Although it is true that a book like this doesn’t happen by the efforts of one individual, I need to acknowledge that the efforts of the contributors have, in most cases, gone above and beyond just handing out a photo or two. Good personal and business relationships helped to make this book happen.
First, to my mother, Carole Stribling, who doesn’t know too much about the technical aspects of car building but knows how to correct some of my Midwest grammar atrocities. To Bruce Faucett, former Application Engineer for Allison Transmission and former NHRA drag racer and current SCCA transplant, I can’t thank you enough for your help in sorting out my structure and pointing out my horrible overuse of pronouns. You both have earned my gratitude for your long hours of assistance.
Other key players in this project are Jim Smart, Ron Dickerson, Blake Hartman, and Alexandros Varvounis. Jim Smart helped me gather much needed photos from his immense archives. Ron Dickerson and Blake Hartman allowed me to photograph their collections of eye candy. And Alexandros Varvounis sent photos to a complete stranger. I really appreciate it!
To the people who went above and beyond at my never ending email requests, Andrew Casselberry at Ford Performance Parts; Mark Luton at Modular Motorsports Racing; Eric Vengroff with Sean Hyland Motorsport; Harold Miller at Trick Flow; Mike Roth and MR2 Performance; Brent White and Chase Tenney at Brenspeed; Dennis Devitt at Etter Ford; and Marcia Sledge, Mike Melvin, and Curtis White at Autozone.
For the builders, owners, and business contacts of the projects featured in the book: Robert Emery, Brett Behrens, Chris Donaldson, Skyler Hardy, Gordon Trotson, David Lindsey, Craig Wood and Jeremy Keller, Ryan Korek, Waylon Inman, and Jose Mujia. Thank you for the pictures of your amazing rides.
None of this would have been possible were it not for a customer and a friend, Doug Allen, who saw my vision of putting new and old technologies together to build the MIB car all those years ago. Thank you for your support of my dreams. Special thanks to Mark Houlahan for thinking of me and giving me the column at Mustang Monthly and supporting me.
Thanks goes to my children, Caleb and Kayla Surber, Kara and Jordan Stribling. You make the long hours worth it. And thank you to Jesus Christ, who has saved me where stamped steel and petroleum products cannot.
The first 25 years of the Ford modular engine family are now in the books, and the conversion craze has only been a part of that history for the past few years. Why has it taken so long for the conversion to catch on and become a genuine option to older, pushrod technology?
When Ford introduced the modular engine platform in 1991, it was a quantum leap forward in V-8 technology and shared almost nothing in common with the traditional pushrod Windsor V-8 small-block. Unlike the GM Gen II and III platform, this was a brand-new engine. It would take some time to build up a following and a database of knowledge before the aftermarket would really embrace the new platform. Until it was introduced in the Mustang in 1996, it didn’t get much traction as a performance engine and was considered a big car and truck engine.
The modular engine was unlike anything else Ford had produced. They did build an SOHC version of the 427 back in the 1960s, but that was a conversion of an existing platform, and the modular engine shared very little with any of the 1960s technology. The GM Gen II (1992–1997) and Gen III and IV (LS platform 1997–up) were big jumps in technology over the original small-block Chevrolet, but they were still essentially pushrod V-8s with the original bore spacing, inner infrastructure, and two valves per cylinder setup from the small-block Chevy. The LS platform had a feel that was familiar, even with its distributorless ignition and different head design. The aftermarket grabbed hold of the LS platform and products came out at a feverish pace. In 2003, Chrysler introduced its 5.7-liter Hemi engine, which was also based on a pushrod platform. Both the GM and Chrysler engines offered the aftermarket a two-valve pushrod engine that used a lot of the data that they had acquired and applied it almost immediately to the new engines. Fitting the GM and Chrysler engines was also familiar because the engines shared a similar footprint to their older counterparts.
The new modular engine didn’t intimidate the aftermarket, but the aftermarket was cautious. Although performance was there from the beginning, the Ford aftermarket had to build a brand-new database, and most of what they had learned about the Ford small-block Windsor wasn’t going to crossover to the new platform. In a very short time we went from pushrods, distributors, and lifters, to overhead cams, coil packs, and valve-lash adjusters. It was going to take some time and some really good builders to begin a new database to work with the new platform.
Although the Ford modular engine was successful in the racing world, it did suffer some setbacks in certain race venues, such as NASCAR. NASCAR specified a pushrod, carbureted V-8 platform, so Ford Performance continued to invest a large amount into the Windsor small-block program. The LS platform, with its similarity to the original small-block Chevy, had some items approved for the NASCAR circuit, but the overhead-cam Ford was shut out.
Another issue with the modular engine has been Ford taking quantum leaps every couple of years, sending the aftermarket arena back for more data collection. After the introduction of the two-valve engine, Ford released the four-valve DOHC engine. Then Ford brought out the Terminator engines in 2003 and changed everything again. In 2005, the three-valve replaced some of the two-valves, and the aftermarket designers were back to the drawing board. In 2011, the Coyote hit the market and the playing field changed again, and in 2015 the 5.2 was introduced. Although the GM LS engine made similar improvements to its platform, the platform itself didn’t change a whole lot. With the Ford engine, these were huge jumps in technology, and the aftermarket spent a lot of time playing catch up. It was good, but it required time to gather information and apply it.
Ford Performance Parts also continued to provide great products, and also raised the bar every couple of years. We got amazing engines, including the Cammer, the Aluminator, and the Cobra Jet. It was Ford Performance that finally gave us the one piece that would set the ball rolling for mass use of these engines in more custom cars: the Ford Control Pack computer system.
The Ford modular engine produces impressive power, and it makes an excellent powerplant to swap into 1967–1973 Mustangs and many other Ford and non-Ford vehicles.
Because the modular engine is very dependent on its computer controls to run effectively, it did intimidate a lot of builders who preferred the pushrod platform to the new overhead-cam engine. Pushrod EFI conversions continued to flourish, while the modular engine conversions tended to be novelty items, more than practical options. Most of the aftermarket computer systems were designed for all-out racing, not as options for street-driven vehicles (and not legal in some states due to emissions). Ford’s Control Packs changed that, as builders found that the simplified controls meant real use for these engines in their conversions.
Industry tech upgrades also played a part for all the major manufacturers. During the run of the modular engine we have seen improvements in
