Did Ford ever play with 32 valve pushrods like Chrysler did? - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum > Windsor Tech Forums > 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech

Corral.net is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2009, 03:06 PM   #1
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Detroit
Posts: 326

Did Ford ever play with 32 valve pushrods like Chrysler did?

Anyone know the answer to this one?

I dug up some information about Chrysler playing with 32 valve pushrod hemi heads for eventual use in Nascar.

They got canned right at the end of production due to Nascar outlawing OHC engines.

Supposedly from the magazine article one of the guys scanned and uploaded, these suckers made 1080hp and 850tq naturally aspirated on a 572 block at 7200rpm and they were scared to spin it faster with one pair in existence at the time.

(about 11th post down is the magazine article with pics and numbers)
http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/...8&Main=5487763

I can only imagine how cool that would be to have. One of those with a solid cam and 10,000rpm without the complexity of a DOHC setup. Not to mention way less parasitic loss from spinning 4 cams.

So did Ford ever do anything like this? The Mopar guys cant be the only ones now..... Just found it very interesting and wondered if our boys made any of these. Also felt like sharing .
acidtonic is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-13-2009, 04:36 PM   #2
Registered User
 
MurPHy4570's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Deptford, NJ
Posts: 6,557

Not that I'm aware of. Ford made the 427 SOHC, but NASCAR sheeit-canned it. They put it in NHRA/AHRA drag racing instead, where it was very competitive.
__________________
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country right or wrong."

- Commodore Stephen Decatur, Norfolk, Virginia, April 4, 1816
MurPHy4570 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 04:43 PM   #3
Registered User
 
86caprirs's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chestermere, Alberta. Canada
Posts: 355

Dominion Heads? I think built a 32 valve head for a 302. Never went into production. It was a proto type too.
__________________
2003 Cobra 10th Anniversary convertible. 475hp/480tq. K&N CIA, Magnaflow O/R x-pipe and cat back, 2.9 upper pulley, Brown Bros tune FRPP 500 chrome rims with Nitto 555/NT05.
86caprirs is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 04:44 PM   #4
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by acidtonic View Post
Anyone know the answer to this one?

I dug up some information about Chrysler playing with 32 valve pushrod hemi heads for eventual use in Nascar.

They got canned right at the end of production due to Nascar outlawing OHC engines.

Supposedly from the magazine article one of the guys scanned and uploaded, these suckers made 1080hp and 850tq naturally aspirated on a 572 block at 7200rpm and they were scared to spin it faster with one pair in existence at the time.

(about 11th post down is the magazine article with pics and numbers)
http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/...8&Main=5487763

I can only imagine how cool that would be to have. One of those with a solid cam and 10,000rpm without the complexity of a DOHC setup. Not to mention way less parasitic loss from spinning 4 cams.

So did Ford ever do anything like this? The Mopar guys cant be the only ones now..... Just found it very interesting and wondered if our boys made any of these. Also felt like sharing .
Here ya go, 32 valve SBF
slo895.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 06:48 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,635

"without the complexity of a DOHC setup. " Placing the cam over the top of the valve stems gets rid of the pushrods/rockers/lifters. It's the pushrod set up that's more complex -- and when you get rid of the pushrod - you eliminate the major limitation to opening the port up -- room for the pushrod. Packaging is better w/the pushrod mill as the overall engine height is less. But - there's a reason almost every engine made today is OHC. Only GM and Chrysler have stayed pushrod/2valve -- and I believe they both recently went bankrupt. Perhaps a coincidence....

Point is - most of the majors 'played' with OHC at the same time they thought about multivalve.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 08:00 PM   #6
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Detroit
Posts: 326

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
"without the complexity of a DOHC setup. " Placing the cam over the top of the valve stems gets rid of the pushrods/rockers/lifters. It's the pushrod set up that's more complex -- and when you get rid of the pushrod - you eliminate the major limitation to opening the port up -- room for the pushrod. Packaging is better w/the pushrod mill as the overall engine height is less. But - there's a reason almost every engine made today is OHC. Only GM and Chrysler have stayed pushrod/2valve -- and I believe they both recently went bankrupt. Perhaps a coincidence....

Point is - most of the majors 'played' with OHC at the same time they thought about multivalve.
I agree with you but the complexity debate goes both ways when you think about the DOHC... 4 more cams, extra cam journals, less oil passage room in the heads, timing setup, packaging size, etc.

Considering 8 pushrods already exist in OHV V8 motors, I'd accept that complexity because its really the same as any pushrod when you're buying parts.

I understand which is truly better, but I'd love to play with one because it would surely be a totally different animal than my B head 4v DOHC.
acidtonic is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 09:17 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,635

Of course the other contemporary benefit is all sorts of possibilities for variable cam timing and lift -- which is rather difficult to accomplish with pushrods. GM/Chrysler elected to stay with a staid design, easier packaging - and make up the HP difference with displacement. Unfortunately neither has had much of a car to wrap around their LS/Hemi offerings for the last 10 years or so.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 09:28 PM   #8
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mich
Posts: 1,052

Yes Ford did do some 32 valve heads for a 5.0. I believe they were in the FMS catalog one year. They were recomended for low and midrange. They could be used on any 5.0 block. 16 of the push rods located as usuall the rest were under the valve cover and were activated by the rockers.
turbo2256 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 10:01 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Jamesco5.0's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by slo895.0 View Post
Here ya go, 32 valve SBF

Those are pretty sweet! I like to see somebody running them before I thought about throwing down "cost of a blower" money!

Last edited by Jamesco5.0; 12-13-2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason: them the heads.
Jamesco5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 10:30 PM   #10
Registered User
 
Ray III's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 14,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
"without the complexity of a DOHC setup. " Placing the cam over the top of the valve stems gets rid of the pushrods/rockers/lifters. It's the pushrod set up that's more complex -- and when you get rid of the pushrod - you eliminate the major limitation to opening the port up -- room for the pushrod. Packaging is better w/the pushrod mill as the overall engine height is less. But - there's a reason almost every engine made today is OHC. Only GM and Chrysler have stayed pushrod/2valve -- and I believe they both recently went bankrupt. Perhaps a coincidence....

Point is - most of the majors 'played' with OHC at the same time they thought about multivalve.
And what is the reason almost every engine made during the 70's had pushrods? Overhead cams are not new technology.

It's one thing to compare pros and cons, but I find it silly to say "everybody's doing it at the moment, so it must be better!"
__________________
this post property of RAYMOND
Ray III is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2009, 10:38 PM   #11
Registered User
 
Ray III's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 14,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by acidtonic View Post
I agree with you but the complexity debate goes both ways when you think about the DOHC... 4 more cams, extra cam journals, less oil passage room in the heads, timing setup, packaging size, etc.

Considering 8 pushrods already exist in OHV V8 motors, I'd accept that complexity because its really the same as any pushrod when you're buying parts.

I understand which is truly better, but I'd love to play with one because it would surely be a totally different animal than my B head 4v DOHC.
16 pushrods. 3 more cams.

Another issue with OHC is the way they're usually driven, with long chains. That's fine for farm equipment but when relied on to maintain exact cam to crank relationship for proper engine performance and to keep valves and pistons separate, there's going to be issues down the road. Belts are another way, but they can break and are another maintenance item.
__________________
this post property of RAYMOND
Ray III is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 12:46 AM   #12
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Detroit
Posts: 326

Yeah I meant to say 3 more cams. I also meant 8 pairs of pushrods.

Basically I think it would be interesting to play with one. If only it wasn't unobtainium.
acidtonic is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 06:15 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,635

"And what is the reason almost every engine made during the 70's had pushrods? "

You're killing me Ray - as usual. If you follow your logic, we'd all be driving flatheads. Let me help you "And what is the reason that almost every engine made in the 20's, 30's and 40's was a flathead?" We could go back further if you like - "And what is the reason almost everyone used a horse/buggy in the 1890's?" ROFL

Let's face it guys - neither the cam itself or the timing chain is an item that has a high rate of failure. On the rare occasion that a cam fails - it's much easier to change in the OHC set up. Belts are belts - they have to be changed regularly. C'est la vie.

There's a reason almost everything is OHC now Ray - the market finds it's way to a better mousetrap every time. You can try denying it.....but it won't work. And yes - overhead cams have been around for a while - but they weren't economically feasible because they were more expensive to produce. That's changed, uh, during the last 35 years or so. Something on the order of 300-400 million OHC engines produced during that period....I reckon they got it wrong. Things change - almost always for the better as the market pushes things that way. Even most of GM's current automotive pushrod applications have aluminum blocks these days - cast iron blocks have almost gone the way of.......the pushrod.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S

Last edited by Michael Yount; 12-14-2009 at 06:22 AM.
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 06:45 PM   #14
Registered User
 
MurPHy4570's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Deptford, NJ
Posts: 6,557

Many manufacturers still use cast iron engine blocks. Aluminum isn't economically feasible for some applications.
__________________
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country right or wrong."

- Commodore Stephen Decatur, Norfolk, Virginia, April 4, 1816
MurPHy4570 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 07:06 PM   #15
Registered User
 
Ray III's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 14,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
"And what is the reason almost every engine made during the 70's had pushrods? "

You're killing me Ray - as usual. If you follow your logic, we'd all be driving flatheads. Let me help you "And what is the reason that almost every engine made in the 20's, 30's and 40's was a flathead?" We could go back further if you like - "And what is the reason almost everyone used a horse/buggy in the 1890's?" ROFL
Mike, I'm putting what YOU said in perspective--you're laughing at the wrong guy.
__________________
this post property of RAYMOND
Ray III is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 07:16 PM   #16
MFE
Super Moderator
 
MFE's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 25,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
"And what is the reason almost every engine made during the 70's had pushrods? "

You're killing me Ray - as usual. If you follow your logic, we'd all be driving flatheads. Let me help you "And what is the reason that almost every engine made in the 20's, 30's and 40's was a flathead?" We could go back further if you like - "And what is the reason almost everyone used a horse/buggy in the 1890's?" ROFL

Let's face it guys - neither the cam itself or the timing chain is an item that has a high rate of failure. On the rare occasion that a cam fails - it's much easier to change in the OHC set up. Belts are belts - they have to be changed regularly. C'est la vie.

There's a reason almost everything is OHC now Ray - the market finds it's way to a better mousetrap every time. You can try denying it.....but it won't work. And yes - overhead cams have been around for a while - but they weren't economically feasible because they were more expensive to produce. That's changed, uh, during the last 35 years or so. Something on the order of 300-400 million OHC engines produced during that period....I reckon they got it wrong. Things change - almost always for the better as the market pushes things that way. Even most of GM's current automotive pushrod applications have aluminum blocks these days - cast iron blocks have almost gone the way of.......the pushrod.
All valid points, and the best, be-jeweled engines out there are OHC, and for good reason, but who's making a cost-effective OHC V8, for example, and putting one in reasonably priced cars? Nobody. GM laughed all the way to bankruptcy court not because the LS series engine is a turd, but because it's a marvel of compact, low-cost efficiency. Ford saddled its OHC V8's with ridiculous bore spacing that causes shrouding and breathing problems, GM "saddled" itself with restrictive pushrod design...and cubic inch for cubic inch, kicks the snot out of its competitor, and does it at a lower cost. Now, take into consideration external cubic inch for cubic inch and it's practically laughable how superior a dinosaur inferior design template can be.
MFE is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 07:26 PM   #17
Moderator
 
eleanorfox's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Monroe Michigan
Posts: 10,409

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
. Unfortunately neither has had much of a car to wrap around their LS/Hemi offerings for the last 10 years or so.
Z06/ZR1....................................
__________________
2001 Mustang GT Bullitt (terminated) #2793
2013 Jeep Wrangler Sahara Unlimited
2013 GMC Sierra 1500 4x4
Shout out to Jeff @ JPCoatings.com for awesome work and SUPER FAST turn around
eleanorfox is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 07:32 PM   #18
Registered User
 
Rock4451's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (14)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New Baden, Illinois
Posts: 2,804

Quote:
Originally Posted by eleanorfox View Post
Z06/ZR1....................................
Those are two models that are not even close to being in the price range for most gear-heads who want a new car with some punch. The ZR-1 is a supercar and so is the Z06, arguably. I believe he meant a car that can be purchased by the average Joe.
Rock4451 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 07:42 PM   #19
Moderator
 
eleanorfox's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Monroe Michigan
Posts: 10,409

Quote:
Originally Posted by rock4451 View Post
Those are two models that are not even close to being in the price range for most gear-heads who want a new car with some punch. The ZR-1 is a supercar and so is the Z06, arguably. I believe he meant a car that can be purchased by the average Joe.
I sure hope so, If not someone is in denial.
__________________
2001 Mustang GT Bullitt (terminated) #2793
2013 Jeep Wrangler Sahara Unlimited
2013 GMC Sierra 1500 4x4
Shout out to Jeff @ JPCoatings.com for awesome work and SUPER FAST turn around
eleanorfox is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2009, 08:05 PM   #20
Registered User
 
jandmmustangs's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (63)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,439

I vaguely remember reading about a DOHC 32v hemi in a old car craft/popular hotrodding(Circa 1970/71). I still have the mag out in the garage. Ill have to dig it out and scan the article and post it up.
__________________
1993 LX 331 5spd. The usual stuff.
jandmmustangs is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 08:45 AM   #21
Registered User
 
393Bird's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Clarksville Tn.
Posts: 1,113

Ford built a Aluminum V8 DOHC in 1940.







Ford's first overhead cam, 4 valve, aluminum engine was designed for Sherman tanks in WW2. The 1100 ci engine is an all aluminum 60 degree V-8 with dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, dual carbs, dual magnetos, and hemispherical combustion chambers.

Ford GAA
Manufacturer Ford Motor Company
Production 1940 - 1950
Displacement 1100cu in (18.025 L)
Cylinder bore 5.4
Piston stroke 6
Valvetrain OHC
Fuel system Naturally aspirated (i.e., unsupercharged), Stromberg NA-Y5-G carburetor[1]
Fuel type Petrol
Power output 450 hp (336 kW) @ 2600 RPM
Compression ratio 7.5
__________________
1993 T-Bird, 393 Stroker, Vortech YSi on E85
Lentech Strip Terminator & 4500 rpm stall converter, Detroit Locker with 3.55 gears
Front: 15x4, 165/80/15 , Rear:15x8, 275/50/15 MT Drag Radials

Last edited by 393Bird; 12-15-2009 at 09:12 AM.
393Bird is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 02:04 PM   #22
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Detroit
Posts: 326

Only 450hp? I guess thats alright since V12s back in the day made about that much or less.

I wonder what the torque is with 18 liters..... Also the redline.

That is one honkin motor now. Thanks for the pics.
acidtonic is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 03:22 PM   #23
Registered User
 
bgjohnson's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Desmoines, Iowa
Posts: 5,157

It was something stupid like 1500 or 2000 ft lbs.

About the OHC vs OHV. Both are good in their respects, many OHV designs can go 300k without taking off the valve cover, so can the OHC if chain driven.

OHV can have lifter failure, OHC can have tensioner failure.

I have not modified any Ford OHC stuff, but have worked on both considerably. Here are the reasons I believe OHC is superior, as far as economy.

Instead of having a chain that drives a cam that also drive a pump, that pushes up on a lifter, that pushes up on a rocker, that pushes down on the valve. You have a chain that drives the cam that either pushes directly on the end of the valve or uses a follower that pushes down on the valve with a hydraulic lash tensioner to take up the slack on the other end. While the crank drives the pump.

On a OHC engine, there is nothing besides the valve and in some cases the follower, that has to go one direction, then accelerate back the other direction. Besides the piston and rod on both engines.

That right there cuts off a ton of intertia forces, more reliable RPM is opened up because the springs do not have to be as stiff to move all the components back down. it takes most of the 'flex' out of the valve train and stabilizes it. And there are less moving parts. Not to mention, like somebody stated, the port design can change as well to become more efficient.

But OHC heads are more expensive to make, the tensioners tend to fail and cause rattling or rarely jumped timing. The chains are very long and have more room to flex, become loose, and can effect mechanical timing. And obviously belts, they break and on interferrence engines, cause engine damage.


There are pros and cons to both. But things working as intended and correctly, I feel a OHC design is superior in efficiency due to design.
__________________
1989 Fox 408W TT REbuild in progress
2005 Suzuki Hayabusa
bgjohnson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 05:37 PM   #24
Registered User
 
GilroyRacing's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (98)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: So.Md.
Posts: 7,861

Wasnt it Holman and Moody that was messing with the DOHC?

Also didnt they even have DOHCs for flat heads?
GilroyRacing is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 07:28 PM   #25
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: around
Posts: 342

Not a direct answer to the OP, but I remember a model of a Mopar that had a DOHC 426 hemi, and they detailed it as a one time answer to Fords SOHC 427, but it never made it into any production beyond experimental because NASCAR shut the big motors down. I don't remember if it said it was 32V or not.

Also, I have a Super Ford magazine where they detail a 427 FORD full hemi pushrod motor, 1 of 2 built for Mickey Thompson.
Zeet's5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 09:02 PM   #26
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,635

MFE - Perhaps you missed this part of my post - "GM/Chrysler elected to stay with a staid design, easier packaging - and make up the HP difference with displacement. Unfortunately neither has had much of a car to wrap around their LS/Hemi offerings for the last 10 years or so." It's a tribute to the motor, and a slam to the product offerings. And there isn't a good cubic inch to cubic inch comparison. In general - similar HP ratings in OHC 4 valve motors occur with 1.0-1.2L LESS displacement than with their pushrod competitors. If you want to compare apples to apples - about all you've got are Ford's 4 valve motors - which have been way down on HP compared to others of a similar displacement; and Cadillac's relatively short-lived Northstar motor - which had the same HP shortfall as Ford's offerings, as well as reliability issues.

Ford never seemed to realize that the ONLY reason to go OHC is to stuff the cylinder full of valves and take advantage of the lack of pushrods for port design that allows the motor to really breath. A contemporary 2 valve OHC motor is the worst of both worlds. Almost the same for the 3 valve. Which explains why there are many 3.2-3.7L V6's that come close to (some exceed) the power output of Ford's 2 and 3 valve OHC 4.6L offerings over the years.

As for 'reasonable price' -- well, you can have the fact staring you in the face, and still not see clearly. GM/Chrysler went out of business trying to sell CHEAP cars. The public was clearly saying 'we want more content, and we'll pay for it'. The issue has never been price. It's simple. They didn't produce cars people wanted --- despite the most developed pushrod engine offering ever. You can't get around it -- the only two companies left producing pushrod motors had to reorganize under bankruptcy protection - and I don't think they're done with that stuff yet. Their pushrod offerings are the best ever. But that's irrelevant. The market wants something else. Kind of like continuing to evolve the electric typewriter when computers have moved past it. You might make the best one - but the public has moved on.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2009, 11:45 PM   #27
MFE
Super Moderator
 
MFE's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 25,838

I saw all that, after the fact, and decided not to edit anyway.

But let's be clear: The bankruptcy of the manufacturers, as complicated an issue as it is, is a straw man. The market for "more content" is well served. And the topic is not the cars, the topic is the type of engine, and to bring bankruptcy to the table only serves to distract from the fact that the LS series engines, with all their outdated pushrods, produce more power in a package smaller and simpler and less costly to produce than any comparable-power OHC engine in production. All the European and Japanese manufacturers have wonderful OHC engines, simply fantastic, jeweled pieces, taking advantage of all that OHC has to offer form the standpoint of valvetrain stability, control of timing events, and cylinder design...but it costs them dearly in price, packaging, or both.

Bottom line is, there's no argument that OHC is the preferred method of making power, for many reasons...almost all of which are trumped, in the case of real-world V8's, by the addressing of very real packaging concerns and smart workarounds for the most important of their other disadvantages. It can be done, and it has been done.

Packaging not an issue? OHC, hands down. Cost not an issue? OHC, hands down. But in the practical world, those constraints are very real, and the pushrod engine has been shown to address them admirably, when executed properly.

Last edited by MFE; 12-15-2009 at 11:57 PM.
MFE is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-16-2009, 10:44 AM   #28
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Detroit
Posts: 326

Very interesting reading so far guys.

So we've seen what Chrysler did, and Ford, now how about GM?

With GM not being able to build a good OHC engine besides the lt5, did they try this avenue at all?

I just hear these arguments against a 32 valve pushrod but it seems all the attempts from the manufacturers were stopped not because of testing, but because of bureaucracy between bean counters and nascar.

Was there ever a 32 valve pushrod that just sucked and was canned for that reason? It seems these motors were making good numbers and were killed for other reasons.
acidtonic is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 03:22 PM   #29
Registered User
 
boss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Calgary AB CND ... Im living the big F... lebowski
Posts: 402

Fords's multi valve pushrod heads

I was just doing a search and came across this thread so I thought I would add some info. In the past, Ford also had the multi valve pushrod 427 "Calliope" prototype in the 60's.







more recenctly, Ford and GM also made prototype multi valve pushrod heads ment for mass production.

GM's




Ford's 32V sbf 302 pushrod head sold through FMS, offered better low and mid range torque to the 2 valve stuff and also very stable at high rpm.




also worthy of mention here that most dont know about is that if it was not for politics back then, OLDS was very close to mass producing there W43 32V pushrod engine.

The W43: Oldsmobile’s DOHC 455 V8 That Never Was - StreetLegalTV


OLDSmobility.com • View topic - "455 Olds DOHC Street Hemi"

OLDSmobility.com • View topic - "Olds Super Rocket" (DOHC 455 Hemi)

an interesting note is the OLDS 4V pushrod design would of also worked very well on Ford blocks because of simular head bolt and coolant layouts.

Feature Article


BTW, multi valve pushrod tech has been used and proven since 1915 on indian and harley race bikes. This same 4 valve pushrod tech is still being used in production engines even today.
__________________
Kaz...oom!!!... Dudeist 3:00am bathrobe wearing wallmart shopper... http://www.dudeism.com/

Last edited by boss; 03-03-2012 at 03:42 PM.
boss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 04:55 PM   #30
Registered User
 
boss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Calgary AB CND ... Im living the big F... lebowski
Posts: 402

sbf Dominion 32 valve heads

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86caprirs View Post
Dominion Heads? I think built a 32 valve head for a 302. Never went into production. It was a proto type too.
The Dominion Performance 32 valve heads did go "into production", Hal Carlson (RIP) from Dominion Performance inc built and sold 32v ford kits/parts up till about mid 05 when he got sick and passed away recently. I understand hal made over 2 doz sbf Dominion head sets with different intake port versions out of his home based business (and this is not including the 32v arao engineering versions out there). I also know Hals friend got the LAST two sets of Dominion 32V heads just last year when Hal passed away.



__________________
Kaz...oom!!!... Dudeist 3:00am bathrobe wearing wallmart shopper... http://www.dudeism.com/

Last edited by boss; 03-03-2012 at 07:09 PM.
boss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 07:33 PM   #31
Registered User
 
Han Solo's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Miccosukee, FL
Posts: 1,315

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFE View Post
All valid points, and the best, be-jeweled engines out there are OHC, and for good reason, but who's making a cost-effective OHC V8, for example, and putting one in reasonably priced cars? Nobody. GM laughed all the way to bankruptcy court not because the LS series engine is a turd, but because it's a marvel of compact, low-cost efficiency. Ford saddled its OHC V8's with ridiculous bore spacing that causes shrouding and breathing problems, GM "saddled" itself with restrictive pushrod design...and cubic inch for cubic inch, kicks the snot out of its competitor, and does it at a lower cost. Now, take into consideration external cubic inch for cubic inch and it's practically laughable how superior a dinosaur inferior design template can be.
And the LS3s are blowing up as fast as you can turn a sweeper with them.
__________________
2013 Mustang GT w/Brembo Brakes, 96 Townsend Chassis Late Model Stockcar, 99 Mustang GT - Auto-x/track car, 03 F150 - Daily Driver
http://www.youtube.com/user/sandyman099/videos
Han Solo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 07:35 PM   #32
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: maryland
Posts: 241

I remember reading an article about those Dominion heads. It was a great idea and if I had been in a higher tax bracket I would have like to have gotten a set. I remeber they were so expensive that it was not even worth me looking twice at them.
__________________
'03 Cobra-529rwhp, '95R #201, '90 GT w/ IRS, 2014 Fiesta ST
wheelhopper is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 08:18 PM   #33
Registered User
 
EvilHorace's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Greenfield, WI
Posts: 1,647

I like the idea of doing the 32V head SBF conversion but I'd like to see results from others who've done it first, including total cost.
__________________
'85 GT, 6.4L, 5sp, etc
EvilHorace is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 09:58 PM   #34
Registered User
 
boss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Calgary AB CND ... Im living the big F... lebowski
Posts: 402

dominion perf heads

Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhopper View Post
I remember reading an article about those Dominion heads. It was a great idea and if I had been in a higher tax bracket I would have like to have gotten a set. I remeber they were so expensive that it was not even worth me looking twice at them.
I think that because there is/was so much BAD info on some forums that most guys got mixed up and did not understand there were 2 diffrent supplyers/companys of these heads up untill recently. The dominion versions were cheaper, avg $4 grand for a new set (this is what my dominion sets cost me new) probably because Hal had lower overhead. The arao versions were more, $6+ grand to get into, but really if you compare either of these versions to any other billet/specialty heads out there they are cheaper than other custom 2valve billet heads. I know neither one of these companys were getting rich off of making these 32v heads as they are alot of work to make.
__________________
Kaz...oom!!!... Dudeist 3:00am bathrobe wearing wallmart shopper... http://www.dudeism.com/
boss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2012, 10:09 PM   #35
Registered User
 
boss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Calgary AB CND ... Im living the big F... lebowski
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilHorace View Post
I like the idea of doing the 32V head SBF conversion but I'd like to see results from others who've done it first, including total cost.
I have just finished going through a 4yr gong show waiting 4yrs for custom C blocks but have just finaly moved on now with W blocks. My new 428ci rpm 4v short block assembly cost NO more than any other 2v version. I got more info on it here... $1500? New Boss 9.2 blocks?
__________________
Kaz...oom!!!... Dudeist 3:00am bathrobe wearing wallmart shopper... http://www.dudeism.com/

Last edited by boss; 03-03-2012 at 10:33 PM.
boss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
© 2010-2011 Corral.net

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.