02 Mountaineer aluminum block 4.6 questions.

No pictures moving this one, since I may not even own it yet, but...

Well, question first. Anyone know why in the world Ford decided to put the aluminum block, 2V 4.6 in the exploder/Monty chassis ?

Also, other than being aluminum, (lighter, considered stronger to build) are there any rotating assembly differences? I know that the heads, HP , Tq, intake and throttle body is all the same as vanilla mustangs (yes I know some mustangs got 4V heads, but not applicable) same as Panthers (with TB reversed!) and only a shorter intake than the trucks  (to the younger guys, "intake" is the manifold from the TB to each cyl. Not the air filter assy.) 

Now, for the longer stuff (I really am a long winded guy!)

After not finding a beater car, after the accident, a guy here did put up a nice Audi my wife could afford. But still needing to tow more, l have found a 02 Mountianeer 2wd 4.6 5speed 5r55W AT w/ factory tow package, for beater price!

With factory 3.73 gear, it's rated to tow 7700 lbs! To people that think that rating numbers actually mean anything - DO NOT expect a mid size suv to be safe towing almost 4 tons all over! 
You might be covered from a liability standpoint, after ya wreck and kill some family, but I assure you... marketing made that number up!

But it will tow my current 23' no worries. 

The 02 was the first 3rd gen of the platform, with a ton of changes since ford made the first exploder on the Ranger chassis. The Merc version was the dolled up version. All leather; lots of bells and whistles. 
The Avaitor came out with even more, including the 4V heads!

Suspension is high tech for the times - rack and pinion steering, sway bars front and back, independent rear suspension, and supposedly slightly wider track width than the rangers. 
 

That's all from the internet, so if anyone has accurate info., bring it on!

I would imagine Ranger50 will know their ins and outs well!

What I remember is yes aluminum block 2v. Believe it was made to pass some weird mpg/emissions reason. Saddled with an originally designed 4cyl transmission. It fit the small tunnel. 10# of E36 M3, 5# sack thing.

Aviators did get a c head 4.6 4v. Different block than the explorer and previous teksid block of earlier. Same transmission.

Most parts interchange between Ranger, explorer, aviator.

Ranger50 said:

Most parts interchange between Ranger, explorer, aviator.

Yep. It's basically a exploder with leather! But if I'm reading right, it's the first year the platform was no longer a Ranger with a body instead of a bed. So I imagine less stuff shared than before. Prolly still a lot. But everything with the ford ex. 

Aviators did get a c head 4.6 4v. Different block than the explorer and previous teksid block of earlier.

I've always read, despite many claims to the contrary, that the 2V 3V and 4V modular engine heads all fit on the same short block.   Windsor and Romeo are slightly different; but I've only touched 2; my 03 Merc, and my 05 parts Vic. (I avoid wrenches on them new fangled engines!)

I know the 02 Monty has a aluminum block, and 2 valve heads. I think the internal rotating assy. is identical to the iron block in my panther? No better rods, etc?

it's rated at the same HP/Tq, so I'm sure all top end is same - and I'll never build either for big HP; just curious

In reading on the transmission , the French company that built it, updated a C3* to a 4r44, to a 4r55, and then 5r55. The W difference is only wider gear ratios  

*C3 was designed for... wait for it... the ford pinto!!!

explains a lot!

Thanks. 

I've heard the mpg reason, but 70 lbs weight difference, on a better than 2 ton brick? Not the reason. Anybody in Dearborn at the time?

In reply to 03Panther :

Less powertrain weight means more payload/towing capacity

In reply to 03Panther :

The explorer, even with the irs, is still a body on frame, so very still like a ranger. Aluminum block is also there to reject the heat in a much tighter engine bay to hopefully not bake everything under the hood.

Backwards is the 5r to 4r's, to the a4ld, to eventually the c3. It really isn't a bad trans, it's just there are so many iterations to make the design need. It makes your head spin.

02-05 Explorers/Mountaineers had the flat out terrible rear suspension/hubs/bearings that would wear out every 30k miles. We used to replace them more than we changed the oil on those trucks.

If the truck sat outside at all you will be buying knuckles, bearings and toe links due to them being completely frozen together. 

I'm not sure what drugs Ford was on when they rated a 5r55-equipped vehicle for towing 7700 lbs.  It's...um.... delicate.  The clutch diameter is much smaller to keep the size down, which means they can't take a lot of torque without being overwhelmed.

Agreed on the rear suspension issues.  That, plus short-ish wheelbase, plus 23' of trailer is a bit of a questionable recipe, but honestly I haven't towed with one.  It may be fine and I'm just over-worried.

Go easy on the throttle, never tow in OD, and don't let it shift at WOT while towing.  Anticipate downshifts on hills and back off the throttle and manually select the lower gear.  Transmission cooler installed before the radiator (long story, but trust me) will do wonders.

The aluminum 4.6L block is the same architecture as the iron truck version.  Not quite the exact same casting, but all of the same guts bolt onto it. Like, it might have more meat cast into the mains, or an additional mounting boss for where the alternator has to live in the smaller engine bay, but the same where it counts.  Much like an SBC block is an SBC block.

03Panther said:

I've heard the mpg reason, but 70 lbs weight difference, on a better than 2 ton brick? Not the reason. Anybody in Dearborn at the time?

IIRC it's why Chevy put aluminum block engines in Silverado 1500HD (meaning eight lug) crew cab trucks, and not the others.  They needed to get the weight below some arbitrary limit.

The wheels on those trucks were AMAZINGLY light, too!  Felt way lighter than the 6 lug wheels on a non HD, even carrying a 10 ply tire.

STM317 said:

In reply to 03Panther :

Less powertrain weight means more payload/towing capacity

By a whopping 70 pounds? Nope. Not buying that. If it was a couple hundred, that would make sense. But not at 70. WAY cheaper ways to shed that much, than in a specialty block. 
The Ex/Monty got the WAP block, I think, ilo of the even more special teskid, but still cost ford way more than the iron blocks 

I could understand Ranger50's thought on heat dispersion more than the mpg rumor or the payload rumor, although I've hear all three quoted as "fact" on those "other" sites   Although there is more space the the 'stangs with iron, so that's prolly not it either  But car engineerers and bean counters have done dumber things for crazy reasons, so...

I actually made a delivery at the Windsor factory, around 2000. Waiting on paperwork, I stood next to rack after rack of brand new mod. V8s in pallets! 

In reply to kevinatfms :

I doubt this has ever NOT been outside! When reverse failed at 217K, it sat in the weeds for quite a few years. 
I drove it a couple miles around dirt roads, and at 50, it still felt fine, in suspension and steering. Only thing I saw crawling under it, is rear sway bar end links have no bushings! Everything else feels and looks fine... so far. 
 

'Course Known Problems don't attack 100% of all that model. 
the 06 highlander (bought at 140K) cost more in repairs in the first year and a half, than we paid for it. And car lore says the highlander never had ANY of those problems. 

But my 03 6.0 diesel, had 145K, before I had to rebuild the FICM. Almost everything else is still the parts it rolled off the showroom floor with. Now 165K with a Bully Dog tune, and truck lore says that will take out either the head gasket or blow the tranny (or both!) within 1000 miles. 
If the trans on Monty don't get too expensive, I have high hopes. (Fingers crossed!)

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

1) I'm not sure what drugs Ford was on when they rated a 5r55-equipped vehicle for towing 7700 lbs.  

2) short-ish wheelbase, plus 23' of trailer is a bit of a questionable recipe, 

3) Transmission cooler installed before the radiator (long story, but trust me) will do wonders.

1) Fords marketing rated my FIL's 2011 FX4 eco boost max tow, at a higher number than my 96 Dually!!! 

I towed 9700 for about 15 miles with that F150, and the average citizen, would hat wrecked it. It would have been downright scary, except I'm used to towing crazy things. My passenger later told my wife he was terrified! (He was one cool customer - never showed a thing)

My old dually, other than sluggish from a start, didn't hardly know 15K was behind it!

2) When I had a 99 Dodge 5.2 half ton, my sister had a jeep grand chereokee 5.2. Had a bit more power, a 3.73 gear, and a higher marketing tow rating. She had my truck when I bought my 26' airstream argosy, so I towed it home with the jeep. (Shorter wheelbase / narrower track width) Tossed that jeep around like a rag doll!!! I was glad it was only 10 miles. Truck had no problem with it. 
3) Despite haveing the factory cooler, I always add one in front!

This 23', is not a tall one (not as short as my sunlight the |<€}~ hole totaled, but ain't a real tall/wide one. On 3000 lbs empty, so I'm hopefull. It Monty don't do ok, I can press the F350 into road pig duty 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

The aluminum 4.6L block is the same architecture

Much like an SBC block is an SBC block.

Like a SBC the 4.6, 5.4 and 6.8, including 2V, 3V and 4V , share a ton of design. But many SBC's had major differences in their rotating assemblies. 
I've read that the WAP aluminum blocks can be built for more HP than iron (and the teskid possibly even more)   The external is close enough to identical to interchange, as well. I don't know if stock (my iron block and the aluminum one will remain stock bottom end) rotating assemblies are identical, or if the aluminum blocks got any special parts (ie stronger crank - same dimensions , of course, or better rods, etc. )

In reply to 03Panther :

I don't know that much about them to speak intelligently on cranks and rods.  I'd be interested to see how a softer alloy was made into a stronger block.  It's totally possible, just wondering what is different.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

All my info on them is just from internet lore... so a lot of sifting out the type of folks that had "a 3/4 cam" in their muscle car (back before they were called "muscle cars", and the internet had not been invented yet)

Very little hands on for me, but a ton of bench racing!

Moot point for me, since any stock bottom end 4.6 will hold anything I ever throw at one!

But from all I've read , until the aftermarket start selling REALLY Expensive blocks, the al. blocks for bought from Teksid are the toughest. After a couple years ford switched to buying their al blocks from WAP for a bit less investment. Some folks swear the WAP blocks are just as strong... some say they are between the Teksid and iron. 
I know more meat around the mains, and other critical areas is part. 4 bolt cross bolted mains is another. After that, I'm in same boat as you. 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Just took a moment to look at the track width / wheelbase... 3 1/2 to 4 1/2" wider than the Ranger, and bit over 113" wheelbase! That's longer than my Astro van, that towed our  6000 lb camper better than our (rip) 2011 F150 max tow!!! Except that 4.3 was turning 4000 rpm all the time; And got 6 mpg doing it  The poorly named "eco" boost hardly knew it was there. Dropped it from 17mpg (true eco! )  to 12. But man, what a smooth runner. 
 

The reason I always heard for the Explorer getting the aluminum block was to help lower the CG of the new model after the rollover PR disaster from the early Explorers.

In reply to Will :

I would think the engine block was low enough, compared to the rest of that greenhouse type build, that a heaverier block would help. But again, bean counters and engineers. 

And then, prolly said it a time or three, but 70 lbs ain't much (except racing!)