4 Valves better than 2 ????

Topic: 4 Valves better than 2 ???? (Read 6278 times) previous topic - next topic

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #15 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #16 – June 28, 2011, 10:15:27 AM

I share your same opinion.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #17 – June 28, 2011, 10:20:09 AM

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not alone.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #18 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #19 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #20 – 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...

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #21 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #22 – 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)

They pretty commonly put down advertised hp (385 i believe) ratings to the ground. They were definitely under rated.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #23 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #24 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #25 – August 31, 2011, 03:29:18 AM

Hay MOPAR is cool. The HEMI is no slouch.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #26 – 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.

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #27 – 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.)

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #28 – 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

4 Valves better than 2 ????

Reply #29 – 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.