Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

[probeGT]

 

Because Chevy-based power is cheaper.

 

Again, why are we even having this discussion? Chevy derived power is cheaper than Ford. Has been for almost 60 years now. It's not going to change any time soon, and as long as it is, people will be putting Chevy power into Ford bodies.

 

So, why is this? Seems like I used to know, but I've forgotten.

[RichardJensen]

 

So, why is this? Seems like I used to know, but I've forgotten.

 

I think what got the ball rolling early on was that the mouse motor used the flathead firing pattern and was roughly the same size. It was more of a successor to the flathead than any OHV Ford engine. Everything kind of snowballed from there.

 

Laterally (in terms of range) and longitudinally (across time), Ford's V8 lineup has been more complicated than Chevy's ever since. They've had more V8 blocks and have tweaked both the blocks and the heads more often. This means that getting certain kinds of V8s from junkyards is either more difficult or more expensive for Ford than the SBC, it means that there are fewer after-market parts for each type of V8, it means that there are more issues inserting these engines into donor vehicles, mating them to transmissions, etc.

 

Above a certain threshold of time and money, the Ford & SBC are on a level playing field, but below that, the advantage is almost all Chevy.

 

Now, as Sizzler pointed out, Ford's "Total Performance" program oddly enough meant they didn't have to funnel money sub rosa to aftermarket guys the way GM did (http://www.amazon.com/Chevrolet-Racing-Raucous-Silence-1957-1970/dp/0768005299 ). They could build much better stuff in house, but that kept these aftermarket guys from being able to build a business providing go-fast parts for Fords.

 

So essentially a combination of factors that boils down, basically, to Ford not being interested in stuff that was not immediately beneficial to Ford, gave GM a huge head start that doesn't seem likely to go away any time soon.

 

---

 

And for the record, I can't quite dispute Ford's logic here. Yes, as a Ford "fan", it's irritating to see that the practice of stuffing Chevrolet motors into old Fords has not stopped, but pausing to think about it, this doesn't really take money out of Ford's pocket, nor does it influence purchase decisions, so it's hard to see how Ford comes out a loser on this. At the same time, any advantage GM has gotten from this, they've gotten more or less for free.

[jpd80]

It's like an opportunity was missed with the small block/Windsor/Cleveland mash up.

You can see that Ford was all around what Chevrolet was doing with one engine.

 

Had Ford simply developed its 90 degree small block / Windsor as one engine

with the same deck height as the SBC, then I think that reaching a broader

audience would have been much simpler with a more universal engine.

 

But yes, I realize that by that time it was already too late with Y-Block, FE, MEL and their successors.

335, 385, 90 degree SBF, Windsor..... Shoot we even had two types of Mods, Romeo and Windsor.

Edited December 27, 2015 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

It's like an opportunity was missed with the small block/Windsor/Cleveland mash up.

You can see that Ford was all around what Chevrolet was doing with one engine.

 

Had Ford simply developed its 90 degree small block / Windsor as one engine

with the same deck height as the SBC, then I think that reaching a broader

audience would have been much simpler with a more universal engine.

 

But yes, I realize that by that time it was already too late with Y-Block, FE, MEL and their successors.

335, 385, 90 degree SBF, Windsor..... Shoot we even had two types of Mods, Romeo and Windsor.

Well this thread seems to have wandered off the original question but in any case getting an education! ....."two types of Mods, Romeo and Windsor"...?? Not to be confused with 351 Cleveland and 351 Windsor? "Mods " refers to 4.6?

[SoonerLS]

"Mods " refers to 4.6?

I'm guessing he's referring to the 5.4 V8s, but, AFAIK, there weren't any Mod Motors built at Cleveland. The mainline 5.4s were built at Windsor (and Essex), but the 5.4s used in the Ford GT, GT-500, and in the Australian FPV vehicles were built at Romeo.

Edited December 27, 2015 by SoonerLS

[SoonerLS]

Had Ford simply developed its 90 degree small block / Windsor as one engine

They did--Ford's 90 Degree V8 family is the Windsor V8 family. The Clevelands (351C/M/400) were the 335 family and the 429/460 were the 385 family--and the 385 was basically an oversized Windsor block with Cleveland heads.

[7Mary3]

Talking engine swaps, Chevy has some advantages: A common bell housing bolt pattern between their 2nd. gen. straight 6, 90 degree V-6, and both small and big block V-8's. Even the LS is very similar and can be used with older transmissions. Also, the rear sump/oil pump helps a lot.

[coupe3w]

Talking engine swaps, Chevy has some advantages: A common bell housing bolt pattern between their 2nd. gen. straight 6, 90 degree V-6, and both small and big block V-8's. Even the LS is very similar and can be used with older transmissions. Also, the rear sump/oil pump helps a lot.

But mostly it's the size in width. I can't put a MOD or Coyote engine into my '67 Mustang without cutting or removing the shock towers. Pretty much the same for any of the small and intermediate Ford models from that era with shock towers ie; Fairlaine, Falcon. However a new LS motor will bolt right in. They also bolt in where ever a MOD or Coyote will fit. And the aftermarket makes sure it happens.

[7Mary3]

But mostly it's the size in width. I can't put a MOD or Coyote engine into my '67 Mustang without cutting or removing the shock towers. Pretty much the same for any of the small and intermediate Ford models from that era with shock towers ie; Fairlaine, Falcon. However a new LS motor will bolt right in. They also bolt in where ever a MOD or Coyote will fit. And the aftermarket makes sure it happens.

Very true. Even a 2 valve Mod. is wider than a Lima. On top of that you are dealing with limited displacement.

[Stray Kat]

Well guys while I agree somewhat with you all I respectfully disagree on several key points.

 

It seems that some of you have bought into the narrative crafted by the Chevy leaning hot rod journals. It is one that compares the engines of one division of GM to the whole of the offerings of the Ford Motor Company.

 

I don't have time to give you the long version but just consider that GM had four completely different 350's and the same with the 454/455's compared to Ford's two 351's and one 460.

 

Oh we can go back to the 50's and talk about Ford's 352 and 462 but then to be fair you have to drag in the early Cad, Olds, Buick and Pontiac engines which are completely different from their later brethren.

 

Ford competed with all 5 divisions of GM with 3 divisions of their own. The engine confusion was a purposeful clouding of the topic by the magazines to make it seem like the sbc and BBC are the end all be all. In truth it was simply Ford offering engines designed for different purposes and car lines but all flying under the Ford banner.

 

I also disagree that Ford should have followed Chevrolet with the one "deck height" program. That's a bad idea and not one of leadership.

 

There are important engineering reasons why the 221-302 have the low 8.2" deck height dimension while the 351C and the 351W have 9.2" and 9.5" of deck height respectively.

 

In fact if you look in GM's performance parts catalog you will find special short deck blocks and related components because at smaller displacements it was found that the lighter rotating mass and rod to stroke ratios were superior to the one size fits all mentality.

 

Lastly don't believe all the hogwash about swapping OHC Ford engines. Yes they are wide and you will have to notch shock towers on some narrow engine bay cars like the early Mustang, but in virtually every other direction and way the Mods and especially the Coyote promise to be an easier swap than the LS.

[Stray Kat]

Well guys while I agree somewhat with you all I respectfully disagree on several key points.

 

It seems that some of you have bought into the narrative crafted by the Chevy leaning hot rod journals. It is one that compares the engines of one division of GM to the whole of the offerings of the Ford Motor Company.

 

I don't have time to give you the long version but just consider that GM had four completely different 350's and the same with the 454/455's compared to Ford's two 351's and one 460.

 

Oh we can go back to the 50's and talk about Ford's 352 and 462 but then to be fair you have to drag in the early Cad, Olds, Buick and Pontiac engines which are completely different from their later brethren.

 

Ford competed with all 5 divisions of GM with 3 divisions of their own. The engine confusion was a purposeful clouding of the topic by the magazines to make it seem like the sbc and BBC are the end all be all. In truth it was simply Ford offering engines designed for different purposes and car lines but all flying under the Ford banner.

 

I also disagree that Ford should have followed Chevrolet with the one "deck height" program. That's a bad idea and not one of leadership.

 

There are important engineering reasons why the 221-302 have the low 8.2" deck height dimension while the 351C and the 351W have 9.2" and 9.5" of deck height respectively.

 

In fact if you look in GM's performance parts catalog you will find special short deck blocks and related components because at smaller displacements it was found that the lighter rotating mass and rod to stroke ratios were superior to the one size fits all mentality.

 

Lastly don't believe all the hogwash about swapping OHC Ford engines. Yes they are wide and you will have to notch shock towers on some narrow engine bay cars like the early Mustang, but in virtually every other direction and way the Mods and especially the Coyote promise to be an easier swap than the LS.

[coupe3w]

 

Lastly don't believe all the hogwash about swapping OHC Ford engines. Yes they are wide and you will have to notch shock towers on some narrow engine bay cars like the early Mustang, but in virtually every other direction and way the Mods and especially the Coyote promise to be an easier swap than the LS.

 

If you pay to have my shock towers cut I will put a Coyote in my '67.

[twintornados]

...Ford competed with all 5 divisions of GM with 3 divisions of their own. The engine confusion was a purposeful clouding of the topic by the magazines to make it seem like the sbc and BBC ....

 

 

 

Ehh...heh...ehh...heh...ehh...heh......he said BBC...

[Stray Kat]

Why should I pay to have your shock towers cut out? If it were my car I'd do it myself.

 

Secondly does that mean you're going to install an LS? If that's the case you're going to need suspension and brake mods anyways?

 

If you are not willing to cover those costs, you're not going to be happy with your ride.

[RichardJensen]

It seems that some of you have bought into the narrative crafted by the Chevy leaning hot rod journals. It is one that compares the engines of one division of GM to the whole of the offerings of the Ford Motor Company.

 

I don't have time to give you the long version but just consider that GM had four completely different 350's and the same with the 454/455's compared to Ford's two 351's and one 460.

 

I made that point here: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59722-vw-caught-cheating-on-emissions/?p=964627

 

I mean, even if you just look at conventional Ford passenger cars vs. Chevy, Ford had more variety, but it was nowhere near as crazy as some people make it out to be when they try to include the MELs, the truck motors, etc. vs. what you could get in a Chevy car.

 

And Chevy-favoring enthusiasts also fail to realize that there were justifiable and practical reasons for most of what Ford did with their V8s, and that Ford--the company--couldn't care less if you can't swap the intake manifold from a junked 351C onto a second-hand 351W.

 

Oh, you will also find a very lengthy response to that post I linked to. I'm not responding to it because Matt's dislike for the mods is almost religious. You probably shouldn't either.

Edited December 28, 2015 by RichardJensen

[Fgts]

 

Ehh...heh...ehh...heh...ehh...heh......he said BBC...

What about the British Broadcasting Channel?....... Edited December 28, 2015 by Fgts

[coupe3w]

Why should I pay to have your shock towers cut out? If it were my car I'd do it myself.

 

Secondly does that mean you're going to install an LS? If that's the case you're going to need suspension and brake mods anyways?

 

If you are not willing to cover those costs, you're not going to be happy with your ride.

 

Still cost for materials and a welder. And if I did a modified front suspension kit to fit the Coyote it cost money. LOL

No, not going to install an LS. And why would I need to modify my brakes? I have disk brakes and my suspension is already modified (of course you wouldn't have known this).

I'm perfectly happy with my 425 HP Cleveland in my car.

[351cid]

 

 

I'm perfectly happy with my 425 HP Cleveland in my car.

What??? You only running 7 plug wires?

[Stray Kat]

Modular Fords are wide no doubt but there are low, short have a tight rear sump oil pan, downward angle to the exhaust ports and the accessories bolt directly to the block.

 

Not to mention the spark plugs on top, no oil leaks and commonality on motor mounts and bell housing flanges and last but not least neutral crank balancing so no issues with harmonic balancers and flywheels.

 

Then of course there is the question of aesthetics. It's truly in the eyes of the beholder but when I look at a Coyote vs an LS, I am thinking a piece of art in the case of the Ford vs an appliance in the case of the GM.

 

Now that may not mean anything to some but to me if I'm going to go to all the trouble I want the trifecta. I want it to run good, sound good and look good.

[coupe3w]

What??? You only running 7 plug wires?

I know. I built this motor back in the early '70's. I have the wrong cam in it. But hope to rebuild it soon with some new CHI aluminum heads and a stroker kit to 408CI.

[351cid]

I know. I built this motor back in the early '70's. I have the wrong cam in it. But hope to rebuild it soon with some new CHI aluminum heads and a stroker kit to 408CI.

Mine is stroked to 393 cubes. I'm also running 10.0:1 compression. Mine dyno'd at 456 hp and 482 lb ft.

 

My comment was refering Jon Kaase. He was asked for a simple receipe for building a 400 hp Cleveland. His reply was "just leave off 1 plug wire". :D

[twintornados]

What about the British Broadcasting Channel?.......

 

Thats just dirty.....

[jpd80]

They did--Ford's 90 Degree V8 family is the Windsor V8 family. The Clevelands (351C/M/400) were the 335 family and the 429/460 were the 385 family--and the 385 was basically an oversized Windsor block with Cleveland heads.

 

What i meant was instead of Clevelands and Windsor in assorted deck heights,

we could have had just one engine, the equivalent of a blue SBC with a single deck height.

what a breath of fresh air that would have been over the cluster fuck of engines that didn't

quite work for one reason or another.

 

To a lot of people the SBF = Windsor but when first made at Cleveland No.1 they weren't called that.

I chose not to open up that debate. I had someone go to town on me in the past with a huge post

on why iI was wrong with everything I said.

Edited December 29, 2015 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

What i meant was instead of Clevelands and Windsor in assorted deck heights, we could have had just one engine,

Gotcha--you were saying generic 90 degree V8s, as opposed to Ford's 90 Degree V8 family, which is the Windsor small-blocks.

 

I think you're overestimating the impact of the Clevelands--they were a hot rodding ideal, but the 351C was really more of a footnote, as it was only in production for two or three years in the US. (The other two 335s, the 351M/400, weren't particularly desirable for gearheads and hot rodders, being relegated to trucks and the floaty boats of the '70s.) The Windsors only had two significant deck heights (the 221/260/289/302 and the 351W), and the 302 and 351W had a lot of commonality, so I don't think that's so much of a much, either.

 

Heck, for that matter, it wasn't until SVT worked over the 351W in the Lightning that it got any kind of significant performance image--for most of its history, it was just the mid-range truck engine. If it was a performance-oriented Ford V8, for 20 years, it was a 302 or nothing.

 

Also, a lot of that 350 usage was because it was the only small block GM engine that was worth a warm bucket of spit. In the '80s, GM had both the 305 and 350 in production, but for much of that run, the 350 was just on par with the 302; the 305 was completely outclassed by the smaller Ford, and was eventually dropped entirely.

[351cid]

I think you're overestimating the impact of the Clevelands--they were a hot rodding ideal, but the 351C was really more of a footnote, as it was only in production for two or three years in the US.

 

The 351C was in production for 5 model years. 1970, 71, 72, 73, 74. The 335 architecture was to be the standard of Ford's small blocks for the future. There was a plan for a 302 version. It was realized that emissions would be the death of the design and the "Fairlane V-8" was then carried on.

 

Heck, for that matter, it wasn't until SVT worked over the 351W in the Lightning that it got any kind of significant performance image--for most of its history, it was just the mid-range truck engine. If it was a performance-oriented Ford V8, for 20 years, it was a 302 or nothing.

 

The 1969-70 model 351W with a 4V was rated at 290 hp. It was seen as reduntant after the 4V Cleveland hit the scene.

 

 

Overall I'm in a "sorta agreement" with your statements, but had to add a little correction.