Marinised PCM/Ford
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20617
Printed Date: September-27-2024 at 11:59am
Topic: Marinised PCM/Ford
Posted By: Cactus
Subject: Marinised PCM/Ford
Date Posted: February-10-2011 at 10:51pm
|
Evening - Does anyone know if Ford is permanently out of the business with regard to marinised gas V-8's? I believe GM builds a good power plant; however, we are a long standing Ford family. I've recently run across Ford's new Coyote 5.0 which pushes over 400HP without rocket fuel or the use of a supercharger/blower! If Correct Craft dropped a Ford based engine in their new, 200 closed bow we would probably buy one. Thanks - JJO ------------- Cactus |
Replies:
Posted By: Keeganino
Date Posted: February-10-2011 at 11:04pm
|
Now I could be totally wrong but it is my understanding that Ford never actually did the marinising. They made the parts but then somebody else marinised it. I have a 1973 Waukesha 302. Even though most of the parts say Ford on them, the engine is considered a Waukesha. There was also a Holman Moody 302 available that year. ------------- "working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier |
Posted By: Cactus
Date Posted: February-10-2011 at 11:20pm
|
Your absolutely right! Holman Moody built some incredible engines and as I understand it, most marinised American V-8's weren't done by the big three over the past 50 years or so. (I'm fairly sure Chrysler may be an exception to the rule?) but, jus the same I'm curious if we might see the new Ford based engines back on the water.... ------------- Cactus |
Posted By: Bri892001
Date Posted: February-11-2011 at 12:17am
|
Ford is totally out of it. I believe the entire gas inboard and sterndrive industry is GM at this point.
There are some other makers for diesel (like Volkswagen!!) but for gas, GM is it. Of course, the majority of boats belonging to people on this site are Ford powered, but they're mostly the older ones. |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-11-2011 at 3:24am
|
At some point, the current GM based blocks won't be made anymore, kind of like how Ford quit making pushrod motors, and that ended the 351W based PCM marine use.
At some point, GM will stop making pushrod v8's as well, when that happens, maybe we can get ford's back in. The new 5.0 and 6.2 motors are one serious set of motors, but you never know, maybe we will have supercharged v6's at some point. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: adamt
Date Posted: February-11-2011 at 5:56am
Keeg, don't forget my Palmer! ------------- -Adam 1973 Skier |
Keeganino wrote:Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: February-11-2011 at 10:20am
|
Cactus - This looks like an opportunity for you! Got 10 or 20 million $ to invest in a startup venture? ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-11-2011 at 12:48pm
|
Both Ford and Chrysler were in the business of marinizing motors- though Ford has been out of it since the 60's. Their marine division was called "Interceptor".
For whatever reason, Ford decided to stop building the Windsor motors altogether in the mid-late 90's. The last 351w PCM's (GT40) were sold in 2002. GM, on the other hand, continues to produce the venerable 350, despite no longer offering it in their cars. It was probably much easier for the aftermarket marinizers to concentrate on the existing, proven GM pushrod engines rather than start designing and tooling up for unproven Ford OHV engines. I would not hold your breath for a new Ford powered 200! ------------- |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: February-11-2011 at 11:18pm
|
[QUOTE=TRBenj]
For whatever reason, Ford decided to stop building the Windsor motors altogether in the mid-late 90's. QUOTE] As late as '99 you could still buy brand new 302 blocks for 279.00 from Summit,should have gotten one. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: Cactus
Date Posted: February-12-2011 at 12:52am
|
I would be willing to invest! "which wouldn't amount to much when considering what it would take to ramp-up a project like this, but I would certainly jump at the chance to be a part of it"....I think at some point these modular engines will have their problem weaknesses/(missing low-end torque) resolved and there will be a real future in investing in a marinized Ford aluminum small-block given their light weight to power ratio) (Thanks to GrandPoobah) - I do recall the "hot-rod" Ford Interceptor engines powering the late sixties Century inboards among other manufacturers of the era! ------------- Cactus |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-15-2011 at 8:50pm
The reasons for ford dropping the pushrods are plenty. less NVH, less emissions, better fuel efficiency, and the list goes on. I guess the bigger question is why GM is still using pushrods? While they don't make the 350 in many cars, as most are the 5.3 or 6.0, the 5.7 350 is still used in some vettes. In any case, the blocks are basically the same for mounting of driveline items. The cost of tooling is what really did the ford marine motors in. The OHC (not OHV) ford motors are well proven in the auto industry, as the 4.6 OHC motors had been used since the mid 90's in T birds, crown vics and mustangs. I wouldn't be shocked if many of the old 350 marine motors parts would bolt up to a new 5.3 or 350. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-15-2011 at 9:05pm
Tom, you may want to stick with the Ford stuff! As far as I know, the Corvette started using the LS series engines in 1997. Or by "Vette" maybe you mean "Chevette"? Perhaps GM still sells those in Mexico or something?  ------------- |
Posted By: Bri892001
Date Posted: February-15-2011 at 11:59pm
|
Pushrod engines offer a lot of advantages over overhead cam engines. The main ones being less weight per hp and overall simplicity. And heh, no timing belts!
I remembered this Car and Driver article from a ways back and was able to find it again. The basic argument that Larry Webster makes, is that everyone makes a big deal about the better hp/displacement made by overhead cam engines. What no one, except GM in this article, ever thinks about is that pushrod engines offer greater hp/overall engine size and weight: http://www.caranddriver.com.br/features/04q2/the_pushrod_engine_finally_gets_its_due-column - Pushrod Gets Its Due |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: February-16-2011 at 9:26am
|
aftermarket chevy crate engines are a very large market, and i would think the sales boomed once Ford got out, just about every gas powered boat out there now is Chevy...I think the cast iron 5.7 will be out there for a long time ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: February-16-2011 at 10:49am
Ford did not fare to well with marinizing their modular platform. of the 5 5.4 ford/PCM naturaly aspirated motors that we ran for longevity testing 3 failed in a catostrophic manor. At that point Ford saw the writing on the wall Chevy was dominating the marine market. Had Ford started devolpment of marine versions from the onset of their modular infancy i think that they still may be players but with the failures late in the game Ford pulled the plug on ford Marine. The Supercharged units we ran were absolute beasts and ran with no failures at all. ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: February-16-2011 at 10:55am
And inexpensive, too. A friend recently bought a new GM long block, non vortec for about $1,500. How can they turn out a new motor for that price? ------------- |
Posted By: wingwrench
Date Posted: February-16-2011 at 11:37am
|
You can still buy Ford crate engines from Ford and Roush. All it takes is a phone call and $$$.
http://www.fordracingparts.com/crateengine/main.asp - Ford http://www.roushperformance.com/engines/engines.shtml - Roush |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: February-16-2011 at 11:01pm
|
Gm 350 blocks are below a grand on summit racing. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: Bri892001
Date Posted: February-17-2011 at 4:25am
|
Ski Dim sells a Brand New Engine/Transmission Bundle to replace a Ford Right Hand and 1:1 with a Chevy Left Hand and PCM 1.23:1.
http://skidim.com/prodinfo.asp?number=1611 - Ski Dim Bundle It's funny that they do it with the 5.0 instead of the 5.7 but I guess 275 is more than the original. I wonder how the performance would compare overall with the better gear reduction tranny. |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: February-17-2011 at 9:16am
|
mass production, all the tooling is in place and has been for years, its a matter of getting orders to build them. sht, they've been casting that same configuration block since the 60's. all the up front costs are a thing of the past. so basically at this point all thats needed is material and labor which most of the labor has probably been replaced with some type of automation, which automation is cheaper than mexicanation ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 2:49am
I'm not even a chevy guy, but ls1 and ls6 motors came in 5.7 liter displacement in the corvette (or chevette LOL)and in camaros. Looks like the LS series motors (2 and 6) WAS available as a 5.7 liter until recently(2004), then the larger displacement LS motors came out for 05. So, while you are correct about new vettes not having 5.7's, the 5.7 was available well past 97 as you thought. Granted it's an all aluminum motor and nothing really like the cast iron 350's most people think of. Serious advantages that the OHC motor has over OHV pushrods is that the OHC motors provide better flow capacity, less friction, and the use of a sophisticated variable intake and exhaust timing. Also, not all OHC motors have timing belts, as some have chains. Unfortunately too many OHC motors have timing belts. My 4.2 v8 audi has a timing chain, but our 4.7 v8 4runner has a belt. All the ford modular v8s and the new 5.0 and 6.2 have timing chains too. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 12:18pm
Tom, youre backpedaling. I never said anything about the "5.7". I said 350. The LS1 was a clean sheet redesign in '97 and was 346ci. ------------- |
Posted By: Bri892001
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 12:38pm
|
I worked at a Cadillac dealership service dept., briefly in Fall of 2010.
Anyway, a lot of the SRX's with the overhead cam V6's and the timing chains used to have problems. I guess the chains would stretch and then trigger the cam position sensor. This one guy was like an expert at changing them. It was literally like watching a factory robot, he was so efficient at it. The chain stretch situation made a lot of dough for that guy. I've gotta say though, after watching him do a few of them, I'd still have a hard time doing it myself. It was a complicated job. I think the Escalade 6.0s (similar to our PCM 409hp) were pretty bulletproof. I believe they were really just an evolution of the 5.7. I saw Escalade's with all kinds of problems, although it was largely just the chrome wheels failing and becoming porous. Never any problems with those engines. I've got to say though, the Ford OHC 4.6s are also pretty bulletproof. Any engine that can survive in a cop car earns my respect. I thought it was cool how they used to use two 4 banger distributor caps, one running off each cam. I thought it was a really elegant design. Not much room for slop or wear without bevel gears. |
Posted By: skutsch
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 2:49pm
Tim - I thought Interceptor was a brand name owned by the Eaton Corp, who took the Ford block and completed the marinization. Perhaps, they completed the conversion by taking the Interceptor engine (FORD used that brand name on T-Birds and police cruiser) added the dearbo transmissions and delivered to boat manufactures. I guess I am not sure of the proces... Isn't that basically what all the marinization companies (like PCM) do today, take a mostly generic engine and adopt it (replacing and changing parts) for marine use? If so, perhaps there is some other reason driving the decision to only use GM as the foundation, Availability, Consistency (defined as no changes from year to year to year)? All the inboards I am familiar with are Ford Powered, so I would like to see PCM or Indmar pick up a FORD, but like you said not likely. Wonder why. ------------- Our http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4669" rel="nofollow - 98 Sport Nautique My Dad's 63 Ski N |
Posted By: boat dr
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 3:12pm
Tim - I thought Interceptor was a brand name owned by the Eaton Corp, who took the Ford block and completed the marinization. Perhaps, they completed the conversion by taking the Interceptor engine (FORD used that brand name on T-Birds and police cruiser) added the dearbo transmissions and delivered to boat manufactures. I guess I am not sure of the proces... I am probably incorrect also, if Tim posted, it's fact. But with my dealing with a few of these Y Blocks, I too have added a bit of knowledge. My understanding is this: Yale/Eaton produced all the components of their marinized Interceptor engines.This was no small task for any supplier.The base engines were supplied by Ford and then modified to each customer order. The 312 was offered in a CW and CCW rotation, my Collegian came w/CW.The engines were in such high demand that you were happy to get what you could.The Interceptor/ Yale/Eaton re wrote the book on modern day marine power. For example on my 312 the custom pieces consist of: Complete tranny assy. Exhaust manifolds Oil Pan Raw Water Pump Timing Chain Cover Intake Manifold Thermostat Housings /Port and Starboard Complete Flame Arrestor/ Breather Assy/ Lifter Valley Cover Each piece has it's own part number cast into the surface.Remember we are talking mid 1950's work ethics here, git er done...... ------------- boat dr /diaries/details.asp?ID=4631 - 1949 Dart /diaries/details.asp?ID=1533 - 1964 American Skier |
Posted By: The Dude
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 6:14pm
Back when America was GREAT!!! ------------- Mullet Free since 93 http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=717&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1991&yrend=1995 - 95 Sport |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: February-18-2011 at 6:51pm
|
Eaton is still a huge company, but Interceptor Marine Engines and Dearborn Marine Division aren't even a footnote in their history. ------------- |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 1:22pm
Not backpedaling at all. If you want to argue semantics, go ahead. 350's are known as 5.7's. While the 97+ vettes were 346 CI, they were still known as 5.7's. It's a bit like how the old pushrod 5.0's were technically 4.9's because they were a couple of tenths under the .5 rounding up scale. There already was a 4.9 I6. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 1:26pm
Yep, those issues are one reason the SRX was taken off my list of cars that I was looking to replace the grand cherokee with. The v6's had the chain issues, and northstar powered ones have their own well known issues. I think GM has tried to stay away from OHC motors for as long as they can because they can't seem to make a good one. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 1:32pm
That's exactly what marinization companies do. I would not rule out ANY manufacturer of engines ( or motors even )because of this. The E- nautique has a motor that was meant for non marine use, and simply marinized. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 2:04pm
Its not semantics. The 350 design dates back to the 50's. The LS series of engines was a clean sheet redesign for '97 that shares no components. Just because the LS1 (346) shares a similar displacement as the old engine and rounds to the same tenth of a liter doesnt make them "the same", regardless of what you think they were commonly "known" as- and I suspect youre not right about that either. The 346 shares little more in common with the 350 as it does a Ford 351w. Like I said, you better stick to the Ford stuff.  ------------- |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 3:00pm
|
It's still semantics.
And I'll stick to my ford stuff because I have not had a ford engine fail while I've had a couple GM's catastrophically fail well before they should have. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 3:09pm
|
We've had 2 Gm 350's crack on the lifter valley on the last 6 months, one was a '95 and the other a '98. We also had many, but many V6s from the mid 90's crack there too. All low hour engines. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: February-19-2011 at 3:54pm
|
hah, the guys that put them up to 5200 rpms and leave them there, a matter of not knowing any better, more prevalent in the long range cruisers ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: February-23-2011 at 11:27pm
|
We were discussing the cracked blocks yesterday, maybe a question of luck but all of them Mercruisers.
We have 2 4.3L blocks, both Vortecs, one out of a Bayliner Sierra 2350 and the other was on a 20' Runabout. I didnt water test any of these. Then the 2 5.7L, one pre vortec (12 bolt intake) out of another Bayliner Sierra 2350, wot at 4700, cruising at 3300rpms and the other on the Tigé, this one a Vortec, Wot at 4500 cruising at 2400rpms (13x13 stainless prop) Engines had good compression, worked good, just emulsionated oil. All cracked in the same place, were the head bolts pull in the lifter valley. The Pre-vortec 350 was cracking all the way around on both sides. The general consensus around here seems to be that the castings are too thin in that area and the amount of torque from the head bolts leads to the failure. I'm yet to see a PCM, Indmar or even a Volvo crack like this. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: Bri892001
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 2:24am
I wonder if it has anything to do with the engine mounts and how they handle (transmit or absorb) vibration? |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 9:41am
|
you can distort a block and stress it if its pulled down unevenly on the mounts and tightened that way, you will cause some type of deflection in the casting. ironically, are they all 2 bolt main blocks? some tend to think the 4 bolt mains are so the crank doesnt come flying out the bottem, but in reality they are there for block distortion, (twist) ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 11:07am
|
all 2 bolt mains. Low hour engines. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: ky82sn
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 12:53pm
|
let me stir this up a little more. what if toyota marinized one of their v8s for inboard use. would you buy it? the v8s used in toyota tundras are lasting longer than most in its class. now that would be something to invest in, provided they make them in the us. ------------- 1982 ski nautique 1966 Al Tyll Skier |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 1:00pm
|
Been there done that.. Toyota epic.. search it up I think we had a resonable discussion on them on here at one point. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 3:00pm
|
That would be the Toyota Lexus V8 Joe's talking about. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: February-24-2011 at 10:11pm
|
It was the 4.0 OHC GS 400 motor. It used timing belts and had good power. The fact you could get parts at any yota dealer was great, then they stopped making them.
------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: ky82sn
Date Posted: February-27-2011 at 12:45am
|
Toyota doesn't continue doing anything they can't make money on. ------------- 1982 ski nautique 1966 Al Tyll Skier |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: February-27-2011 at 10:04am
|
the aftermarket would've killed you on that engine ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: February-27-2011 at 10:07am
|
btw, where did you hear the engines were lasting longer than any in its class? toyota commercial? ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: sweet77
Date Posted: February-27-2011 at 1:39pm
|
ok im going to chime in. if Correct Craft was to use a foreign motor in there boats id have a hard time swallowing that. However my mother drives a 4 runner with a v8 and surprisingly enough it has tons of power.and yes they are built tough. they last forever. but working on them is ridiculous. and i am a die hard chevy guy thus my fathers work truck which is completely original. alternator, water pump, and 1 intake gasket. vortech 350. 2000 model .....400,000 miles so to say toyota last longer is complete B S ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5528&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 76 Nautique "If you do what you always did,You'll get what you always got!" "An empty wagon makes t |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: March-01-2011 at 2:43am
If this is based on the 4.7 OHC v8 in first gen tundras, I guess I don't see it. That same motor is the same basic motor that the GS400 used, with different bore and or stroke, and that was the same as the epic ski boats. Its a great motor, but I don't see it any better than the other brands, (well most of them). The newer yota 5.7 is a very good motor, but I see no way to quantify it as better than he other brands similar sized motors, especially in only a couple of years of use. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: March-01-2011 at 10:25am
Well, you could ask the guys at Epicmarine what they think about that!!! It's a 4L engine pulling 300hp/310tq, Weights only 650lbs , it's nice on fuel and it has proven to be at least as reliable as the other engines. Downside, you can't get one cheap, they are talking 16 grands for one on Ebay. http://www.epicmarine.com/images/300i%20Specs1.jpg - Toyota VT300 V8 marine engine ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: March-02-2011 at 2:14am
|
Luc, it has a timing belt, and those need to be replaced or you have catastrophic problems. That's one issue I have with that motor.
Maybe I'm a bit cranky at our 4.7 4runner because it needs its timing belt done now. The water pump and pulleys should be done at the same time as well, so parts are about 250-300 for factory ones, and labor is another 250 or so. It's been a solid great performing motor, so other than an odd oil filter location on the 4runner that requires a trained weasel or dropping the skid plate to change the filter, I have no issues with it. It seems to want to rev a little more to make power versus other v8's too. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |