[Grimbrand]

I am a staunch die-hard lover of classic pushrod muscle. The huge majority of cars I've owned and the absolute majority I work on now are pushrod, carbureted, raw fuel swilling, classic engines with all of the unique character and excitement that so many of us love. But there is simply no denying the improvements that have been made in technology in the 50-60+ years since most of these old engines were designed. Comparing port flows does not begin to tell the story, of all the differences between a classic pushrod engine and a modern engine like a Coyote. You cannot begin to get the same level of refinement out of a carbureted 385 series or especially an FE as you can something modern Coyote. Effortless daily drivability and reliability in all conditions and temperatures, butter smooth and whisper quiet idle if that's what you're looking for, superior fuel mileage, and true daily drivable power levels that far exceed what you can do with any of these beloved old engines. No, they are NOT the same. Some people simply do not want that for their classic cars, and I understand that completely. I usually agree. But there is simply no denying that modern engine swaps like these provide a level of refinement and drivability that is simply not possible with a classic pushrod engine.

They aren't for everyone, nor are they for every car. I would never replace a 428CJ with a Coyote, for example. But I absolutely might replace a mundane 302 with a Coyote, if that's the direction I or the customer wanted to go with the car. They're two completely different directions for two completely different purposes. That's why I own a bunch of vehicles. No two of them are the same. I have newer cars, and I have older cars, and some way older cars. I have one older car with a complete modern chassis and drivetrain swapped in. It's not necessarily "better" than I could have built it had I kept the stock chassis and drivetrain, but it's very different, and the direction I wanted to go with it instead. It's a truly daily drivable car that I would not hesitate to take cross country and it can keep up with any modern traffic easily and comfortably. I don't think there's very many people here who would say the same about their mostly stock Mustangs, and even fewer who actually do it. So that's the difference. Most people who do modern drivetrain swaps are used to the ease and daily drivability of their modern cars, and want some of that for their classic car as well, while keeping the classic look and some of the classic character of their old car.

But it is quite false indeed to make comparisons between what you can do with a classic pushrod engine and a modern high tech engine with modern engine management, and what you can do with them.

In factory form, a 'Yote is just flat out a better engine than a factory FE or Windsor in just about every regard except size. More power. It's true.

But if you know what you're doing, and use decent parts to build an engine, with the development put into those '60s engines, it is absolutely possible to make something that can shame a Coyote in power and probably even economy. I'd be willing to bet it could be done with less money than you'd spend on a Coyote all by itself, much less the "I carved out my whole front end and redid it with less suspension travel" conversion.

It doesn't mean I'm holding up 60s tech as some pinnacle of greatness. The cheap stamped parts were as much to save money for Ford as they were to work well, and we all know it! But all that said, they did a good job on the basics, and it can sure be made good. Their "garbage 60s suspension" has the added advantage of transmitting kinetic energy to the body at multiple points - which makes sense given the relatively flimsy unibody structure on these cars.

My take is that someone with the smarts to do it can build a hot little 302, rework his suspension a bit, and come out the door a lot cheaper than a Coyote, while giving away NOTHING in terms of performance or economy.

The Coyote may be the spiritual successor to the 427 'Cammer in some regards, but its size and complexity don't add much value when you hold it up against a Windsor with good heads and a smart build, as far as I'm concerned. Still, I do get why so many millennials love 'em.

 

[Grimbrand]

I keep hearing people preaching about the beauty of the modern engine.

But when I work on them, or see friends working on them, I see sludge. I see plastic parts where metal should probably be used for better durability. I see fasteners that must be thrown away because they are one-time-use, in order to allow the original robotic assembly systems more precision in installation - not for allowing humans to make them better. I see problems with dissimilar metals corroding each other. In short, right off the assembly line, or after a fresh rebuild, they're great.

But there are many aspects that are not designed for longevity. Even the coatings inside the cylinders of modern engines ensure that they can't be rebuilt without great expense and difficulty.. Everything is as inexpensive as it can properly be made, one-time use, disposable.

The trend is toward fewer cylinders, cheaper designs. Not better designs. The improvements don't come from better geometry or mechanical genius - they come from refinement of fuel/air delivery, and combustion chamber design, along with better computerized engine management.

With less money, you can build a Windsor that will start easily, run smoothly, deliver blistering power from idle to redline, and do it all in a much smaller package. You can even get the same mileage. I just don't agree with the people that talk about 'refinement' in regard to the newer engines, unless you're talking about comparing a bone-stock 289 or 302 to a mod V8. But that's not a very fair comparison. Before you carve out the towers, rebuild your front end with a setup that has less travel, more geometry change during its sweep, and spend thousands redoing everything, what if you took a pair of modern aluminum heads (to get those better combustion chambers and runner design!), intake, headers, and backed it with an overdrive transmission, then fixed the front suspension with a few basic parts to improve geometry and reduce deflection and friction?

Frankly, that's much more interesting to me. When I see a car like that, I know that the person who built it, and hopefully the person that drives it, appreciates the original engineering. It shows that they were able to refine and improve on the original ideas, not just carrying around a sledgehammer looking for nails, and applying the 'solution' to everything they find.

The only magical thing about a 'Yote is the massive distance between its valve covers, and the fact that so many people put them in unlikely places.

Seeing everything vintage being "Yotified" is nearly as bad as seeing an LS in everything. To me it exemplifies a refusal to learn from or appreciate the wisdom of people who designed these vehicles, and it is a crude addition at best - very much in keeping with many of Wile-E-Coyote's ideas.

 

[Grimbrand]

Modern designs like the Coyote are far more advanced than any thing from the late 60s. It’s like comparing the Soyuz to the Falcon 9. They last longer, they go faster and get better fuel mileage. They are engineered for a specific price point and market. Pricing is what leads to constraints. Still though that’s why we’re able to buy a 9 sec, street legal, pump gas production car from the dealer.

Guess we'll agree to disagree. Different architecture, sure. 50 years newer, sure. More power? Stock, you bet.

Last longer? Fat chance.

 

[Grimbrand]

I built a Factory Five Cobra using a 2004 4.6L DOHC engine. I had read at the time, 2011, that Ford modular engines were known for lasting more that 200K miles when properly cared for.
Below is an article talking about the 5.4 Triton V8 which is also a member of the modular engine family. The 5.4 DOHC engine in the 2005/2006 is the big brother to the 4.6L is used.

Ford 5.4 L engine life expectancy is insane

<p>The life expectancy of an engine is one of the most important things I consider when shopping for a new vehicle. I’ve been toying with the idea of getting a new truck, and I’ve been wondering: what is the life expectancy of a Ford 5.4 engine? I did some research: On average, a Ford 5.4 engine...

www.driveandreview.com

.
One difference between the old Windsor and Cleveland engines and the modern modular engine family, the Coyote is one of the newest engines in the modular family, are the manufacturing tolerances and, as mentioned, cylinder coatings. The modular engine family is manufactured with much tighter tolerances, thus the need for thinner oils. Typical oil viscosity used is a 5W20 for street used engines.
For my Mustang build, I chose a 2nd Gen Coyote. I will bet a well cared for modular engine will easily outlast a vintage engine. While the article I reference is not conclusive, it is indicative of what real world owners have experienced. We will continue to disagree, however I have provided a bit of support for my belief, now backup yours.

The simple truth is, modern oils and fuel injection serve more than any other factor in modern engine longevity and reliability. When combined with a proper balance job and decent quality parts, even most carbureted Windsors can go 2-300k miles. Many of them do. I have personally driven a few to about 250k, despite absolutely flogging them on a regular basis. Some, admittedly, do not make it that long. =)

The basic design of the Ford Mod motors has always had some drawbacks, one of the major ones being their propensity to produce sludge. The plugs on many are also problematic. If oil change intervals are not meticulously maintained, the cam phasers are notorious for malfunctioning. In short, while the improved engine management and better quality synthetic oils do allow some of these engines to last for a long time, they are also legendary with mechanics for the seriousness of their breakdowns. Most of them cost about $4000 or more to rebuild once the cam phasers stop working, and they are a massive PITA to fix. Their timing chain tensioners and rails have problems. Their plastic manifolds leak, once they get a few years old.

The Windsor engines were never intended to last 40, 50, or 60 years; they were just a cheap solution, and Ford hoped they'd last maybe 5 years on average. But thanks to their simple, well-thought-out design, and the fact that they were built with the idea that they were to be worked on and maintained, they're still common today. They were built from 1961 all the way to 2001, and many of the early to mid 60s Windsors are still running. If you have a 1965 289 in your Mustang, it's 57 years old! The Mod Motor was designed to be disposable. It's highly unlikely that many will be in operation in 20 years, much less in another 40 years.

It's not just a failing of the engine design itself, it's a change in the focus of manufacturing. Today's vehicles are not intended to last. Quite the opposite. They are intended to be "good for now", and last just long enough that the warranty won't cause problems for the carmaker. The electronic systems installed inside frames, with sensors and chips that can't even be replaced will eventually fail, and even if you find a way to disassemble those critical areas in a way that would allow it, you still won't be able to find new parts - because they're not made.

Modern engines are built with exactly the same eye to ensuring that you will have to dispose of them, and buy a new car. Specialized cylinder coatings. Waterpumps inside the engine. Non-reusable fasteners. We are in a throwaway society - not a society dedicated to maintaining the things we own, and keeping them nice. How many people are shocked that we drive "old cars"? Almost all of them.

But there's a bright side to driving this "outdated technology". If the same careful attention to build standards is applied to a pushrod motor, and the fuel system is not allowed to wash the rings, there is no reason that a Windsor can't go many hundreds of thousands of miles. In fact, I'm betting on it with my latest 331 build. But if it does have a problem, chances are, it'll be something simple and easy to fix. =)

 

[Grimbrand]

I disagree. From everything I have experienced, heard, or read, modern engines easily outlast the life of the vehicle. Look at LS motors. When I was a kid it was a rare car that make it to 1000,000 miles, now they are just getting broke in. I have a 2002 F150 with a 5.4 motor on the other side of 300,000 miles. Not sure exactly how far since the digital odometer died a while back. The current owner of my old 2005 Focus ST is at 325,000 miles on the original untouched engine. Modern transmissions on the other hand.......

Hey, old transmissions have problems too! lol

Just so I am razor clear here: comparing an original Windsor to a new Mod motor of any kind (both in stock form) the Mod motor is going to last longer. Period.

But if you take a look at why that's true - the superior oils and fuel delivery of the new stuff - and apply it to the old engines, they last just as well or better. And when they have a problem, they are easier to fix. Any engine with proper balance, precision tolerances, and good design can last almost indefinitely when not stressed beyond their limits, and properly maintained. Heck, there's a 57 Chevy out there with over a million miles on it, and we all know that the original Bowties were no paragons of longevity.

So bragging that a Mod motor can go 200, 300, 500k miles? Meh. I mean, that's nice, but then again, when it breaks, is the problem going to be fixable, or worth fixing? None of my mechanic friends have very nice things to say about them.

And mileage is not the only ticking timebomb for Mod motors. As they age, a lot of their parts do not age well, strictly because of time. Plastic intakes are a prime example. When that stuff gets old, it's brittle, whether you've driven it every day or just once a month. Color me unimpressed.

I do have to admit, I'm looking at this from a different perspective compared to most people. My car is not a short-term possession for me. I intend to keep it for the rest of my life. With that in mind, I've made choices that will allow me to (hopefully) maintain it forever, and that includes not just availability, but my own ability to actually work on it. And with those things in mind, the Windsor's a clear winner for me.

 

[Grimbrand]

No one is bragging. A claim was made that the older engines had better longevity than the newer engines. We're pointing out as a general statement that's simply not the case.

As for working on them one needs a different set of skills and tools. Most of the techs today were trained and grew up with EFI and ECU based cars, emissions, the whole banana. Full rebuilds of modern cars used for transportation isn't necessary or cost effective. An entire industry of take out parts exists today that didn't 50 years ago. I can call LKQ in the morning and chances are I'll have a take out that afternoon or no later than the next couple of days. In many cases regular driver 4 bangers are a couple/few grand and will likely have fewer miles on what just blew up. Coyotes are more than that but can be had for about half of what a crate would cost.

In this case, the real yardstick has to include whether "longevity" means how many continuous miles will it run, or how many years it will last.

If you mean longevity as a period of time, the Windsor wins.

If you mean how many miles will it go before breakdown in stock form, the Coyote wins.

But you're opening a whole new can of worms here in regard to salvage. I was around 50 years ago (though granted, not working on cars yet!) and even then, salvage yards were very common here, with a far broader selection and much more knowledgeable and helpful people behind the counter. I have friends that owned them. Was it better then or now? Maybe that's dependent on where you live?

I think you hit the nail on the head there:

20 years from now when you go to pull a Coyote from a pick and pull, do you think the plastic parts are going to be any better than the engine you're replacing?