Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Chat about anything that doenst fit in anywehere else
Forum rules
When posting topics on the forum please make sure:
  • ● The posts are not political
  • ● The posts are not about religion
  • ● Please keep posts civil and don't be nasty to other members
THOR
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2010, 17:04
Location: Boksburg SA

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by THOR » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 12:17

I agree 100% that Ford = Ford Engine and Chev = Chev Engine.
All my friends for many years are Chev people and have always used the cheaper issue. This may have been the fact in 60's & 70's but yes today performance parts are made by same factory for both.
But there will always be Ford guys and chev guys. But how do you call yourself a chev guy if your car body is ford and engine is chev block only?
I have one chev now C30 and although I have parts to build an excellent Ford V8 (over 400hp). I will not put it in the chev rather mod the straight 6 or find chev V8. My chev will stay a chev. Also agree to me a cobra is not a cobra if it is not Ford powered.

Photo 3 & 4 was tee's I had in 70's.
I have found number 3 again and imported the iron on's. So have this again.
Still looking for 2 & 4.
Attachments
photo (3).JPG
photo (3).JPG (13.35 KiB) Viewed 1349 times
photo (2).JPG
photo (2).JPG (30.28 KiB) Viewed 1349 times
photo.JPG
photo.JPG (32.19 KiB) Viewed 1349 times
mc3fctAffdhgp2P1zxGk-_g.jpg
mc3fctAffdhgp2P1zxGk-_g.jpg (16.89 KiB) Viewed 1349 times
427 Race Cobra
427 Backdraft AC Cobra
Ford Sapphire V8 (347 Stroker)
Lotus Exige Type 72
Lotus 7 (Birken) Rotary Turbo
2 x Mercedes SLK 32 AMG (one collector, one daily driver)
Corsa OPC Nurburgring
Alfa GTV 3.0 (2000)
C30 - 454
Jeep Rubicon 3.6

brennan67
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri 18 Jul 2014, 23:43

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by brennan67 » Mon 09 Nov 2015, 13:48

Interesting thoughts guys..

I see a lot of new guys getting into this hobby with replica hotrods/ street rods and cobras seem to be "convinced" to go the SBC route by their car builders. Thats probably one of the main reasons we see all these SBC powered Cobras and hotrods.

Going back to the Coyote 5.0, they seem to be putting these into Cobras a lot now in the USA, so whilst the DOHC setup is wide and may well be a issue in a model A or the likes, I would say if it fits in a Cobra it should fit in most cars of the era?

I do take note of IndianaJones comments that in the early days when hot rodding started out the Chevy motor was a cheaper better option vs the fords avail at the time. That makes perfect sense but since then we have moved on 50 years and there has been plenty Ford options.

Its strange but true that things go round in circles, in that a Ford flathead in the day was not good enough for making HP, and many of these motors were lost due to that. But in todays times a Ford flathead is seen as a highly desirable and oh so cool... 8) I would love to do a build with one myself.

Then today in SA, the new flavour is Lexus flavoured power. Again i am no fan of this trend. Each to their own I guess, thats just me.

But I suppose at the heart of it all its all hot rodding at its true sense of the word, making do with what you got or can get to go fast.

I also find it a interesting that Ford has gone the DOHC route and probably will keep on down this path and Chevy seem quite happy staying with pushrod technology on their V configuration motors.

Bearhawke, himself saying he is a fan only on V series motors. It sounds quite archaic but doing a bit of reading and it seems the Chevy guys feel quite strongly that Chevy is on the right track with staying with these old tech pushrod motors on their performance cars like Corvettes, Camaros etc. they put across some good points that these pushrod motors still have a place in todays world.

Ford see's its future with DOHC technology with higher revving engines and smaller engine displacement whilst Chevy seems quite happy to stay with larger displacement and lower revving pushrod design. History will no doubt tell which one was right to maintain the course they have chosen..

Bearhawke
Posts: 2698
Joined: Thu 25 Dec 2008, 20:38
Location: Bullhead City, Arizona USA

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by Bearhawke » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 00:55

IndianaJones wrote:I agree with most of your sentiments Brennan. If it were up to me I’ll have a Ford powered Ford, and Chevy powered Chevy.

But my 2c is that there are reasons besides cost, for building certain Chevy powered Hot Rods.

Early Hot Rodders favoured the Flathead Ford V8’s, but then a fully built up Flathead made 185HP(according to “Big Daddy” Don Garlits).
When the Chevy 283 came along and even a stock single carb 283 made 185HP, in 1957 the fuel-injection version was one of the first V8’s to make 1HP per cubic inch. Since then the Small Block Chevy became the powerplant of choice. Back then it was all about cheap reliable HP, not brand loyalty. A hot rod wasn't a brand, it was a custom creation. Yes, there were other V8’s which made more HP, notably the Chryslers, but they weren’t built in the numbers the Chevy was. Ford’s Y-block of the same time arguably made similar HP, but Ford themselves phased it out by 1964 in favour of the SBF (Windsor). By that time the aftermarket already had 8 years to develop performance goodies for the SBC, ahead of the SBF. As much as I like the Flathead, and want a Flathead powered Rod one day, the 283 Chevy is truly a traditional Hot Rod motor.

Nowadays with the fuel-injected aluminium motors, the LSx engines with it’s push-rod activation, is still a better swap than the new Ford motors into classics, for one reason, the OHC V8’s are wider than the pushrod V8’s, in some cases even wider than a big-block, and thus more difficult to fit between the shock towers of an older vehicle, without serious cutting, and/or suspension conversion. Also which new cars have been sold in SA with Ford V8 mod motors? Will the new Mustang sell in the numbers the Lumina did?
All excellent points; especially what I bolded.
Bearhawke in Az, USA

1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager minivan.

Bearhawke
Posts: 2698
Joined: Thu 25 Dec 2008, 20:38
Location: Bullhead City, Arizona USA

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by Bearhawke » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 00:57

parkerya wrote:i'll take a stock Chrysler 318 over a stock Ford 302 or Chev 350
A stock Chrysler 383 over a stock Ford 351

Mopar or no Car :lol: :lol: :lol:
318 Mopar's a hell of a good motor although it seems the newer Ford 302's are quite decent along with the Chevy 350's with TBI...........
Bearhawke in Az, USA

1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager minivan.

Bearhawke
Posts: 2698
Joined: Thu 25 Dec 2008, 20:38
Location: Bullhead City, Arizona USA

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by Bearhawke » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 02:55

brennan67: pretty much any genuine hotrodder respects the Flathead Ford V8.

In fact; that basic motor saw service for some French military applications as late as 1991............not too shabby a 60 year production of the same design.
Bearhawke in Az, USA

1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager minivan.

User avatar
Gavin RS
Posts: 1114
Joined: Wed 22 Aug 2007, 16:37
Location: Randpark Ridge Randburg South Africa
Contact:

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by Gavin RS » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 09:37

Hey guys, what's the problem with Fords vs Chevys, its not really a problem.
Its the same as a bunch of sheep, they follow the flock, what 1 does all the others do, same as us car guys

Example, Chevy = Timex watch, everyone has them, common as a Citi Golf
Ford = Chopard watch, the elite and rare for The select few :lol: :D :D ( I am a FORD GUY)

Oh and then you get MOPAR.... that's like a ZENITH watch, only for a select few 8) :lol:

But anyway, jokes aside I like them all and would own 1 of each if I could
1984 Rover Vanden Plas V8 (Historic Race car)
1986 Rover 3500 Vitesse (UK Import Ex London Police Car)
1983 Rover Vanden Plas undergoing conversion to race car.
2009 Ford Territory ST,
2006 Ford Fiesta 1.6 Auto, daily driver

User avatar
Gavin RS
Posts: 1114
Joined: Wed 22 Aug 2007, 16:37
Location: Randpark Ridge Randburg South Africa
Contact:

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by Gavin RS » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 12:36

1984 Rover Vanden Plas V8 (Historic Race car)
1986 Rover 3500 Vitesse (UK Import Ex London Police Car)
1983 Rover Vanden Plas undergoing conversion to race car.
2009 Ford Territory ST,
2006 Ford Fiesta 1.6 Auto, daily driver

shoedoos
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2009, 11:16

Re: Ford motors vs Chevy's : whats wrong with you lot ?

Post by shoedoos » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 21:44

FORD : All production Ford 385 Series blocks have a 10.300+" deck height. We don't need to search high & low for a production tall deck block like the chevy guys do. All Ford blocks are "tall" deck and can be found anywhere. Further, the Ford's 10.300" deck height is still higher than the chevy tall deck's 10.200" deck height.

CHEVY :All passenger car chevy blocks have a 9.800" deck height. Chevy guys need to look high & low for their elusive 10.200" tall deck truck block, and the enthusiasts want big bucks for them. In the end, their 10.200" tall deck truck block still comes up short when compared to Ford's standard issue 10.300" block



FORD :The Ford's lifter valley has oil drainback galleries at the rear so as to direct oil straight to the pan while also diverting it away from the rotating assembly (where oil can rob horsepower). Also, the center section of the valley is raised so as to bring the crankcase ventilation holes above the oil level and also creates a "trench" between the cylinder banks and lifter bores which channels oil to the drainback galleries.

CHEVY :The chevy's lifter valley has no oil drainback galleries. And due to the raised, single ventilation hole at the front of the block, most of the oil in the lifter valley has no choice but to drain through the middle of the lifter valley and directly onto the rotating assembly (where the oil robs horsepower). This is a notorius problem with the production chevy's and there are aftermarket kits attempting to address this poor block characteristic.



FORD :The cam-to-crank centerline is higher in the Ford (6.078"). This enables us to run cams as big as necessary for our huge stroker motors (or our 9000+ rpm screamer motors) and breathe easily. Also, Ford lifters have a greater diameter (0.875") which makes for a more "friendly" cam profile for flat tappet cams. The higher cam centerline also makes for shorter (and effectively stiffer) pushrods.

CHEVY : The cam-to-crank centerline in the chevy is too close in a performance applicaton (5.152"; Gen 2 blocks raised to 5.552"), as it effectively restricts the maximum cam lobe height...in the early blocks, the cam lobes will actually hit the rotating assembly if the cam is too big. Such an aggressive cam would wreak havoc on the chevy's smaller (0.842") flat tappet lifters anyway. Longer pushrods are more prone to fail, too



FORD :The production Ford blocks can handle enough stroke to conceivably create a 572 cubic inch engine without the need to clearance the block to accomodate the stroker crank. The stroker kits for the Ford fit like a glove.

CHEVY :Not only is the production chevy block incapable of accomodating a stroker engine package as big as the Ford, but it also requires grinding / clearancing of the crankcase to fit a stroker crankshaft in the first place.



FORD :The Ford has a 4.900" bore spacing. This allows for bigger cylinder bores and pistons, better cooling between cylinders, and larger engine displacement capability from the oem block.

CHEVY :The chevy is stuck with a 4.840" bore spacing. This restricts the extent of oversize pistons compared to the Ford. Ford's stock boresize is bigger than the 427/454 by over .100".



FORD :The Ford's head bolt holes are blind and stay nice and clean for decades of faithful service. The countersunk threads are more protected and chasing is not needed after block decking.

CHEVY :The Chevy head bolt holes go into the water jackets, which corrodes the bolt threads. Headbolt threads often strip--both on the bolt and in the block.



FORD :The symmetrically spaced massive 9/16" head bolts support a 140 foot-pound clamping force and do it with a minumum of bore distortion, thanks to the head bolt holes being anchored directly into the block material and not only into the deck. With head bolts of this size and capability, Ford's don't need any more bolts in almost every application

CHEVY :The chevy's irregularly spaced wimpy 7/16" head bolts limit head clamping to only 65-75 foot-pounds (almost half that of Ford). Even at this low spec, a torque plate is highly advisable because of bore distortion; the head bolt's anchor into threads in the cylinder deck and so the deck easily gets pulled out of shape (it's not much thicker than the small block chevy deck).



FORD 429/460 Rod Ratio: 1.84/1.72
Large stroker cranks from OEM cranks
Symetrical ports for better fuel distribution
Good compression ratios with flat top pistons (72-96 cc combustion chambers)

CHEVY 396/427/454 Rod Ratio: 1.63/1.63/1.53
Need aftermarket crank to get big displacement
Non-symetrical intake ports
Huge, heavy dome pistons required to get just 10.5:1 c/r (98-122cc combustion chambers)

Post Reply

Social Media

     

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests