The Official Mustang Thread

[GoCougs]

Sure, but it's 7 litres.  7 litre engines were putting out over 600 bhp in the '60s.

7 liters that are smaller than 5 .

There is no factory engine from the '60s that is 3% as good as the LS7, not even the Hemi .

[GoCougs]

I will say, the upcoming ZR1 is rumored to have a DOHC mill, so the days of the GM pooprod look to be numbered.

When fully tapped though, an OHC motor is going to be the better motor, it's just that Ford hasn't been able to fully tap the potential.

The Coyote is based on the modular, which is 25 years old, and it is old, particularly the inefficient (large) design, esp. the heads.

[FoMoJo]

Then there's this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX8YStFXprM

[GoCougs]

Lingenfelter has 650 hp LS7 crate engines, on pump gas.

The garbage comment was just to rile up any Coyote fans. It's a good engine, but I was surprised at its (lack of) performance in that video.

Well, Ford has been losing motor shootouts to GM for decades, so it's nothing new .

I'm going to go after the heads. That is 80%+ of what defines the performance of an engine. Ford just can't seem to muster the flow and volumetric efficiency for some reason(s).

[FoMoJo]

I will say, the upcoming ZR1 is rumored to have a DOHC mill, so the days of the GM pooprod look to be numbered.

When fully tapped though, an OHC motor is going to be the better motor, it's just that Ford hasn't been able to fully tap the potential.

The Coyote is based on the modular, which is 25 years old, and it is old, particularly the inefficient (large) design, esp. the heads.

That's like saying that the LS7 is based on the 65 year old SBC, or that the Koenigsegg Engine is based on the 25 year old Ford modular.

[FoMoJo]

Lingenfelter has 650 hp LS7 crate engines, on pump gas.

The garbage comment was just to rile up any Coyote fans. It's a good engine, but I was surprised at its (lack of) performance in that video.

Blame the builder .

[MX793]

Lingenfelter has 650 hp LS7 crate engines, on pump gas.

The garbage comment was just to rile up any Coyote fans. It's a good engine, but I was surprised at its (lack of) performance in that video.

Ford Performance (which is a division of Ford, not a 3rd party) has a Coyote crate motor making 580 hp on pump gas.  With a 2 year warranty.

[12,000 RPM]

And that only costs $10K

[MX793]

And that only costs $10K

Nah, it's like 20k.  It's basically a worked over Voodoo with a CPC.

[FoMoJo]

Well, Ford has been losing motor shootouts to GM for decades, so it's nothing new .

I'm going to go after the heads. That is 80%+ of what defines the performance of an engine. Ford just can't seem to muster the flow and volumetric efficiency for some reason(s).

You're full of pooprods .  Can't make a decent head with all those bits of metal in the way.

[GoCougs]

That's like saying that the LS7 is based on the 65 year old SBC, or that the Koenigsegg Engine is based on the 25 year old Ford modular.

Actually, it's like saying the 350 Chevy of 2000 (its last year in a production vehicle) is based on 265 Chevy of 1955.

The Coyote is a Modular motor, which means it has the same basic features (cam drive, head layout, bore spacing, etc.) of the DOHC 4.6L Modular first released in 1993.

[GoCougs]

You're full of pooprods .  Can't make a decent head with all those bits of metal in the way.

Welp, Chevy has done a pretty good job - it's been more than 12 years and at best Ford can only now (maybe) match the LS7 with the Voodoo (20 more hp, but bigger, heavier, more complicated and has a far less advantageous torque curve).

[MX793]

Actually, it's like saying the 350 Chevy of 2000 (its last year in a production vehicle) is based on 265 Chevy of 1955.

The Coyote is a Modular motor, which means it has the same basic features (cam drive, head layout, bore spacing, etc.) of the DOHC 4.6L Modular first released in 1993.

And today's SBC shared the same cam drive, head layout, bore spacing, etc as the ones from 30+ years ago...

[GoCougs]

And today's SBC shared the same cam drive, head layout, bore spacing, etc as the ones from 30+ years ago...

The SBC heads of today have equally spaced ports - prior to 1992 they were siamesed. All pushrod motors have the "same" cam drive whereas previously discussed OHC motors have a wide variation (and Ford is antiquated in using four chains).

Chevy states that the SBC of today is on its 5th generation where as Ford states that the Coyote is a Modular motor:  https://performanceparts.ford.com/engines/ IOW, the Coyote is based on the Modular and the SBC of today is not based on the SBC of 65 (or even 30) years ago.

[FoMoJo]

The SBC heads of today have equally spaced ports - prior to 1992 they were siamesed. All pushrod motors have the "same" cam drive whereas previously discussed OHC motors have a wide variation (and Ford is antiquated in using four chains).

Chevy states that the SBC of today is on its 5th generation where as Ford states that the Coyote is a Modular motor:  https://performanceparts.ford.com/engines/ IOW, the Coyote is based on the Modular and the SBC of today is not based on the SBC of 65 (or even 30) years ago.

Yeah, those siamesed ports were really goofy.  Always hated the looks of the headers.  It took GM long enough to correct that particular aberration.  Took them even longer to beef up the bottom end with a deep skirt.  Of course, up till then, they never really generated enough horsepower to pose much of the threat to the bottom end.

It may be difficult for some of you pooproders to comprehend, but when you have multiple cams, you may need more than one chain to drive them .

[GoCougs]

Yeah, those siamesed ports were really goofy.  Always hated the looks of the headers.  It took GM long enough to correct that particular aberration.  Took them even longer to beef up the bottom end with a deep skirt.  Of course, up till then, they never really generated enough horsepower to pose much of the threat to the bottom end.

It may be difficult for some of you pooproders to comprehend, but when you have multiple cams, you may need more than one chain to drive them .

Siamesed ports caused no deleterious effect on (flow) performance. After all, the two best small blocks of the time (Mopar #1, SBC #2) had siamesed ports. It was a cost cutting measure. When compression ratios started to get (relatively) insane, the uneven heating of siamesed (exhaust) ports was a problem, and then both GM and Mopar went to evenly spaced ports (and still outshined the Modular).

The Coyote is based on the Modular and it is antiquated in its architecture, including its mammoth size and 4 cam chains. Perhaps in the future Ford will address this.

[CaminoRacer]

How was it a cost cutting measure?

Genuine question. It's past my bedtime and I can't think of any money saved from that design vs. evenly spaced.

[GoCougs]

How was it a cost cutting measure?

Genuine question. It's past my bedtime and I can't think of any money saved from that design vs. evenly spaced.

Casting the exhaust manifolds - less material w/siamesed ports because middle exhaust ports double up:





Without such cost-cutting measures Chevy may not have been able to debut the original 265 V8 in 1955. But, by doing so, Chevy changed the automotive landscape forever (and Ford has been playing catch-up ever since).

[FoMoJo]

Casting the exhaust manifolds - less material w/siamesed ports because middle exhaust ports double up:

Without such cost-cutting measures Chevy may not have been able to debut the original 265 V8 in 1955. But, by doing so, Chevy changed the automotive landscape forever (and Ford has been playing catch-up ever since).

Siamese ports were common back then and, yes, it was a cost consideration even though Oldsmobile and Cadillac had siamese ports; even Ford's Y-block and, of course, Ford's famous flathead.  It was less of a performance issue back then as heat generation was less of a problem.  Of course, when FE, MEL engines were developed, the performance potential was much higher, especially for the 427 FE so Ford did it properly; even on the Small Block Windsor. 

That GM maintained their siamese design for so long is a bit of a puzzle; but then, the SBC was designed as a budget engine.  It only really gained fame as a performance engine because it fit so easily between the frame rails of '30s Ford coupe; especially the deuce; a problem for the Y-block because of the deep skirt and the placement of the oil pump.

[GoCougs]

Siamese ports were common back then and, yes, it was a cost consideration even though Oldsmobile and Cadillac had siamese ports; even Ford's Y-block and, of course, Ford's famous flathead.  It was less of a performance issue back then as heat generation was less of a problem.  Of course, when FE, MEL engines were developed, the performance potential was much higher, especially for the 427 FE so Ford did it properly; even on the Small Block Windsor. 

That GM maintained their siamese design for so long is a bit of a puzzle; but then, the SBC was designed as a budget engine.  It only really gained fame as a performance engine because it fit so easily between the frame rails of '30s Ford coupe; especially the deuce; a problem for the Y-block because of the deep skirt and the placement of the oil pump.

All engines are budget engines, save for homologation specials like the 426 Hemi.

There was no material need to change the heads, esp. as the '70s carried on, and many competing engines were discontinued, and performance dropped precipitously.

The SBC gained famed as a performance engine because of power, durability and extensive support in the aftermarket. The Mopar LA was as good or better, but sold in far fewer numbers, so never gained the aftermarket support. The Windsor sold in equivalent numbers to the SBC but it could never match performance.

[FoMoJo]

All engines are budget engines, save for homologation specials like the 426 Hemi.

There was no material need to change the heads, esp. as the '70s carried on, and many competing engines were discontinued, and performance dropped precipitously.

The SBC gained famed as a performance engine because of power, durability and extensive support in the aftermarket. The Mopar LA was as good or better, but sold in far fewer numbers, so never gained the aftermarket support. The Windsor sold in equivalent numbers to the SBC but it could never match performance.

Now I know that you're delusional .

[Soup DeVille]

Now I know that you're delusional .

He's right.

The 302 Windsor was a good engine; especially compared to its real like-displacement rivals the 305 and 307.

The 351 was OK, and necessary, but it was lacking compared to the Chevy 350.

[FoMoJo]

He's right.

The 302 Windsor was a good engine; especially compared to its real like-displacement rivals the 305 and 307.

The 351 was OK, and necessary, but it was lacking compared to the Chevy 350.

The 351 Windsor was, basically, a truck engine.  The 335 'Cleveland' was the one I had.  Much better performing heads.

As for the 289/302, they were every bit the match of anything Chevy produced and more.  Certainly, there were variations based on the short block, INDY version included as well as legendary applications; no need to name them.

[GoCougs]

He's right.

The 302 Windsor was a good engine; especially compared to its real like-displacement rivals the 305 and 307.

The 351 was OK, and necessary, but it was lacking compared to the Chevy 350.

The Windsor always under performed the small block Chevy - this is an inarguable truth, and it begins and ends with the heads, particularly the Windsor's small valves.

[GoCougs]

The 351 Windsor was, basically, a truck engine.  The 335 'Cleveland' was the one I had.  Much better performing heads.

As for the 289/302, they were every bit the match of anything Chevy produced and more.  Certainly, there were variations based on the short block, INDY version included as well as legendary applications; no need to name them.

Introduced in 1969 the 351W (and Windsor in general) was primarily developed for passenger car applications. Ford used the 351M and 360 in trucks throughout the '70s. The 351W wasn't used in trucks till the early '80s.

But that's an aside. As we know, Chevy, Ford and Mopar small blocks served in great measure in both cars and trucks - what defined a "truck" motor was primarily the cam, and to a lesser extent, the heads (and even then, only sorta - Mopar used the exact same 318 (cam, heads, carb) in both cars and trucks).

The 351C was block ports and valves on a small block - gets you a high RPM screamer, but it gets you a soft bottom end. The Boss 302 was even worse. Good attempt to address the Windsor's small valves, but it was too much.

The hottest Chevy small blocks - the L76 327 (365 hp), L79 327 (375 hp), L46 350 (350 hp), LT-1 350 (370 hp) - was stuff the Windsor couldn't touch. True, the 302 was down on cubes, but for some reason Ford never offered a hi-po version of the 351W (max rating of 290 hp), and instead got lost in the weeds with splitting efforts between the Cleveland and Windsor.

[Soup DeVille]

The Windsor always under performed the small block Chevy - this is an inarguable truth, and it begins and ends with the heads, particularly the Windsor's small valves.

Which worked better for the smaller displacement engines they were designed for.

[GoCougs]

Which worked better for the smaller displacement engines they were designed for.

True - 2.02/1.88 valves in the original 2-bbl 8.5:1 260 Windsor or 265 SBC is a bad combination. Chevy however managed to scale valve size with displacement and/or performance, and Ford didn't keep pace. 

[FoMoJo]

Introduced in 1969 the 351W (and Windsor in general) was primarily developed for passenger car applications. Ford used the 351M and 360 in trucks throughout the '70s. The 351W wasn't used in trucks till the early '80s.

But that's an aside. As we know, Chevy, Ford and Mopar small blocks served in great measure in both cars and trucks - what defined a "truck" motor was primarily the cam, and to a lesser extent, the heads (and even then, only sorta - Mopar used the exact same 318 (cam, heads, carb) in both cars and trucks).

The 351C was block ports and valves on a small block - gets you a high RPM screamer, but it gets you a soft bottom end. The Boss 302 was even worse. Good attempt to address the Windsor's small valves, but it was too much.

The hottest Chevy small blocks - the L76 327 (365 hp), L79 327 (375 hp), L46 350 (350 hp), LT-1 350 (370 hp) - was stuff the Windsor couldn't touch. True, the 302 was down on cubes, but for some reason Ford never offered a hi-po version of the 351W (max rating of 290 hp), and instead got lost in the weeds with splitting efforts between the Cleveland and Windsor.

Naturally, I disagree with much of what you say, but as a clarification regarding the 351 Windsor being a 'truck' engine was only in the sense that they had simply added a bit of deck height and increased the stroke by 1/2 inch; hence, more torque and less revs, as per "truck" engines.

However, the main difference between the Ford small block and GM small block was in the scaling.  The Ford small block was designed as a 'compact' light weight engine utilizing Ford's thin wall manufacture, typically with a higher nickel content for additional strength, weighing only 460 pounds vs. the GM small block weighing in at a piggish 575 pounds.  This is one of the main reasons that the Ford small block was the choice for so many racing applications.  The other reason was the extreme over-square bore and stroke (4"/2.87") ensuring a high-revving capability required for most performance engines.  A comparable GM small block (283) measured (3.875"/3").  Certainly, regarding the cylinder heads, valve sizes, there were different configurations depending on application 2V, 4V, compression etc.

Of the various iterations of the Ford and GM small blocks, the best comparison is with the Boss 302 and Chevy Z/28 302.  They managed to each arrive at exactly the same bore and stroke (4"/3").  Ford's advantage, other than weighing about 100 pounds less, was in that they were able to go to the parts bin and bolt on a set of Cleveland high flow heads.  Though they were both factory rated at 290 hp, for insurance purposes, we know they were actually a fair bit more; the Chevy claimed to be in excess of 340 hp with a spec'd Boss topping out at 379 hp on a dyno.  This advantage, in less weight and more hp, also was reflected on the track where the Boss typically outpaced the Z/28.

Much, much more to the discussion if you care to continue.  There's the whole Australian thing as well.

[GoCougs]

Well, of course you disagree . Most others don't however; ITT and elsewhere.

at asserting a Windsor is 100+ lbs lighter than a SBC. The SBC is a bit bigger/heavier than the 260/289/302, but then again it was designed for much larger displacements and higher power ratings. The Modified, Cleveland and 351W addressed these issues, and not surprisingly, each are about the same size/weight as the SBC.

The Boss 302 was a Cleveland motor, not a Windsor motor. And though a good screamer, race motors are not street motors (and the Z/28 cleaned house in '68 SCCA T/A, where as in '70 The Mustang won, but only barely), and for a road course series, the motor is much less of a factor.

Chevy changed the automotive world in '55 with its small block. Ford didn't respond till '62, and throughout the '60s and into the '70s, Ford was distracted with far too many motors - FE, 385, Windsor, Boss/Cleveland, and Modified. Had Ford converted to the focused two-motor paradigm (one small block, one big block) in the mid '60s as did Chevy and Mopar, Ford's legacy would have been changed for the better (didn't happen for Ford till the early '80s but by then it was too late).

[FoMoJo]

Well, of course you disagree . Most others don't however; ITT and elsewhere.

at asserting a Windsor is 100+ lbs lighter than a SBC. The SBC is a bit bigger/heavier than the 260/289/302, but then again it was designed for much larger displacements and higher power ratings. The Modified, Cleveland and 351W addressed these issues, and not surprisingly, each are about the same size/weight as the SBC.

The Boss 302 was a Cleveland motor, not a Windsor motor. And though a good screamer, race motors are not street motors (and the Z/28 cleaned house in '68 SCCA T/A, where as in '70 The Mustang won, but only barely), and for a road course series, the motor is much less of a factor.

Chevy changed the automotive world in '55 with its small block. Ford didn't respond till '62, and throughout the '60s and into the '70s, Ford was distracted with far too many motors - FE, 385, Windsor, Boss/Cleveland, and Modified. Had Ford converted to the focused two-motor paradigm (one small block, one big block) in the mid '60s as did Chevy and Mopar, Ford's legacy would have been changed for the better (didn't happen for Ford till the early '80s but by then it was too late).

More wrong, but I'll correct you just once more.

SBC weighed 575 lbs., Windsor weighed 460 lbs.  Variations of these engines might've weighed more or less depending upon application, internals, etc.
351 Cleveland weighs 550 lbs., the 351 Windsor was 510 lbs.

The Boss 302 was most definitely a Windsor motor; a variation of the special heads developed for the Boss were used on the 335 series engines.  It may be of interest to note that of the Cleveland engines manufactured in Australia, they ultimately destroked the 351 back to a 302 so, in fact, there was a 302 Cleveland, but in Australia; even though the called it a Windsor.

Certainly, the SBC was a good engine for the time.  It was relatively compact for the era and produced reasonable power compared to the aging Ford flathead; as well as being readily available in junkyards across the nation for use in hot rodding.

Ford's direction at the time, was a bit different.  They developed the Y-Block to be a more durable and refined engine than the SBC owing to the extended skirting and more sophisticated metallurgy; higher nickel content made a stronger more durable casting and allowed for a thin-wall design.  The drawback, however, was limited displacement expansion; 312 was the largest displacement except for the MEL Y-block that extended up to 368 CI; but was a different casting.  However, as the horsepower race was on and, at the time there was no replacement for displacement, Ford developed the best engine series of the era in the FE series, basically a mid size design, but went on in different guises to tromp anything the competition could throw at it; domestic and internationally; no need to go over that one again.