Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 26, 2011, 08:50:45 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 26, 2011, 08:50:45 PM
We all know that more valves are better no argument. But wait?????
Both the latest Four- and Three-Valve heads offer exceptional flow compared to the older Two-Valve motors. Sure, Ford improved the situation with the Two-Valve motors by offering the so-called Power Improved version back in 1999, but even the improved version was a far cry from its Three- and Four-Valve cousins. With similar displacement and wild cam timing available for all the mod motors, the thing that differentiates the Two-Valve from the Three- and Four-Valve motors is basically head flow. With little to no aftermarket support (until Trick Flow offers up its new Two-Valve head), the choice is limited to porting the stock castings.
In stock trim there is no comparison, and this trend continues even once ported. Where a fully ported Two-Valve head may reach 245-250 cfm, a ported Four-Valve motor will be a minimum of 50-cfm, better and may actually offer as much as 100 additional cfm per cylinder. That is a big performance obstacle to overcome, and the main reason why the Three and Four-Valve motors will be chosen before the Two-Valve for serious power levels.
With all that buildup, you might assume this is a story on the superiority of the Three- and Four-Valve motors, but nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the valve deficiency, the lesser Two-Valve mod motors can be made to produce some serious power. Just how much you ask? How does an honest 1,000 hp sound? That is a big number in anyone's book, but a serious step for the lowly Two-Valve. Naturally such prodigious power will require the use of forced induction, something that will help us overcome the breathing inefficiency inherent in the Two-Valve motor.
1000Hp Two Valve Engine Power Improved Front View
The increased stroke length...
Now the LS motors with their shallow intake runners flow well into the high numbers without porting. With porting they flow like Niagara Falls. Many believe that the additional valve train increases internal frictions and load. This in turn offsets the advantages of the extra valves. With that said with a pressurized engine the extra valves may not flow more. This in turn as 2 valve engines have less rotating MASS in general. Basically a NA small displacement engine will make more HP than a 2 valve in some cases. It all depends on the shrouding and the angle of the runners. Sometimes more is not BETTER. Just saying. The HP rating on the GM Ls series motors is beyond comparison that is why GM did not go 4 valves and still make tuns of hp. They have the flow they need. And the push rod engine is lower and can allow the engineers to design lower frontal area cars for better high speed handling and cornering. Just a discussion on the differences in the valve number discussion. More is sometimes not better in all cases. Thanks
Both the latest Four- and Three-Valve heads offer exceptional flow compared to the older Two-Valve motors. Sure, Ford improved the situation with the Two-Valve motors by offering the so-called Power Improved version back in 1999, but even the improved version was a far cry from its Three- and Four-Valve cousins. With similar displacement and wild cam timing available for all the mod motors, the thing that differentiates the Two-Valve from the Three- and Four-Valve motors is basically head flow. With little to no aftermarket support (until Trick Flow offers up its new Two-Valve head), the choice is limited to porting the stock castings.
In stock trim there is no comparison, and this trend continues even once ported. Where a fully ported Two-Valve head may reach 245-250 cfm, a ported Four-Valve motor will be a minimum of 50-cfm, better and may actually offer as much as 100 additional cfm per cylinder. That is a big performance obstacle to overcome, and the main reason why the Three and Four-Valve motors will be chosen before the Two-Valve for serious power levels.
With all that buildup, you might assume this is a story on the superiority of the Three- and Four-Valve motors, but nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the valve deficiency, the lesser Two-Valve mod motors can be made to produce some serious power. Just how much you ask? How does an honest 1,000 hp sound? That is a big number in anyone's book, but a serious step for the lowly Two-Valve. Naturally such prodigious power will require the use of forced induction, something that will help us overcome the breathing inefficiency inherent in the Two-Valve motor.
1000Hp Two Valve Engine Power Improved Front View
The increased stroke length...
Now the LS motors with their shallow intake runners flow well into the high numbers without porting. With porting they flow like Niagara Falls. Many believe that the additional valve train increases internal frictions and load. This in turn offsets the advantages of the extra valves. With that said with a pressurized engine the extra valves may not flow more. This in turn as 2 valve engines have less rotating MASS in general. Basically a NA small displacement engine will make more HP than a 2 valve in some cases. It all depends on the shrouding and the angle of the runners. Sometimes more is not BETTER. Just saying. The HP rating on the GM Ls series motors is beyond comparison that is why GM did not go 4 valves and still make tuns of hp. They have the flow they need. And the push rod engine is lower and can allow the engineers to design lower frontal area cars for better high speed handling and cornering. Just a discussion on the differences in the valve number discussion. More is sometimes not better in all cases. Thanks
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: vinnietbird on June 26, 2011, 09:04:54 PM
Post by: vinnietbird on June 26, 2011, 09:04:54 PM
I wonder which one of you two (Tom and Beau) can pee the farthest.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 26, 2011, 09:29:53 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 26, 2011, 09:29:53 PM
Quote from: vinnietbird;362304
I wonder which one of you two (Tom and Beau) can pee the farthest.
I hear you Vinnie just wanted to post some good info on the subject. Its a forum and i thought if i posted a new title we could discuss it. Just a discussion issue. NO WORRIES Thanks
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on June 27, 2011, 03:39:33 AM
Post by: Beau on June 27, 2011, 03:39:33 AM
Take the blowers, shrouding, and all that and toss it.
Humor me here; imagine a stock 5.0HO with the normal 2 valve E7 heads...yeah, it's..peppy, and flows decent for a stock design. Now, imagine the same IDENTICAL engine, with the same chambers, with 4 valve heads. Yeah, it may just be a little heavier, but it will also produce more power.
With today's technology, VVT, cylinder deactivation and what's it/who's it and such..it's all moot.
And I will agree the LS engines are very moddable with crazy power gains, however, GM has been building the small block in one version or another for almost 60 years...it makes me cringe to see these clowns with new Camaros thumping their chests like some kind of Columbus just discovering North America....guess what Captain...it's already been done before.
(http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by vinnietbird (http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png) (http://"http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?p=362304#post362304")
I wonder which one of you two (Tom and Beau) can pee the farthest.
Depends on how tall the building I'm standing on is, and how hard the wind is blowing behind past me lol
Humor me here; imagine a stock 5.0HO with the normal 2 valve E7 heads...yeah, it's..peppy, and flows decent for a stock design. Now, imagine the same IDENTICAL engine, with the same chambers, with 4 valve heads. Yeah, it may just be a little heavier, but it will also produce more power.
With today's technology, VVT, cylinder deactivation and what's it/who's it and such..it's all moot.
And I will agree the LS engines are very moddable with crazy power gains, however, GM has been building the small block in one version or another for almost 60 years...it makes me cringe to see these clowns with new Camaros thumping their chests like some kind of Columbus just discovering North America....guess what Captain...it's already been done before.
(http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by vinnietbird (http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png) (http://"http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?p=362304#post362304")
I wonder which one of you two (Tom and Beau) can pee the farthest.
Depends on how tall the building I'm standing on is, and how hard the wind is blowing behind past me lol
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 27, 2011, 05:45:56 AM
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 27, 2011, 05:45:56 AM
Thats true but you will also notice that with VVT it is activated at a set RPM. This way the engine can accomplish a dual function. Good torque and drivability at low end and good breathing and flow at the TOP. Yes its all ready been done before but chevy is still doing it and getting tremendous results. Yes its like Columbus discovered America. But Chevy gets the ships their FASTER!!!
The building thing does not work for me. At my age i have to do it in stages. Then add it up.
The building thing does not work for me. At my age i have to do it in stages. Then add it up.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on June 27, 2011, 02:06:48 PM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on June 27, 2011, 02:06:48 PM
Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;362318
Humor me here; imagine a stock 5.0HO with the normal 2 valve E7 heads...yeah, it's..peppy, and flows decent for a stock design. Now, imagine the same IDENTICAL engine, with the same chambers, with 4 valve heads. Yeah, it may just be a little heavier, but it will also produce more power.
l
I'm trying, but all the 5.0s I see have aftermarket aluminum heads that flow 2x more than those door stop E7s...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 27, 2011, 06:08:22 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 27, 2011, 06:08:22 PM
Tom Rezno, VVT is so that a small displacement engine can have some low end torque. It's not there because of any 4-valve heads. Intake runner flaps are there for the same reason.
Engines make power by moving air. The more air an engine can move, the more power it can make. Multi-valve engines can move more air, ergo they can make more power (all else being equal). This is a simple geometry issue - with a round cylinder there is only enough real estate available for valves. With round valves in a round cylinder it is more efficient to use multiple valves than it is to use two because multiple valves allow for more valve area. Add in the fact that virtually all multi-valve engines feature overhead cams, usually two per side, and can therefore generally rev higher (overhead cams eliminate a lot of reciprocating weight, or inertia, from the valvetrain), which means they can move more air. And because manufacturers don't have to bend intake ports around pushrods they can make larger, cleaner-shaped ports.
I have the greatest respect for the GM LSx series of engines, but they make good power despite their two valve heads, not because of them. Displacement is a big factor (the 5.0 4-valve Ford makes pretty much the same power as the ~20% larger 6.2 LS3, for example). Boost is another factor. GM uses both in order to make up for the inherent inneficiencies in the 2-valve, pushrod-activated design. To great success, I will add. And although the pushrod deisgn is less efficient in that respect, it has its advantages: Cost, weight, and packaging (an LSx is tiny compared to a 5.0 Coyote, for example).
Even GM knows that 4-valves are the present and future in terms of efficiency and power. Every engine GM offers, aside from the LSx and diesels (and possibly the 4.3 in the truck, if they even still offer those), uses 4-valves per cylinder. The antiquated 3.9 in the Impala, GM's last pushrod V6, is finally being replaced by the 4-valve 3.6.
Gm's 3.6 makes ~312 horses in the Camaro. Try that with a naturally aspirated pushrod V6 of the same displacement. Certainly nothing in GM's arsenal can compare. That's even more power than the legendary turbocharged and intercooled GNX made.
Ford's 3.7 makes ~305 horses in the Mustang. No pushrod engine Ford ever made of similar displacement (or even much larger displacement) ever came close.
Chrysler's 3.5 SOHC 24-valve V6 made ~250 horses, far more than their largest pushrod V6 (the 3.8) ever made. And the 3.8 and 3.5 are of the same engine family! Even the lowly 2.7 DOHC, which is also in the same engine family, made more power than the pushrod 3.8. And the 250-horse 3.5 has been bested by the new 290+ horse Pentastar.
In fact, I can't think of any pushrod engine, past or present, from any manufacturer, that ever made numbers anywhere near these examples without forced induction. Or much, much more displacement. Or both...
Engines make power by moving air. The more air an engine can move, the more power it can make. Multi-valve engines can move more air, ergo they can make more power (all else being equal). This is a simple geometry issue - with a round cylinder there is only enough real estate available for valves. With round valves in a round cylinder it is more efficient to use multiple valves than it is to use two because multiple valves allow for more valve area. Add in the fact that virtually all multi-valve engines feature overhead cams, usually two per side, and can therefore generally rev higher (overhead cams eliminate a lot of reciprocating weight, or inertia, from the valvetrain), which means they can move more air. And because manufacturers don't have to bend intake ports around pushrods they can make larger, cleaner-shaped ports.
I have the greatest respect for the GM LSx series of engines, but they make good power despite their two valve heads, not because of them. Displacement is a big factor (the 5.0 4-valve Ford makes pretty much the same power as the ~20% larger 6.2 LS3, for example). Boost is another factor. GM uses both in order to make up for the inherent inneficiencies in the 2-valve, pushrod-activated design. To great success, I will add. And although the pushrod deisgn is less efficient in that respect, it has its advantages: Cost, weight, and packaging (an LSx is tiny compared to a 5.0 Coyote, for example).
Even GM knows that 4-valves are the present and future in terms of efficiency and power. Every engine GM offers, aside from the LSx and diesels (and possibly the 4.3 in the truck, if they even still offer those), uses 4-valves per cylinder. The antiquated 3.9 in the Impala, GM's last pushrod V6, is finally being replaced by the 4-valve 3.6.
Gm's 3.6 makes ~312 horses in the Camaro. Try that with a naturally aspirated pushrod V6 of the same displacement. Certainly nothing in GM's arsenal can compare. That's even more power than the legendary turbocharged and intercooled GNX made.
Ford's 3.7 makes ~305 horses in the Mustang. No pushrod engine Ford ever made of similar displacement (or even much larger displacement) ever came close.
Chrysler's 3.5 SOHC 24-valve V6 made ~250 horses, far more than their largest pushrod V6 (the 3.8) ever made. And the 3.8 and 3.5 are of the same engine family! Even the lowly 2.7 DOHC, which is also in the same engine family, made more power than the pushrod 3.8. And the 250-horse 3.5 has been bested by the new 290+ horse Pentastar.
In fact, I can't think of any pushrod engine, past or present, from any manufacturer, that ever made numbers anywhere near these examples without forced induction. Or much, much more displacement. Or both...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: shame302 on June 27, 2011, 08:55:01 PM
Post by: shame302 on June 27, 2011, 08:55:01 PM
Somebody is going to be pouty when the Vette receives a small displacement, high revving over head cam twin turbo engine.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 27, 2011, 09:22:04 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 27, 2011, 09:22:04 PM
Quote from: shame302;362382
Somebody is going to be pouty when the Vette receives a small displacement, high revving over head cam twin turbo engine.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on June 27, 2011, 10:26:52 PM
Post by: Beau on June 27, 2011, 10:26:52 PM
"like"...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 27, 2011, 11:06:11 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 27, 2011, 11:06:11 PM
Yes the c7 will be something else. I know 4 valves are more efficient but ford has fallen short of HP compared to GM ls engines. Ford has much less hp than chevy. And ford has more valves. Now the fastest 2,3 ford i know of has a 2 valve cylinder head. Bottom line is i know 4 valves flow more but not all engines need it. Just saying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BNqDdlzjxI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BNqDdlzjxI
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on June 27, 2011, 11:26:30 PM
Post by: Beau on June 27, 2011, 11:26:30 PM
Quote from: TOM Renzo;362393
but ford has fallen short of HP compared to GM ls engines. Ford has much less hp than chevy.
Dude!
Compare the hard, basic facts of the 5.0 Coyote to the 6.2 LS.
A smaller engine making more power. What are you not getting here?
I will grant you that the LS has tons of potential power inside with a few simple mods...be that as it may however, the new 5.0 is kicking the LS's ass...
Time to take off the blinder grampa...the LS isn't the king of the hill anymore.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Glocklimited9 on June 27, 2011, 11:55:32 PM
Post by: Glocklimited9 on June 27, 2011, 11:55:32 PM
"Boost is another factor. GM uses both in order to make up for the inherent inneficiencies in the 2-valve, pushrod-activated design" Thunderchicken
I dont agree here, it was Ford that had to strap a supercharger on in 03 to give the fords a chance against the N/A Fbodies
"Dude!
Compare the hard, basic facts of the 5.0 Coyote to the 6.2 LS.
A smaller engine making more power. What are you not getting here??????!!"
Lets face it, the LSX is an old platform , why it may have slight changes over the years its basic design has been the same since 97' and its gotten faster since. After close to 15 years of production and tweaking the DOHC platform ford hasd to come up with an ALL New Dohc N.A combo ( the coyote) that can compete with the LSX platform After Years all those years getting Trounced by its LSX counterpart :punchballs:
I have driven a few new 5.0s and an actually gona be swaping one in a customers 65 mustang convertible when im done with the mini tubs and suspension and such. I will say i was impressed, Aside from The supercharged cobras/shelbys its the first stock mustang ive driven in years that i felt really had some nut, and its a pretty badass looking motor. They scream with boltons and heads/cam, they really did their homework on this engine, but after years of LSX domination, they had to do something
I know you guys all think im a Chevy lover and this and that, but ive worked on a number of badass mustang, and each car/ engine will always have its highs and lows. While the Dohc motors can be made to be serious screamers, on the swap end of things, they are just too expensive to play with for alot of people, when most good used N.A dohc powerplants are around $2500 and an iron 6.0 GM lsx counterpart can be found for $1,000 bucks and is a cam change away from 400whp, its hard to think of buying a more expensive dohc and modding it to make as much as the GM 2 valve counterpart. Trust me if 03-4 Termi swaps were cheaper, id be throwing one in my 89 Gt mustang and not an LS1
4 valves and small motors are a thing of the future, But i will say this.. Chevy's old 2 valve motor did pretty good job at the 24hr Lemans beating all its supercar 4 valve competitors ;) :rollin:
I dont agree here, it was Ford that had to strap a supercharger on in 03 to give the fords a chance against the N/A Fbodies
"Dude!
Compare the hard, basic facts of the 5.0 Coyote to the 6.2 LS.
A smaller engine making more power. What are you not getting here??????!!"
Lets face it, the LSX is an old platform , why it may have slight changes over the years its basic design has been the same since 97' and its gotten faster since. After close to 15 years of production and tweaking the DOHC platform ford hasd to come up with an ALL New Dohc N.A combo ( the coyote) that can compete with the LSX platform After Years all those years getting Trounced by its LSX counterpart :punchballs:
I have driven a few new 5.0s and an actually gona be swaping one in a customers 65 mustang convertible when im done with the mini tubs and suspension and such. I will say i was impressed, Aside from The supercharged cobras/shelbys its the first stock mustang ive driven in years that i felt really had some nut, and its a pretty badass looking motor. They scream with boltons and heads/cam, they really did their homework on this engine, but after years of LSX domination, they had to do something
I know you guys all think im a Chevy lover and this and that, but ive worked on a number of badass mustang, and each car/ engine will always have its highs and lows. While the Dohc motors can be made to be serious screamers, on the swap end of things, they are just too expensive to play with for alot of people, when most good used N.A dohc powerplants are around $2500 and an iron 6.0 GM lsx counterpart can be found for $1,000 bucks and is a cam change away from 400whp, its hard to think of buying a more expensive dohc and modding it to make as much as the GM 2 valve counterpart. Trust me if 03-4 Termi swaps were cheaper, id be throwing one in my 89 Gt mustang and not an LS1
4 valves and small motors are a thing of the future, But i will say this.. Chevy's old 2 valve motor did pretty good job at the 24hr Lemans beating all its supercar 4 valve competitors ;) :rollin:
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on June 28, 2011, 02:39:08 AM
Post by: Beau on June 28, 2011, 02:39:08 AM
Quote from: Glocklimited9;362395
I dont agree here, it was Ford that had to strap a supercharger on in 03 to give the fords a chance against the N/A Fbodies
Actually, Ford did that before Camaro was even a word...read some history..Thunderbird history.
Lets face it, the LSX is an old platform , why it may have slight changes over the years its basic design has been the same since 97' and its gotten faster since. After close to 15 years of production and tweaking the DOHC platform ford hasd to come up with an ALL New Dohc N.A combo ( the coyote) that can compete with the LSX platform After Years all those years getting Trounced by its LSX counterpart :punchballs:
Let's face it, give the devil his due....the current argument is about 2 valve vs 4 valve engines...I dunno how a supercharger fits in as neither the coyote nor the LS are (for the majority, and in this instance) forced induction...
Also, sometime soon, even the folks at Generic Moturds will be abandoning the miracle LS and going to the dual cam, non pushrod design that nearly everyone else is doing. So they've made a nearly 65 year old design (basically) produce 400 horsepower? Hell, I'd say it's time to learn to walk on the hind feet and get modern, eh?
I have driven a few new 5.0s and an actually gona be swaping one in a customers 65 mustang convertible when im done with the mini tubs and suspension and such. I will say i was impressed, Aside from The supercharged cobras/shelbys its the first stock mustang ive driven in years that i felt really had some nut, and its a pretty badass looking motor. They scream with boltons and heads/cam, they really did their homework on this engine, but after years of LSX domination, they had to do something
Not so sure that "pretty badass looking motor" was what they were about when the design was created, but yeah, it is impressive in the power level.
I know you guys all think im a Chevy lover and this and that, but ive worked on a number of badass mustang, and each car/ engine will always have its highs and lows. While the Dohc motors can be made to be serious screamers, on the swap end of things, they are just too expensive to play with for alot of people, when most good used N.A dohc powerplants are around $2500 and an iron 6.0 GM lsx counterpart can be found for $1,000 bucks and is a cam change away from 400whp, its hard to think of buying a more expensive dohc and modding it to make as much as the GM 2 valve counterpart. Trust me if 03-4 Termi swaps were cheaper, id be throwing one in my 89 Gt mustang and not an LS1
4 valves and small motors are a thing of the future, But i will say this.. Chevy's old 2 valve motor did pretty good job at the 24hr Lemans beating all its supercar 4 valve competitors ;) :rollin:
I KNOW you are a chevy lover....ever since you've been here, it's been LS this, BBC that...whoopity doo....you seem to forget that Ford, and Shelby, that old tightwad sumbitch himself took a small British car, stuffed it full of good ole American 2 valve/cylinder V8 sweetness, and kicked Ferrari's ass from here to Maranello and back again.
You're so pumped on GM stuff you can't accept that pushrod engines are the equivalent of sharks, turtles and birds: mere descendants from a stone age.
With that, I leave you with this to ponder:
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Glocklimited9 on June 28, 2011, 08:10:56 AM
Post by: Glocklimited9 on June 28, 2011, 08:10:56 AM
As im happy
Lol thats a funny picture and it is true... Because power for dollar show me another motor that can make the same power.. 2 valve, 4 valve, 156 valve, it doesnt matter you wont find it. There is a reason many guys are putting LSX power in place of their old 5.0s and newer 4.6s, even supercharged 2 valve 4.6s have a hard time making the power a bolt on LSX makes, thats just the cold hard facts.
While i do love my chevys, i actually like anything thats fast and makes power, if i was all about power i would have taken the 2.3T out of my turbocoupe long ago and replaced it with an LSX, but to me, that would ruin what the car is. Ive had tons of diffrent rides, had supercharged/ turbo civics,Turbo Gti's, many 5.0 mustangs with 306's, 347s, and tons of 2.3s The Dohc 4.6 5.4 and new 5.0 are excellent engines, as is the new hemi, but people are swapping then into cars because the cost to play is just too much.
Like i said i would love to put an 03-4 termi in my mustang, ive done a few of them with stegmiester and KB blowers, and they are lightning fast with badass supercharger whine to boot. But the prices are just so much higher, Hell i bought a complete 25k LM7 5.3, with all accessories, cats, 02, maf, wiring, computer, for a measley 400 bucks, im gonna swap in one of my old Texas speed cams, long tubes, and stick it in my 97 2wd short cab/bed stepside silverado.
BTW I never mentioned anything about a BBC, thats not my style, i like modern performance. No paperweight heavy bbc's here
Lol thats a funny picture and it is true... Because power for dollar show me another motor that can make the same power.. 2 valve, 4 valve, 156 valve, it doesnt matter you wont find it. There is a reason many guys are putting LSX power in place of their old 5.0s and newer 4.6s, even supercharged 2 valve 4.6s have a hard time making the power a bolt on LSX makes, thats just the cold hard facts.
While i do love my chevys, i actually like anything thats fast and makes power, if i was all about power i would have taken the 2.3T out of my turbocoupe long ago and replaced it with an LSX, but to me, that would ruin what the car is. Ive had tons of diffrent rides, had supercharged/ turbo civics,Turbo Gti's, many 5.0 mustangs with 306's, 347s, and tons of 2.3s The Dohc 4.6 5.4 and new 5.0 are excellent engines, as is the new hemi, but people are swapping then into cars because the cost to play is just too much.
Like i said i would love to put an 03-4 termi in my mustang, ive done a few of them with stegmiester and KB blowers, and they are lightning fast with badass supercharger whine to boot. But the prices are just so much higher, Hell i bought a complete 25k LM7 5.3, with all accessories, cats, 02, maf, wiring, computer, for a measley 400 bucks, im gonna swap in one of my old Texas speed cams, long tubes, and stick it in my 97 2wd short cab/bed stepside silverado.
BTW I never mentioned anything about a BBC, thats not my style, i like modern performance. No paperweight heavy bbc's here
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1Bad88tbird on June 28, 2011, 10:03:16 AM
Post by: 1Bad88tbird on June 28, 2011, 10:03:16 AM
I know this has been discussed before but I just don't understand why people take chevy engines and put them in everything. Why not go out and buy a chevy if you love chevy power? I go to alot of car shows and absuletly hate walking up to a sweet looking ford and seeing a chevy under the hood. When the show is partint's choice I don't care how nice the car is I won't give it a vote for that reason. I understand the cheaper horse power and parts are more interchangable reasons but as I said before, go out and buy a chevy. Leave a ford a ford and a chevy a chevy.
I'm not picking on anyone in particular and it's just my opinion. I'd rather look good going slow than have to put a chevy in my ford to go fast.
I'm not picking on anyone in particular and it's just my opinion. I'd rather look good going slow than have to put a chevy in my ford to go fast.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: mcb82gt on June 28, 2011, 10:15:27 AM
Post by: mcb82gt on June 28, 2011, 10:15:27 AM
I share your same opinion.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1Bad88tbird on June 28, 2011, 10:20:09 AM
Post by: 1Bad88tbird on June 28, 2011, 10:20:09 AM
Thanks, I'm glad I'm not alone.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on June 28, 2011, 11:59:47 AM
Post by: Beau on June 28, 2011, 11:59:47 AM
It's because way back in the day, Chevy had the only ohv V8...I guess because they were the first, they have to be the best.
Nahh.
If it has a blue oval on the back, then it ought to have a blue oval under the hood....or, if you're gonna have a crossbreed, at least think outside of the box..something other than 5.7 GM.
Just me though.
Nahh.
If it has a blue oval on the back, then it ought to have a blue oval under the hood....or, if you're gonna have a crossbreed, at least think outside of the box..something other than 5.7 GM.
Just me though.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Glocklimited9 on June 28, 2011, 01:02:22 PM
Post by: Glocklimited9 on June 28, 2011, 01:02:22 PM
1bad88 i know exactly what your saying, and i do agree with it in someways, when i see a really high dollar 32 ford, or t-bucket with chevy power, i think to myself why, esp when the ford dohc motors look pretty badass, i cant wait to throw the coyote motor in the 65' convertible at work, the wow factor when the hood is popped is gonna be great. Just like i said about my turbocoupe, i could have dropped a cheaper, more hp LSX motor in it, but why? the 2.3 and old engineering quirks is what makes it a TC i wouldnt ever want it any other way.
But on the other hand, after owning several built fox 5.0s, i can see why the LSX swaps are so popular, the chassis is good and you can make them hook easily and its fairly light, the 8.8 is bullet proof, and when you thow in an equally strong T56, and the cheap power the LSX offers its kind of a no brainer. I had a Killer set of AFR heads on one of my mustangs, and in reality i could buy a junkyard 6.0 and throw a cam and boltons in it and make more power. Plus the same Wow factor the 65 is gona when the hood is popped with the coyote, you will get the same, alot more hate but it will make you stop and look.
But on the other hand, after owning several built fox 5.0s, i can see why the LSX swaps are so popular, the chassis is good and you can make them hook easily and its fairly light, the 8.8 is bullet proof, and when you thow in an equally strong T56, and the cheap power the LSX offers its kind of a no brainer. I had a Killer set of AFR heads on one of my mustangs, and in reality i could buy a junkyard 6.0 and throw a cam and boltons in it and make more power. Plus the same Wow factor the 65 is gona when the hood is popped with the coyote, you will get the same, alot more hate but it will make you stop and look.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 86T-bird on June 28, 2011, 05:09:18 PM
Post by: 86T-bird on June 28, 2011, 05:09:18 PM
There a great deal of similar architecture between an LS motor and the old SBF. It has a different deck height (between an 8.2 and 9.5 Windsor), but heads will physically bolt on. GM went with a great head (far larger than conventional thinking used to indicate) and mild cam specs to keep a broad power curve. Ford had a similar theme with the Cleveland, though cam technology of the time may have prevented the huge success the LS series has seen (not to discount the aluminum blocks weight savings of the LS).
Putting more powerful engines into a different name plate body is in the origins of hot rodding. In the 50's, early OHV Caddy's, Olds (the orignial Rockets), the "little" Hemi's and Buicks (Nail Heads) were all popular swaps into just about everything lighter! Before that, the flat head Ford V8 dominated hot rodding for decades. Those went into everything too.
Gee, no one recalls how in the 60's there was a raft of Ford engines transplanted into any number of British sports cars?
I can appreciate a well done swap in any car. I've found a few I thought were pretty odd, but hey it's not my car...
Putting more powerful engines into a different name plate body is in the origins of hot rodding. In the 50's, early OHV Caddy's, Olds (the orignial Rockets), the "little" Hemi's and Buicks (Nail Heads) were all popular swaps into just about everything lighter! Before that, the flat head Ford V8 dominated hot rodding for decades. Those went into everything too.
Gee, no one recalls how in the 60's there was a raft of Ford engines transplanted into any number of British sports cars?
I can appreciate a well done swap in any car. I've found a few I thought were pretty odd, but hey it's not my car...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 28, 2011, 05:50:13 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 28, 2011, 05:50:13 PM
I would swap an LSX into a Fox Bird, Coug or Mark VII in a heartbeat. I'd also do it to a 2nd gen F-body, 68-82 Corvette, or just about any 50's and older car of any make. You just can't beat the LSx for horsepower per dollar. You'd have to drop a few grand into a 5.0 just to get it to the stock power level of a 5.3, and as glocklimited pointed out, even more power is a mere (and cheap) cam change away. I wouldn't do it to a rare or desirable model (such as a 35th Bird or 20th Cougar) but I would throw a 5.3 at a "normal" 4-eye Bird without a second thought. In fact once my house is sold and I'm settled into a new one, I will be looking for a four-eye bird, 87/88 cat or 88-92 Mark, and I will probably do just that.
That being said, this discussion is not about horsepower per dollar. It isn't about Ford VS Chevy, nor is it about whether it's OK to swap a bowtie into a Ford. It is about whether a two valve head design is better for making power than a four valve design. And it is not. Every modern engine making big power out of small displacement is doing so with 4-valve heads.
Yes, two valve engines are cheaper to build (which is exactly why the two-valve LSx series of engines still exists - it's cheaper and simpler to build than a multi-valve engine). Cheaper to build does not mean the engines can make more ultimate power. Airflow makes power, and 4-valve heads have the potential to move more air. You have to do such things as increase displacement or add boost to get a 2-valve engine to make similar power to a 4-valve. If you add the same displacement or boost to the 4-valve it will again make more power than a 2-valve. It's all about how much air you can move.
glocklimited9: Yes, Ford added boost to the Terminator to make it competitive with the much larger (4.6 liters compared to 6.0) LS2. That is a limit of the Ford modular engine's design (even though the 5.4 modular in the Cobra R made almost as much power without boost), not proof that 4-valves make less power. Look at the new Coyote, which makes more than 20 more horsepower than the terminator, beats the larger LS2, and is competitive with the larger still LS3. Without boost.
Also note how GM managed to make a 3.6 liter 6 cylinder engine make similar power to the first generation LS1 as found in the 4th gen Camaro (312 hp V6 vs 310 hp LS1). Without boost.
That being said, this discussion is not about horsepower per dollar. It isn't about Ford VS Chevy, nor is it about whether it's OK to swap a bowtie into a Ford. It is about whether a two valve head design is better for making power than a four valve design. And it is not. Every modern engine making big power out of small displacement is doing so with 4-valve heads.
Yes, two valve engines are cheaper to build (which is exactly why the two-valve LSx series of engines still exists - it's cheaper and simpler to build than a multi-valve engine). Cheaper to build does not mean the engines can make more ultimate power. Airflow makes power, and 4-valve heads have the potential to move more air. You have to do such things as increase displacement or add boost to get a 2-valve engine to make similar power to a 4-valve. If you add the same displacement or boost to the 4-valve it will again make more power than a 2-valve. It's all about how much air you can move.
glocklimited9: Yes, Ford added boost to the Terminator to make it competitive with the much larger (4.6 liters compared to 6.0) LS2. That is a limit of the Ford modular engine's design (even though the 5.4 modular in the Cobra R made almost as much power without boost), not proof that 4-valves make less power. Look at the new Coyote, which makes more than 20 more horsepower than the terminator, beats the larger LS2, and is competitive with the larger still LS3. Without boost.
Also note how GM managed to make a 3.6 liter 6 cylinder engine make similar power to the first generation LS1 as found in the 4th gen Camaro (312 hp V6 vs 310 hp LS1). Without boost.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: shame302 on June 28, 2011, 06:07:53 PM
Post by: shame302 on June 28, 2011, 06:07:53 PM
Quote
even though the 5.4 modular in the Cobra R made almost as much power without boost)
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 28, 2011, 06:57:56 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on June 28, 2011, 06:57:56 PM
You know 86 that is a GREAT POINT and well taken. When i was young the J2 Olds with 3 duces was the engine of choie. With its 312 HP and a LA SALLE tranny i ruled the roads with my transplanted 55 chevy. So i have had chevys with other engines other than chevy. The old FLATTIES were regularry replaced by the 312 Y and with very good results. Back then engine swaps were common and adapter plates were readily available. Your post is GREAT and well appreciated by me and is 100% correct. Here is a photo of a car i built many years ago. Its not a transplant but a novel setup for its time.
http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx46/proguns/002-13.jpg
Here is an experimental manifold on one of my very early stroked small block chevy engines. It had a set of mondello heads and was banned from the track for lack of a class. They had to figure out a class for me. So they threw me in HOT ROD. Big mistake on their part . The dam car ran so fast they went nuts. But your post is GREAT and TRUE. Thats why we still transplant engines . From years ago it was J2 Oldsmobiles into a chevy Now its Ls motors in fox bodies. It brings back real good memories. Nice post 86 Nice Post.
http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx46/proguns/002-13.jpg
Here is an experimental manifold on one of my very early stroked small block chevy engines. It had a set of mondello heads and was banned from the track for lack of a class. They had to figure out a class for me. So they threw me in HOT ROD. Big mistake on their part . The dam car ran so fast they went nuts. But your post is GREAT and TRUE. Thats why we still transplant engines . From years ago it was J2 Oldsmobiles into a chevy Now its Ls motors in fox bodies. It brings back real good memories. Nice post 86 Nice Post.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: jridenour31 on August 30, 2011, 09:49:52 PM
Post by: jridenour31 on August 30, 2011, 09:49:52 PM
How in the Hell did I miss this thread? I don't care if it's Chevy or Ford (as long as it isn't Mopar), I just want to go fast. I definitely will never understand people with the "keep a Ford a Ford" or "keep a Chevy a Chevy" mentality. They're just cars, who gives a ? I'm not rich, I will do whatever I have to in order to go fast for cheap, that's why my tbird has an LSx with a turbo. I realize that's not the point of the thread so I won't go on about it anymore.
As far as 2v or 4v, there's more to it than just the stock horsepower to displacement ratio, at least to me. Without a doubt, 4v heads are more efficient. Sure, if you're just running a stock car and are interested in gas mileage, emissions, bla bla bla, whatever, I can go along with that. None of those are concerns to me. I'm only 22 but I guess I'm fairly old school in my powerplants. I'd much rather be working on an OHV v8 than a displacement limited DOHC. I need to be able to reliably make 1200 horsepower, have enough displacement to get a turbo spinning without the bottle or sitting on the brake for 15 minutes, and have readily available and reasonably priced parts. Until Ford comes out with a 4v that can be brought up to around 400cid and actually has some aftermarket heads available, I'll be sticking with my outdated junk.
As far as 2v or 4v, there's more to it than just the stock horsepower to displacement ratio, at least to me. Without a doubt, 4v heads are more efficient. Sure, if you're just running a stock car and are interested in gas mileage, emissions, bla bla bla, whatever, I can go along with that. None of those are concerns to me. I'm only 22 but I guess I'm fairly old school in my powerplants. I'd much rather be working on an OHV v8 than a displacement limited DOHC. I need to be able to reliably make 1200 horsepower, have enough displacement to get a turbo spinning without the bottle or sitting on the brake for 15 minutes, and have readily available and reasonably priced parts. Until Ford comes out with a 4v that can be brought up to around 400cid and actually has some aftermarket heads available, I'll be sticking with my outdated junk.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on August 31, 2011, 03:29:18 AM
Post by: TOM Renzo on August 31, 2011, 03:29:18 AM
Hay MOPAR is cool. The HEMI is no slouch.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Mischief on August 31, 2011, 11:15:42 PM
Post by: Mischief on August 31, 2011, 11:15:42 PM
The only good hybrid I have seen was a LS out of a '04 Zo6 in a 92 BMW M3. Still says "Corvette" on the valve covers.
People want the Chevy power in the Ford chassis. Fords look nicer, weigh less, handle better and don't come with a Corvette price tag. I think if we're comparing apples to bananas we might as well put this out there. If we disregard things such as after market parts, forced induction and most other after market applications aside from bolt on and screw in's, then the Honda B22 motor is trash... if you give us back the creative freedom of building an engine the way we all know we enjoy, you can take that little B22, throw it in a Civic DX hatch and push 450 hp to the wheels and import any "Chevy Power" and export it to the rear view.
The above engorged paragraph above is not my argument, but rather my attempt to stunt one already started. My $0.02 on the ACTUAL topic is that geometry doesn't lie, math doesn't lie. 4 valve engines produce power more efficiently than 2 valve of same or similar displacement. Granted the Coyote might not be a nuke like the latest and greatest LSX motor, but the owner of that Coyote won't be spending more every week on gas than he does every month on his insurance.
People want the Chevy power in the Ford chassis. Fords look nicer, weigh less, handle better and don't come with a Corvette price tag. I think if we're comparing apples to bananas we might as well put this out there. If we disregard things such as after market parts, forced induction and most other after market applications aside from bolt on and screw in's, then the Honda B22 motor is trash... if you give us back the creative freedom of building an engine the way we all know we enjoy, you can take that little B22, throw it in a Civic DX hatch and push 450 hp to the wheels and import any "Chevy Power" and export it to the rear view.
The above engorged paragraph above is not my argument, but rather my attempt to stunt one already started. My $0.02 on the ACTUAL topic is that geometry doesn't lie, math doesn't lie. 4 valve engines produce power more efficiently than 2 valve of same or similar displacement. Granted the Coyote might not be a nuke like the latest and greatest LSX motor, but the owner of that Coyote won't be spending more every week on gas than he does every month on his insurance.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on September 01, 2011, 02:22:39 AM
Post by: Beau on September 01, 2011, 02:22:39 AM
This argument is still as stupid as carburetors vs. efi.
"Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week....."
The LSx makes great power....but it's not rocket science to KNOW that it would make more power with 2 more valves..
If it could be done with pushrods, OR dohc, so be it...there's disadvantages to both. Cost, complexity, weight, and rotational masses.
But keep in mind, most of the LSx engines start at around 5.3 liters, and most of the performance versions are 5.7, 6.0 and up...all the way to 7.0, or whatnot.
Give the devil the benefit of the extra cubes....if the Coyote had the same displacement, it'd be a much more fair comparison. But they don't, so keep right on comparing apples to bananas.
Riddle me this: If the 4.6 in a Mustang GT made X amount of HP/TQ with 2V, then why did the power increase when they went to 3V heads? I'm reasonably certain the basic cam profiles and lifts would be very similar...(if I didn't think this argument was pointless and rather a waste of reading, I'd search for those numbers to prove my point.)
"Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week....."
The LSx makes great power....but it's not rocket science to KNOW that it would make more power with 2 more valves..
If it could be done with pushrods, OR dohc, so be it...there's disadvantages to both. Cost, complexity, weight, and rotational masses.
But keep in mind, most of the LSx engines start at around 5.3 liters, and most of the performance versions are 5.7, 6.0 and up...all the way to 7.0, or whatnot.
Give the devil the benefit of the extra cubes....if the Coyote had the same displacement, it'd be a much more fair comparison. But they don't, so keep right on comparing apples to bananas.
Riddle me this: If the 4.6 in a Mustang GT made X amount of HP/TQ with 2V, then why did the power increase when they went to 3V heads? I'm reasonably certain the basic cam profiles and lifts would be very similar...(if I didn't think this argument was pointless and rather a waste of reading, I'd search for those numbers to prove my point.)
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: V8Demon on September 01, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
Post by: V8Demon on September 01, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
Quote
If the 4.6 in a Mustang GT made X amount of HP/TQ with 2V, then why did the power increase when they went to 3V heads?
1. VCT
2. THe factory 3v heads flow better than stage 2 Patriot 2v heads
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: jridenour31 on September 01, 2011, 04:21:29 PM
Post by: jridenour31 on September 01, 2011, 04:21:29 PM
I don't think anybody is debating that 4v heads flow better than 2v heads. Yes, that is a fact. What is flat out wrong though is saying that a 4v engine as a whole is better JUST because it has more valves. You can go on thinking that. I personally prefer an engine that isn't so huge and displacement limited.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Haystack on September 02, 2011, 01:21:03 AM
Post by: Haystack on September 02, 2011, 01:21:03 AM
I can't wait for someone to come out with an intake for chevy heads on a ford block. Best of both worlds.
Hp is just a number. Sometimes it has no relation to how fast a car can go.
Hp is just a number. Sometimes it has no relation to how fast a car can go.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on September 02, 2011, 03:17:07 AM
Post by: Beau on September 02, 2011, 03:17:07 AM
Haystack...ever hear of the 351 Cleveland? lol..I know, not a Chebby, but still.
Someday...maybe at tax time, I'll have a 351 "Clevor" in either the Sport, or the '90 Stang...
Someday...maybe at tax time, I'll have a 351 "Clevor" in either the Sport, or the '90 Stang...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Glocklimited9 on September 11, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
Post by: Glocklimited9 on September 11, 2011, 11:57:56 AM
"But keep in mind, most of the LSx engines start at around 5.3 liters, and most of the performance versions are 5.7, 6.0 and up...all the way to 7.0, or whatnot.
Give the devil the benefit of the extra cubes....if the Coyote had the same displacement, it'd be a much more fair comparison. But they don't, so keep right on comparing apples to bananas"
Keep in mind also that the LSX platform is now Almost 15 years old while the Coyote is their latest thing. Sure there are slight changes in the motors, Even comparing the LS1/2/6 heads to the new LS3/7 there is a great difference, And my LS3 heads are flowing over 350cfm @ 600, the LS7 were building the heads flow close to 400 cfm, for 2 valves thats incredible
You have to also remember the Coyote is fords "performance" motor, its only put in the mustang GT, while the LSX series are in trucks, and suv's
For what its worth, ive seen stock long blocked 5.3 Truck motors, with Z06 Cams put down more WHP then Mach 1's and 01 cobras.
There is no doubt the Coyote is a badass motor, and they make great power and have TONS of potential, but its about time the LSX's have trounced the fords since the beginning.
Give the devil the benefit of the extra cubes....if the Coyote had the same displacement, it'd be a much more fair comparison. But they don't, so keep right on comparing apples to bananas"
Keep in mind also that the LSX platform is now Almost 15 years old while the Coyote is their latest thing. Sure there are slight changes in the motors, Even comparing the LS1/2/6 heads to the new LS3/7 there is a great difference, And my LS3 heads are flowing over 350cfm @ 600, the LS7 were building the heads flow close to 400 cfm, for 2 valves thats incredible
You have to also remember the Coyote is fords "performance" motor, its only put in the mustang GT, while the LSX series are in trucks, and suv's
For what its worth, ive seen stock long blocked 5.3 Truck motors, with Z06 Cams put down more WHP then Mach 1's and 01 cobras.
There is no doubt the Coyote is a badass motor, and they make great power and have TONS of potential, but its about time the LSX's have trounced the fords since the beginning.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 12:40:22 PM
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 12:40:22 PM
Eric, This is another thread that needs to be closed. Oh wait.....it's not up to 15 pages yet, never mind.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
So... how long is this thread about chevy engines being greater than ford engines going to continue??
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Thunder Chicken on September 11, 2011, 01:21:38 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on September 11, 2011, 01:21:38 PM
Quote from: Glocklimited9;367360
You have to also remember the Coyote is fords "performance" motor, its only put in the mustang GT, while the LSX series are in trucks, and suv's
The LSx is a great engine, as I've said before, but also as I've said before it makes good power despite its two valves, not because of them. Even staying within GM, the 3.6 High Feature V6 currently making its way under the hood of almost everything GM makes (this is not a bad thing) makes more power than the much larger 5.3. There is a reason that the GM LSx and Chrysler Hemi are the only two pushrod engines available by any manufacturer (wait, does Rolls Royce still use the old 6.25 liter?). It is a design whose time has come and gone, just like the old flatties did...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 01:32:37 PM
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 01:32:37 PM
Carm...it's no use. You can lead a horse to a water hole, but you can't make him drink of it.
Just like Renzo posting the pics of the stack of EEC's in the other g match....it doesn't prove shiznit in regards to his '87 having the full 15psi boost in the high gears. And one of those EEC's pictured was a reman unit, to boot!
I've just decided it's easier to throw em on ignore, than to carry on arguing with 'em. Hell, if they have the LSx engines that far up their asses, why do they even try to argue about the boost levels in the first place!?
When nearly every manufacturer, save the two domestics (that incidentally have taken handouts from the US Gov't) have seen the light and are making cam-in-head, 3 and 4 valve engines...well...it's easy to see why things are. It's a miracle of physics the LSx engines are that powerful, for their size, but it doesn't mean they're the next best thing to sliced bread.
I'm not insulting renzo and his whelp's affinity for 'em...but I am sick of this stupid debate, not to say that I haven't done my share of egging it on, but christ almighty, who really gives a shiznit, y'know? ;)
Guten Tag.
Just like Renzo posting the pics of the stack of EEC's in the other g match....it doesn't prove shiznit in regards to his '87 having the full 15psi boost in the high gears. And one of those EEC's pictured was a reman unit, to boot!
I've just decided it's easier to throw em on ignore, than to carry on arguing with 'em. Hell, if they have the LSx engines that far up their asses, why do they even try to argue about the boost levels in the first place!?
When nearly every manufacturer, save the two domestics (that incidentally have taken handouts from the US Gov't) have seen the light and are making cam-in-head, 3 and 4 valve engines...well...it's easy to see why things are. It's a miracle of physics the LSx engines are that powerful, for their size, but it doesn't mean they're the next best thing to sliced bread.
I'm not insulting renzo and his whelp's affinity for 'em...but I am sick of this stupid debate, not to say that I haven't done my share of egging it on, but christ almighty, who really gives a shiznit, y'know? ;)
Guten Tag.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 01:34:30 PM
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 01:34:30 PM
Quote from: Thunder Chicken;367367
At the risk of disagreeing with you and therefore causing World War 17, as is always the case when somebody dares disagree with one of you two, I'd like to point out that the Coyote is also available in the F150 , as its base V8 (the other available engines being the 3.7, Ecoboost and 6.2 Hurricane). And given the volume differences between the F150 and the Mustang I'd wager that there are far more F150's on the road with Coyotes than there are Mustangs, even though the Mustang had a head start. Pretty sure I've read recently that the Expedition will also be getting the Coyote treatment starting this year, which will also skew production toward trucks.
The LSx is a great engine, as I've said before, but also as I've said before it makes good power despite its two valves, not because of them. Even staying within GM, the 3.6 High Feature V6 currently making its way under the hood of almost everything GM makes (this is not a bad thing) makes more power than the much larger 5.3. There is a reason that the GM LSx and Chrysler Hemi are the only two pushrod engines available by any manufacturer (wait, does Rolls Royce still use the old 6.25 liter?). It is a design whose time has come and gone, just like the old flatties did...
Couldn't agree more Thunder
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: vinnietbird on September 11, 2011, 03:01:17 PM
Post by: vinnietbird on September 11, 2011, 03:01:17 PM
Did I mention that I like my 5.0? Just thought I'd ask.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: jridenour31 on September 11, 2011, 04:35:01 PM
Post by: jridenour31 on September 11, 2011, 04:35:01 PM
Four-valve heads definitely have greater flow potential than two valve heads. The new DOHC motors are making fantastic power for their displacement. The biggest problem with them is their lack of potential for large displacement (at least right now). They are definitely the future. Windsors and Gen 3/4's can be taken well into the 450ci range which is something that the mod motors aren't even close to. Hopefully Ford will eventually coming out with something in the 400+ CI range that will be absolutely wicked.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Thunder Chicken on September 11, 2011, 06:00:10 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on September 11, 2011, 06:00:10 PM
They've got something like that. I've read that the Hurricane has the potential to go to 7 liters. Unfortunately with current and future fuel economy issues we'll likely never see it. On the plus side, with advancements in engine controls and fuel delivery we likely won't need it. I mean, why bother with a 7.0 V8 when you could easily make a 5.0 more powerful with a pair of turbos. Just imagine an ecoboost version of the 5.0... (I think I just salivated on my keyboard typing that). It probably wouldn't be marketed as "Ecoboost" (the type of vehicle that would use a 600+ horsepower V8 engine would not exactly meet the "green" image Ford has built with the Ecoboost name), but I can well imagine such an engine under a different name powering a future Shelby GT500, or a future GT-type supercar, or even a new Lightning or H-D F-150.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
Quote from: Thunder Chicken;367395
Just imagine an ecoboost version of the 5.0... I can well imagine such an engine under a different name powering a future Thunderbird.
I saw what you did there.... ;)
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: jridenour31 on September 11, 2011, 07:39:09 PM
Post by: jridenour31 on September 11, 2011, 07:39:09 PM
Quote from: Thunder Chicken;367395
On the plus side, with advancements in engine controls and fuel delivery we likely won't need it. I mean, why bother with a 7.0 V8 when you could easily make a 5.0 more powerful with a pair of turbos.
I agree with you but only for a street car. 302ci is plenty to get a single 76gts or pt88 spooled but for a racecar with a pro mod 94 is a pita to get on boost with that few of cubes. Obviously, it can be work but it has to be spun considerably higher, have a more aggressive tune, sit on the brake longer... to get the job done. There are extremely fast modular cars out there but it's much more expensive than the old technology. I have every intention of putting a Coyote in my street car but I won't do put a modular in the racecar until I can get some cubes to go along with it. I like everything about the Coyote except how small it is. They do sound amazing though lol.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on September 11, 2011, 07:53:16 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on September 11, 2011, 07:53:16 PM
**
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 08:17:14 PM
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 08:17:14 PM
Quote from: TOM Renzo
http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/x...uns/001-67.jpg (http://"http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx46/proguns/001-67.jpg")
Quote from: Beau
Just like Renzo posting the pics of the stack of EEC's in the other g match....it doesn't prove shiznit in regards to his '87 having the full 15psi boost in the high gears. And one of those EEC's pictured was a reman unit, to boot!
Quote from: TOM Renzo
I chose those particular ECM'S out of a stack i have for the 2.3T ENGINES. Clearly one should have gotten your attention. BUT IT DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
What, so you peeled the label off and wrote "LA2" on it with a sharpie to make me think that it was factory, and still makes the full 15psi of boost in high gears? Get over yourself. Time and time again you've proven yourself to be a sore loser, you flare up at any sign of disagreement, even though it has factual merit, and you're always tossing about that you've built this hot rod or that. Get over yourself. Troll.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: TOM Renzo on September 11, 2011, 08:46:53 PM
Post by: TOM Renzo on September 11, 2011, 08:46:53 PM
Ok thunder sport you win. But i would like to see the cars you have or have BUILT IN YOUR LIFETIME. I do have the answer of the LA2 V LA3 but it will go to my grave. You see i spoke to the FORD engineers Friday. Once again look at those ECM'S very closely the answer is staring you in the face. The one that is marked LA2 was because the tag got messed up not to IMPRESS YOU. Either way you are the best car builder in the world and i am beat. With that show me some of your WORK. Now LOOK AT THE ECM'S closely and the answer is their. Either way your hatred for me is well documented. I admit i make Mistakes and i have made many in my life. Now i will move on. One thing before i go You need to work on your SOCIAL SKILLS.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 08:55:34 PM
Post by: Beau on September 11, 2011, 08:55:34 PM
Like I said in my posts in the other g match: either you're lying, or the car does have an LA3, or it was a late build '87. (Just like some of us predicted from the start..)
You don't think that at 12:01AM Jan. 1 1988 they all magically morphed into LA3's....did ya?
You did!? For shame...
You don't think that at 12:01AM Jan. 1 1988 they all magically morphed into LA3's....did ya?
You did!? For shame...
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 09:15:41 PM
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 09:15:41 PM
Ok Eric, it looks like it time to lock this thread too. Tom can walk on water and everyone else sinks. So PLEASE end this insanity.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 84TBirdTurbo42 on September 11, 2011, 10:23:23 PM
Post by: 84TBirdTurbo42 on September 11, 2011, 10:23:23 PM
why does everything have to come down to what cars we've built?
seriously, i feel like this is a four year old g match. WHO CARES WHOSE built what?
if you got sweet cars. awesome, but to brag about it. wtf.
and the ford engineerers that built the la2/la3 in 87/88 are still around and work there? idk about that.
please lock this.
seriously, i feel like this is a four year old g match. WHO CARES WHOSE built what?
if you got sweet cars. awesome, but to brag about it. wtf.
and the ford engineerers that built the la2/la3 in 87/88 are still around and work there? idk about that.
please lock this.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 10:56:50 PM
Post by: 1BadBird on September 11, 2011, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: 84TBirdTurbo42;367430
why does everything have to come down to what cars we've built?
seriously, i feel like this is a four year old g match. WHO CARES WHOSE built what?
if you got sweet cars. awesome, but to brag about it. wtf.
and the ford engineerers that built the la2/la3 in 87/88 are still around and work there? idk about that.
please lock this.
I couldn't agree more. I'm getting tired of the B.S. This used to be a really great site, and for the most part, it still is. Just a few certain people have tarnished this place. I feel like I'm back on a forum that I deleted my account from (another T-Bird site) because of this very reason. Will this thread make it to 16 pages before it's locked?
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: 84TBirdTurbo42 on September 11, 2011, 11:02:01 PM
Post by: 84TBirdTurbo42 on September 11, 2011, 11:02:01 PM
i just didnt know we measure knowledge in cars built. i just cant for the life of me understand that. just because someone cant afford to build something nice does that make them less of a car person? thats the way i feel anyways.
i love this place. used to be on all the time, not one person has changed that. but i just dont understand a couple things.
keep on rockin foxtbirdcougarforums!:burnout:
i love this place. used to be on all the time, not one person has changed that. but i just dont understand a couple things.
keep on rockin foxtbirdcougarforums!:burnout:
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: jangus on September 11, 2011, 11:21:56 PM
Post by: jangus on September 11, 2011, 11:21:56 PM
Quote from: TOM Renzo;367419
I do have the answer of the LA2 V LA3 but it will go to my grave. You see i spoke to the FORD engineers Friday. One thing before i go You need to work on your SOCIAL SKILLS.
Are those the same engineers that asked you to fix the 2.3 rod problem back in th day? LOL.
As for the social skills, take your own advice.
Oh the subject of cars you've built, why is that your comeback every time your cornered on something? I could give a rats butt what you've built. You have some excellent knowledge, and people appreciate you sharing it, but then you go and let your attitude get in the way.
Title: 4 Valves better than 2 ????
Post by: EricCoolCats on September 11, 2011, 11:29:03 PM
Post by: EricCoolCats on September 11, 2011, 11:29:03 PM
*sigh*