Ford Engines
Doug Meredith
their own marine engines have been put on indefinite hold. They will
contine to sell engines to companies that marinize their own engines.
Their plans to use the Lightning Supercharged engine in partnership
with Sterling Performance is still ongoing, but at a much slower pace.
From Powerboat Magazine May 2002 issue.
Mark Kovalcson
Ford really shot themselves in the foot in this regard, not that this
market is a real money maker for them.
Doug Meredith
"Mark Kovalcson" <mkova...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3CB88DF9...@comcast.net...
> Looks like they should have continued working with PCM. My guess is
that
> Ford really shot themselves in the foot in this regard, not that
this
> market is a real money maker for them.
The marine market for Ford engines was small to say the least.
Mercruiser has never used them, as far as I know. OMC used them long
ago. That leaves the ski boats, and thats not anything to a company
that builds as many engines as Ford.
I'm not familiar at all with Ford's current engine offerings, but
unless you go to the big stuff, don't they not really have anything in
the 5.7 size?
Mark Kovalcson
> That leaves the ski boats, and thats not anything to a company
> that builds as many engines as Ford.
We are a pretty tiny market.
> I'm not familiar at all with Ford's current engine offerings, but
> unless you go to the big stuff, don't they not really have anything in
> the 5.7 size?
The 5.8 was it. The new 5.4 tritons are close, but I think the fact that
CC was using them with super chargers suggests that it was lacking umph.
Doug Meredith
> Doug Meredith wrote:
>
> > That leaves the ski boats, and thats not anything to a company
> > that builds as many engines as Ford.
>
> We are a pretty tiny market.
Yup, which is why I believe that Mercruiser never really went after
that market.
> The 5.8 was it. The new 5.4 tritons are close, but I think the fact
that
> CC was using them with super chargers suggests that it was lacking
umph.
Thats what I thought. 5.4 is what about 325 CID? I don't know torque
numbers, but if PCM didn't want to use it, it had to be that they felt
it wasn't good enough, or too small, or maybe too expensive to
marinize.
Geoff McNabb
"Doug Meredith" <dou...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a9ari1$6t0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
lacking in power. Maybe too expensive before marinization even begins?
I've often wondered about the cost of Ford Triton engines relative to GM
pushrods, esp. the old 350s.
lifespeed
> that
> > CC was using them with super chargers suggests that it was lacking
> umph.
>
>
> Thats what I thought. 5.4 is what about 325 CID? I don't know torque
> numbers, but if PCM didn't want to use it, it had to be that they felt
> it wasn't good enough, or too small, or maybe too expensive to
> marinize.
Having just disassembled a 4.6L Ford for rebuild and upgrade (tow
vehicle) I can see many features that add to the efficiency of the
Ford modular motor. The reduced friction of overhead cams is real.
They also use some cheap stuff the marinizers shouldn't (wouldn't ?)
touch, like powdered metal connecting rods and cast pistons.
I would have to say the biggest downside I see to the Ford engine is
cubic inches. If they offered a 5.7L motor with the latest high flow
heads, it could give GM some serious competition. The Ford modular
motor does want to run at higher RPM to take advantage of its best
features, also. Higher RPM aren't particularly well suited to the ski
boat market, but would still work if properly tuned.
- Lifespeed
reg
Doug Meredith wrote:
>
>
> The marine market for Ford engines was small to say the least.
> Mercruiser has never used them, as far as I know. OMC used them long
> ago. That leaves the ski boats, and thats not anything to a company
> that builds as many engines as Ford.
>
Well, that might be the pleasure boat market in the < 25ft range, but what about
larger boats (smaller than the ones with twin CATs) and commercial, e.g. fishin'
boats ?
Once upon a whenever it was a simple matter of just "marinizing" truck engines
(-:
\R
matt
big block, the doghouse is huge and takes up the entire interior of
the boat. Maybe Toyota can find a use for it in their new boat.
Tom Ruta
Toyota back in the boat business? News to me.
Tom
TIMEA.STEVE
A. Bishop
the market. They come through a branch of Ford, called Ford Power
Products. This branch sells engines to commercial applications such
as generators, fork lifts, man lifts, compressors, etc., along with
marine markets. It might be possible they thought the marine market
was lucrative enough to cut out their middle-man, if it was small
potatoes, do you think they would have went after it? They basically
cut their leg off instead of shooting their foot if you ask me.
Ford has not made the 351 block for several years, they made a bunch
and inventoried them, so it's hard to say what engine Ford wanted to
bring to the marine market.
I agree with Lifespeed on this one, you need cubic inches. 350 cu
inches seems to work great for our ski boats with power to weight
ratios. You could go up to a big block, but you add a lot of weight.
Go to a smaller v8 like the TOYota, and you are revving like a banshee
to create the torque. I wonder why they have not been able to come up
with a suitable cam and piston displacement combination for the
TOYota?
I think chevy is the only viable option at this point. Although not
as popular in the ski boat market as the Ford, the 350 block has been
marinized in the cabin cruiser market for a long time.
AB
Tom Ruta <ru...@cadvision.com> wrote in message news:<3aoubu4a56bks39eb...@4ax.com>...
Ed Weber
>as popular in the ski boat market as the Ford, the 350 block has been
>marinized
FWIW--while delivering at the Chevy Plant the other day, one of the workers
told me that they just received word that the Tonawanda Plant (GMPT) will be
getting a new 3.9 Liter V-8 line in . ( I think he said for a 2005 GM model )
He also said that GM hadn't made a public announcement yet. This would be in
addition to the existing 454 & 502 lines, 2.2 liter 4 cyl. and almost up and
running 1.8 liter 4 cyl. plus the new inline 5 cyl. destined for the S-10.
Please bear in mind that this info. is from the floor so I can't be sure of
what will actually transpire, but these guys are usually right on the money.
Another interesting story from the floor is that Chevy has to hire some "Human
beings" for the 2.2 line because the the demand for the 2.2 has outstripped the
speed of the automation turning out the engines.
lifespeed
Those modular engines are really wide, too. Not much of an issue in a
V-drive, but in a straight inboard it gets awkward.
- Lifespeed