in any real numbers.

The Ford 4.6L has a pretty incredible reliability history. When in doubt, look at how many former police cars lived out their second lives as taxi’s.

On the other hand…
The Ford 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 are essentially the same engine, but the 6.8L has two extra cylinders. For the first few years, these engines had a lot of trouble and they were in a lot of trucks. More trucks on the road and a higher failure rate (usually spark plug or other ignition-related) means more people sharing bad experiences. By the later 2000’s, these issues were mostly fixed, but the reputation stuck. Part of this was due to undersized oil channels which required frequent oil change or the channels would start to sludge up. As Ford was solving the issues on the first generation (1997-2003) of the 5.4L/6.8L, people were starting to see the issues come from the oil passages. In reality, the issues were largely fixed with the three valve version (2004-2017). Account for some growing pains, in the first couple of years of the second generation and it’s easier to just say, “don’t buy a Modular/Triton/5.4L/6.8L” than to acknowledge the engines from the late 2000’s to end of production were solid. Buying used, in these models, is scary due to them not being forgiving on preventative maintenance.

The 5.4L had a four valve DOHC (regular 5.4L was SOHC) version that was used in high performance applications and does not have a bad reputation. A lot of these were factory supercharged applications.

When people say they don’t like Modular engines, what I believe they really mean is they don’t like the first ten years of Ford 5.4L or 6.8L engines. As I said, the 4.6L is officially in the Modular family, but doesn’t get brought up, when people talk many failures.

The current Ford 5.0L is a Modular engine, officially. This has kept the Modular name in muddy water as the 5.0L’s have a history of excessive oil consumption and other issues. I believe we touched on those, earlier in the thread. This keeps the “don’t buy a Modular engine” idea alive.

The Ford 6.2L is not officially a Modular engine. It is not formally associated with any engine family. It shares designs from several prior Ford engines; essentially, it’s a blend of all their best technology, at the time, within the goals they set to meet.

I don’t care what you buy, but I do try to sort fact from fiction. It’s easy for people to discount the Ford 6.2L, thinking it’s just another Ford engine failure waiting to happen. After all, three out of four of the Modular engines are fairly well known to have problems, in general. Most people aren’t willing to separate out sub-models of those engines. Exacerbating the issue is the well know Ford diesel disasters (not as bad as the internet makes them sound, but still higher than their competitors), the 6.0L and the 6.4L. The Ford 6.7L came out in MY 2011, but even though it was better than Ford’s prior two diesels, the first generation had some extra issues. So, the Ford 6.2L gets lumped in with being a problem.

The reality is it’s the second most proven and reliable engine available in a HD pickup, built in the last ten years. The late 6.8L’s were good, but they were not available in the HD pickups, in the last decade. The 6.2L has many more years to prove to be as good as the venerable GM 6.0L, but if you took two trucks, one with a GM6.0L and the other with a Ford 6.2L (both built after 2012), the better truck would come down to how it was maintained over which engine was in it.

When I was looking for my dually, I wanted a gas engine. I had a few must-haves. In regard to engine I didn’t want a first year, so:
GM 6.0L from 2008, or later;
Ram 6.4L from 2015, or later;
Ford 6.8L from 2006, or later;
Ford 6.2L from 2012, or later;

Of those, my preference was to avoid the Ram 6.4L, unless it was very low mileage. The two Ford options and the GM option was a wash, other factors weighed more heavily.
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi #109  
It’s easy to find a problem with any engine. In this case I’m talking about the Chrysler Hemi. There are some people that have wiped cams, timing chain problems, bad lifters etc.
Not one issue with my 07 5.9 Cummins engine @ 135K. It has worked much harder than this 6.4 that's in my shop now.
Lifters go, which wipes the cam out. It is said due to poor oiling design.
Sad part is, dodge knows there's an issue, but fails to correct the problem.
This truck only has 80K on the meter and the engine is trashed. IMO, That's not good advertising for the dodge/ ram brand.
 
   / 6.0vs6.6, 6.2vs7.3, 6.4 Hemi
  • Thread Starter
#110  
It‘s this^



Part of the reason is because the modular engines from the mid1990’s-2010 were rumored to be probelm-free or problem-prone, based on where they were manufactured. For example, the Windsor plant blocks are “known” to be better quality than the Romeo plant.

The Modular engine was a family of single overhead cam engines, during a time when almost no other manufacturer was building this engine type, in any real numbers.

The Ford 4.6L has a pretty incredible reliability history. When in doubt, look at how many former police cars lived out their second lives as taxi’s.

On the other hand…
The Ford 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 are essentially the same engine, but the 6.8L has two extra cylinders. For the first few years, these engines had a lot of trouble and they were in a lot of trucks. More trucks on the road and a higher failure rate (usually spark plug or other ignition-related) means more people sharing bad experiences. By the later 2000’s, these issues were mostly fixed, but the reputation stuck. Part of this was due to undersized oil channels which required frequent oil change or the channels would start to sludge up. As Ford was solving the issues on the first generation (1997-2003) of the 5.4L/6.8L, people were starting to see the issues come from the oil passages. In reality, the issues were largely fixed with the three valve version (2004-2017). Account for some growing pains, in the first couple of years of the second generation and it’s easier to just say, “don’t buy a Modular/Triton/5.4L/6.8L” than to acknowledge the engines from the late 2000’s to end of production were solid. Buying used, in these models, is scary due to them not being forgiving on preventative maintenance.

The 5.4L had a four valve DOHC (regular 5.4L was SOHC) version that was used in high performance applications and does not have a bad reputation. A lot of these were factory supercharged applications.

When people say they don’t like Modular engines, what I believe they really mean is they don’t like the first ten years of Ford 5.4L or 6.8L engines. As I said, the 4.6L is officially in the Modular family, but doesn’t get brought up, when people talk many failures.

The current Ford 5.0L is a Modular engine, officially. This has kept the Modular name in muddy water as the 5.0L’s have a history of excessive oil consumption and other issues. I believe we touched on those, earlier in the thread. This keeps the “don’t buy a Modular engine” idea alive.

The Ford 6.2L is not officially a Modular engine. It is not formally associated with any engine family. It shares designs from several prior Ford engines; essentially, it’s a blend of all their best technology, at the time, within the goals they set to meet.

I don’t care what you buy, but I do try to sort fact from fiction. It’s easy for people to discount the Ford 6.2L, thinking it’s just another Ford engine failure waiting to happen. After all, three out of four of the Modular engines are fairly well known to have problems, in general. Most people aren’t willing to separate out sub-models of those engines. Exacerbating the issue is the well know Ford diesel disasters (not as bad as the internet makes them sound, but still higher than their competitors), the 6.0L and the 6.4L. The Ford 6.7L came out in MY 2011, but even though it was better than Ford’s prior two diesels, the first generation had some extra issues. So, the Ford 6.2L gets lumped in with being a problem.

The reality is it’s the second most proven and reliable engine available in a HD pickup, built in the last ten years. The late 6.8L’s were good, but they were not available in the HD pickups, in the last decade. The 6.2L has many more years to prove to be as good as the venerable GM 6.0L, but if you took two trucks, one with a GM6.0L and the other with a Ford 6.2L (both built after 2012), the better truck would come down to how it was maintained over which engine was in it.

When I was looking for my dually, I wanted a gas engine. I had a few must-haves. In regard to engine I didn’t want a first year, so:
GM 6.0L from 2008, or later;
Ram 6.4L from 2015, or later;
Ford 6.8L from 2006, or later;
Ford 6.2L from 2012, or later;

Of those, my preference was to avoid the Ram 6.4L, unless it was very low mileage. The two Ford options and the GM option was a wash, other factors weighed more heavily.

Great explanation. Thanks for contributing a lot of good info here.
 
 
Top