Ford Mustang Forums banner

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

29K views 55 replies 27 participants last post by  Alexandros 
#1 ·
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/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5488738&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 :).
 
See less See more
#2 ·
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.
 
#30 · (Edited)
sbf Dominion 32 valve heads



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.


 
#5 ·
"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.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#8 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#13 · (Edited)
"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. ;)
 
#15 ·
"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.
 
#14 ·
Many manufacturers still use cast iron engine blocks. Aluminum isn't economically feasible for some applications.
 
#21 · (Edited)
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
 
#37 ·
wow only 7.5 compression, wounder what it would have been like with 12.5:1 compression?
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#41 ·
I'm not sure on Holman, but eagle/gurney (sp?) had there hands in OHC tech back when. I have photos of there dohc stuff from the 60s.
 
#25 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#27 · (Edited)
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.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#29 · (Edited)
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.
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#34 ·
dominion perf heads



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.
 
#35 · (Edited)
#50 · (Edited)
32 valve SBF heads

I Love auto eng history, like the 32 valve Globe conversion kit for the SBF. From what I understand Mercury briefly advertised this 4 valve dohc head kit for the SBF block back in the late 60's early 70's for a short time...






suckers will buy anything!
the only suckers Ed are the ones that you sucker into buying the shat your peddling on forums lol..
 
#42 ·
Yes Gurney and Weslake also made multi valve pushrod heads that made some really good power #'s for there time.

Gurney Weslake Head performance - Page 2 - GT40s.com



Most dont know it but the Dominion and Arao version heads were modeled after the old Weslake 32V pushrod heads, just with there own ideas of using stock type int and exh setups. I heard Weslake also tested modified sbc castings/parts to work on the sbf block. Weslake was involved in alot of diffrent multi valve pushrod projects in the past.

Just for interest's sake - Weslake SB Chevy 4-valve heads • Speed Talk
 
#43 · (Edited)
32 valve Covalt

Not Chryslers own project the op mentioned first but that trick aftermarket Covalt 32 valve pushrod mopar head deal is worth mentioning again.







Chrysler did do the multi valve "A-925" head which was a dohc deal.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top