Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

For the guys who like REAL engines...


Recommended Posts

Shocking! Ancient Ford Engine Just Smashed Chevy LS3 Torque Numbers

And it's a Y-block. "Shocking"? :o Well, not really. That's just the headline in the article at the link below.;)

All it means is that in the hands of competent tuners and engine builders, the "old" and "ancient" non-computer-dependent engines can still make very respectable dyno numbers. 

http://www.hotrod.com/news/1506-2015-amsoil-engine-masters-competition-lineup-is-hot-this-summer/

Shocking! Ancient Ford Engine Just Smashed Chevy LS3 Torque Numbers

 

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally, non-computer controlled engines in competent hands can make very impressive numbers. But, put those engines in a vehicle and lets see how far someone would want to drive it? Not to mention the fuel mileage would be in the gutter.

Computer controlled performance engines, on the other hand... For example, one of my best friends has a 2001 Corvette ZO6 with a 520 rear wheel horsepower naturally aspirated LS3 in it that he built himself. Venture to guess that's a legitimate 575(ish) HP at the flywheel. Having personally spent time in the car I can vouch for the fact that it starts, idles and drives like a stock Corvette. It's still completely civilized. The only hint that it has a built engine is a very mild cam lope out of the stock titanium exhaust. But, put the pedal on the floor and all hell breaks loose. The car has absolutely violent acceleration and at 7K RPM sounds like a blue printed race engine.

Now, I know you already know this, Bill. Just making conversation. 

B)

Edited by Dennis Lacy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see those "Y-block" cylinder heads next to a pair of stock ones.  Just from that one picture, anyone who has ever seen a stock Y-block head will know that the intake port configuration on those new heads differs drastically from the originals.  Impressive nevertheless, but not much in common with the original design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally, non-computer controlled engines in competent hands can make very impressive numbers. But, put those engines in a vehicle and lets see how far someone would want to drive it? Not to mention the fuel mileage would be in the gutter.

Computer controlled performance engines, on the other hand... For example, one of my best friends has a 2001 Corvette ZO6 with a 520 rear wheel horsepower naturally aspirated LS3 in it that he built himself. Venture to guess that's a legitimate 575(ish) HP at the flywheel. Having personally spent time in the car I can vouch for the fact that it starts, idles and drives like a stock Corvette. It's still completely civilized. The only hint that it has a built engine is a very mild cam lope out of the stock titanium exhaust. But, put the pedal on the floor and all hell breaks loose. The car has absolutely violent acceleration and at 7K RPM sounds like a blue printed race engine.

Now, I know you already know this, Bill. Just making conversation. 

B)

I agree entirely, and one of the reasons some days I'd just as soon swap all my funky old iron for one clean, nicely prepped and setup C-5 Corvette. 

But not ALL computer-controlled engines are so spectacular. The entire EEC (electronic engine control) system in my poor old '89 GMC 1500 failed progressively over a period of several months. GM, of course, no longer supports the electronics, and in my experience so far, all of the offshore replacements are quick-fail garbage. Aftermarket electronic engine management systems are cost-prohibitive for a vehicle I bought for $100. So, to keep her on the road, I pirated the 50+ year-old Rochester 2GC from my '63 Olds, rebuilt it with a $25 kit, machined a Q&D adapter to mount it to the EFI manifold, installed a junkyard vacuum-centrifugal advance HEI distributor, and she starts on the first twist of the key with fuel-consumption numbers easily as good as with the early EFI setup.

But the point I'm trying to make is just this: when all of these computer-dependent wonder-machines age, fail and are no longer supported (you know, like Windows XP?), I'm going to be very interested in what happens to the majority of "old car" enthusiasts who will be left twisting in the wind.

The best thing about the LS series of engines, from a performance, emissions  AND economy standpoint, is the exceptionally good chamber and port design, and the fact that ALL the chambers and ports are pretty much identical. Not so with the older generation of American OHV V8 engines. And there are enough of them (LS-based engines) around now that there's good aftermarket (electronics and mechanical) support too. I'm honestly not too keen on the LS bottom end, and the fairly recent availability of a "traditional" SBC block casting that accepts the LS heads, but also utilizes all the bulletproof old-school SBC bottom-end parts, seems to me to be the best of all possible worlds.

Just making conversation, too. :)

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but I believe the Y block only beat it by 50ft lbs. And the Chevy made 100 more hp too. 

Bring back the Ford modular engine back to the challenge.... then watch those LS fans cry.

Each time the 4.6 DOHC Ford mod motor is allowed back in, it dominates then gets kicked out for a few years. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the point I'm trying to make is just this: when all of these computer-dependent wonder-machines age, fail and are no longer supported (you know, like Windows XP?), I'm going to be very interested in what happens to the majority of "old car" enthusiasts who will be left twisting in the wind.

I'm going to guess pretty much what happens now when the factory no longer makes parts.  They'll stockpile them, or make their own.  People used to wonder how anyone was going to restore cars from the 60s and 70s with all the plastics and such that went into them.  People figured it out, and people will figure this out too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess pretty much what happens now when the factory no longer makes parts.  They'll stockpile them, or make their own.  People used to wonder how anyone was going to restore cars from the 60s and 70s with all the plastics and such that went into them.  People figured it out, and people will figure this out too.

I'm just curious...have you ever worked on any of the more complex late-model cars, with multiple processors that all have to communicate with each other? 

I have, and without long-term factory support, or a much more sophisticated electronic-component aftermarket than exists at the moment, there are going to be a lot of vehicles only suited to sit up on blocks in the yard. It already takes a fair bit of out-of-the-box thinking and resourcefulness to maintain full function on some vehicles as new as 2001. The mere ability to correctly diagnose onboard-computer issues is beyond the capabilities of a large percentage of 'professional' mechanics already (...like when the onboard-diagnostics functions are down :oand "make their own"...really? Maybe where YOU live, the mechanics and rodders are more highly-evolved than they are around here. ;)

Chrome and plastic parts don't have to actually DO anything, and the aftermarket is already flooded with kinda poor quality on simple appearance items, and mechanical bits that don't come close to meeting OEM specs.

Aging vehicles with multiple onboard computers may prove to be a real nightmare.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to agree on the mpg. I have a 84 Ranger that I put a 347 Stroker in (see pic <-). Its rated around 425 hp (from the engine builder)and gets around 6/7 mpg. This is with all the extra things I did to it (69 block, 68 heads, matched to the cam and ready for unleaded fuel, the stroker kit itelf, Lunati VooDoo cam (351 profile), all machine work, etc....) My wifes 2014 Challenger with the bone stock V-6 is rated at 305hp and gets around 23/24 mpg. True my Ranger sounds wicked cool, and has tons of power (of course I didnt build it for mpg, if I wanted that I would have rebuilt the 2.8 that was stock). 

 

If you wanna play its gonna cost you.....

Edited by BLOODBANE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see those "Y-block" cylinder heads next to a pair of stock ones.  Just from that one picture, anyone who has ever seen a stock Y-block head will know that the intake port configuration on those new heads differs drastically from the originals.  Impressive nevertheless, but not much in common with the original design. 

Yes Mark you are correct about the new aftermarket heads on the Y Block . Just remember not one of these engines are in stock form, that is not the point of the challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring back the Ford modular engine back to the challenge.... then watch those LS fans cry.

Each time the 4.6 DOHC Ford mod motor is allowed back in, it dominates then gets kicked out for a few years. :rolleyes:

I agree.....

I am installing one in a 1954 Ford Glasstop. No electronics though. Homemade intake with removable carb plate to run 4 barrel, dual 4 barrels or tri-power. Distributor running off the intake cam.

Edited by Sledsel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.....

I am installing one in a 1954 Ford Glasstop. No electronics though. Homemade intake with removable carb plate to run 4 barrel, dual 4 barrels or tri-power. Distributor running off the intake cam.

That sounds like a monster! I love it! I bet it will still make 300 or so HP in that form. And look gnarly!

Do you have valvecovers and plug wire covers already?

What year of engine are you using? a '96 and up Lincoln motors have coil over plug valvecovers and need changed for plug wire valvecovers. '99 and up Cobra engines and also any aviator has the coil over plug valve covers and would need to be reverted to older valvecovers to run plug wires. But the nice thing about the '99 and up engines are the C heads. Versus the split intake port B heads from the older engines... even though the older engines are a Teksid block and can handle 1000 or so HP. C heads would probably be easier to build an intake for...

 

If you dont already know all of this already. LOL

Edited by JTalmage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a monster! I love it! I bet it will still make 300 or so HP in that form. And look gnarly!

Do you have valvecovers and plug wire covers already?

What year of engine are you using? a '96 and up Lincoln motors have coil over plug valvecovers and need changed for plug wire valvecovers. '99 and up Cobra engines and also any aviator has the coil over plug valve covers and would need to be reverted to older valvecovers to run plug wires. But the nice thing about the '99 and up engines are the C heads. Versus the split intake port B heads from the older engines... even though the older engines are a Teksid block and can handle 1000 or so HP. C heads would probably be easier to build an intake for...

 

If you dont already know all of this already. LOL

I am using a 95 split port engine with a fabbed tunnel ram style intake. Yup, 16 tubes. Not running the butterfly plates, but depending on performance, I may build a second intake that incorporates them.

Using the stock 95 valve covers with plug wire covers made to incorporate the "Ford V8" decals from a Y Block. Trans will be a toploader 4 speed, using a 302 bellhousing with relocated stater boss. Yes, the 302 bell bolts on the mod. The 302 locating pins are solid, the mod has sleeve pins with bolts thru them. Same location, same OD pins. Easy cheesy

Next project is a Mod engine 58 Edsel using an early 92 Romeo iron block and C heads. The early 92 blocks take a 302 bellhousing, no changes. All 4v blocks are Romeo, so heads and front cover swap swap.

Edited by Sledsel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input on the Ford modular engines, gentlemen.

It's an engine I as yet know very little about, but you've given me some good info to start researching.

I had a low-miles 4.6 and auto box that had been pulled out of a totaled police car here, slated to go in my old Jag XJ-6, but it disappeared when I left the place I was working in 2005 and ended my involvement with those engines before it began.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never liked those modern engines (Chevy LS engines, new Chrysler Hemis etc), especially I find it horrible when they're installed in an old car. I see those engine swaps done sometimes, and some people say they just wanted more horsepower or better reliability. I understand that, but old engine, especially in pretty much stock form can be very reliable as well. And if you want performance, why would anyone want the car to act like every other family sedan when you drive it normally? I think a high performance Street Machine has to be loud and sound like it has a "healthy cam" in it... It doesn't have to give you the smoothest ride ever. Plus that if you want to have an old car, why start modernizing it with today's parts and technology? It makes no sense to me, why not to buy just a 2015 Tojota Pr*us then?

Of course this is just my personal taste and I know many guys disagree with it and I'm not trying to say how it should be done...Just saying my opinion. But that being said, I'm never going to install any of those new engines in my car unless my car is not so new that the engine came as a factory option (But I doubt that). I prefer old technology on this subject.

...And soon when I have to go to a shop to get me a bit of Bondo to finish bodywork on my daily driver, I'll fire up that 55 year-old 283 SBC and if everything goes as usual, it fires up really nicely and runs & drives like it should.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input on the Ford modular engines, gentlemen.

It's an engine I as yet know very little about, but you've given me some good info to start researching.

I had a low-miles 4.6 and auto box that had been pulled out of a totaled police car here, slated to go in my old Jag XJ-6, but it disappeared when I left the place I was working in 2005 and ended my involvement with those engines before it began.

Some quick basics... The 4.6 SOHC "2 valve" as it's called, is the run of the mill engine that ford threw in everything after 93 (except mustang for 2 years). plagued by cracked coolant crossover ports on the intakes, and low on power (rated at 215hp) they were the droll powerplant in all your crown vics/grand marquis/town cars, and cougars/tbirds if optioned with a V8, and even trucks. Unless you have a 99-up "Performance Improved" or "PI" motor (not to be confused with Police Interceptor... which is the P71) which was rated at around 260hp. The difference was in the heads and lower intake. Let's just say, for instance, my high mileage stock 1994 Mustang GT with the pushrod 302  and a 5 speed could stomp a mud hole in a stock 1996 Mustang GT with the non-PI 4.6 and a 5 speed in it. Because I have done it. LOL

The better powerplant to play with is the 4.6 DOHC known as the "4 valve". The aluminum block Mark VIII engines are awesome. Light and strong. "Teksid" blocks used from 93 thru like 95ish. They have 6 bolt mains and hold 1000hp themselves. (internals not so much) The later "WEP" aluminum blocks are good too but said not to hold quite as much power. 

Find yourself a 93-98 Lincoln Mark VIII engine (NOT the FWD Continental... the block is different and will not bolt to standard rwd 4.6 mounts) or any '96-up Mustang Cobra engine. They're a double overhead cam and make like 280hp to the flywheel. Cobra's have the forged crank and stronger rods and pistons compared to the Mark Viii but the Mark engine will hold 400hp all day long.

Find a set of intake cams from a 98 Cobra and put them into a mark engine (or a later cobra engine... split port B head or single port C head... doesnt matter) and degree them (by filing the keyway and adding different thicknesses of shims) and you'll have an NA 4.6 DOHC that runs pretty good on stock parts even if fuel injected... even more so if you slapped a sullivan intake on it and ran a carb, and did the distributor drive setup like Andy (which is wild looking seeing a distributor coming out of the front of a timing cover!)

Here's my '93 Mark VIII engine... nothing special. I did a coil over plug conversion on, and put the later valvecovers on, and coil pack covers from a Ford GT. My car has factory B heads (split port intake ports) with the "bundle of snakes" intake. Throttle body is under the cowl practically. They'll get in upwards of 25 miles per gallon with 280hp in stock form with properly working IMRC plates (Intake manifold runner control.... which can get gummed up over time.)

20150927_203912_zpsdj7rgtby.jpg

here's a sweet looking N/A 4.6 dohc with a distributor drive, electric water pump and crank trigger... looks like they have a cobra intake on it with a sweet custom spacer for the hat. This engine has C heads (single intake ports) based on the newer style cobra intake

na%20c%20head%20motor_zps0pek7zan.jpg

And this is another 4.6 dohc with what looks to be aftermarket valvecovers I've not seen before... and this has a carb'd inatke on it (not sure what brand) and they're running the coil packs behind the carb which looks neat. The engine almost has a 427 SOHC look to it. This one also has C heads based on the intake. 

4-6l-dohc-engine_zpslfyrxf44.jpg

 

Edited by JTalmage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the cracked coolant passage was on the plastic intakes. The 94 and older had aluminum intakes and did not suffer from this problem.

These engines are tight, built to last. The only way to kill one as a driver is to run it out of oil. Dad had a Cougar with close to 300,000 and ran like a dream. Body fell off before it quit. Wish I had pulled the engine before we scrapped it.

The distributor actually comes out of the valve cover. The pic you posted has a crank trigger distributor. Nice, but I am going with a standard electronic using parts store stuff. I want it driveable and serviceable. I would love to locate a reverse rotation marine duraspark distributor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah my mistake on the location of the distributor... it's been a while since I seen one of those awesome frankenstein engines... I love em. If I had a spare Mustang II laying around.... I'd try to cram one in it with a stick shift and a sullivan intake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck locating a Sullivan.... Not made anymore.

I almost had a Weber intake and cabs for my split port engine.... Brand new, I just could not see forking out $1500 for it and a friend that does carbs for a living said for the street those webers are finicky

Isn't it perty tho

1302sr-01+how-to-run-downdraft-carburetors-on-a-4-6-engine+4-6-l-32-valve-v-8-engine.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...