RichardJensen Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Another thing I wonder about: Ford went with a silent cam on the 4V and finger followers on all engines. Both of which made the top end of the block *huge*, especially since the drive gear for the cams was on the exhaust cams, not the intake cams. Why did Ford go that route? Why not DAMBs and a conventional DOHC layout---or at the very least, having the drive gear on the intake cam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 What's the bore spacing on the Boss? Bore spacing on the Coyote is 3.937 all the small block Fords 289, 302, 351C and W are 4.38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Boss != Coyote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_engine Looks like 4.53" bore spacing on the 6.2 *However* scuttlebutt is that the 6.2, with its wider bore, was difficult to emissions certify. And that the twin spark plug approach was necessitated not for performance reasons but for emissions reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 Funny, GM's 6.2 has a bore of 4.06 compared to Fords bore of 4.015 and doesn't need 2 plugs / cyl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 All those GM motors are cheap, but do they contribute to their bottom line? Do they pay back the taxpayers? Can brag about building a cheap drag racer, but if your 'favorite' car company needs constant bail outs, what does that say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Funny, GM's 6.2 has a bore of 4.06 compared to Fords bore of 4.015 and doesn't need 2 plugs / cyl. There's a lot more that goes on inside the combustion chamber contributing to emissions than just the bore size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Funny, GM's 6.2 has a bore of 4.06 compared to Fords bore of 4.015 and doesn't need 2 plugs / cyl. And the 5.7L Hemi, with a 3.9" bore has two spark plugs. And the Ford 6.2 gets about 6% better FE in a truck that's probably a few hundred pounds heavier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) Edited December 7, 2013 by wildosvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted December 7, 2013 Author Share Posted December 7, 2013 For every one of these ^^^^^^^ there are 100 Mustangs with a Chevy motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-Or-Nothing Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Can't believe this Stupid thread made it this many pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 For every one of these ^^^^^^^ there are 100 Mustangs with a Chevy motor. Here's something to think about: Why are all these Chevy motors going into FORD products? Why are there so many FORD products around? Could it be that, for the last thirty years at least, Ford's cars have been consistently better built than their GM equivalents? This isn't a just a referendum on MOTORS this is a referendum on VEHICLES. And if someone wants a FORD with a GM motor in it, that says a lot about the whole rest of the vehicle. Go take a spin in a 1997 Taurus. Then tool around in a '97 Lumina. You'll know exactly what I'm talking about immediately. Junkyards are full of LS motors. Because, for the most part, they were put in junk cars. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Damn it Richard. You just made the end all of post. Time to close this. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 Here's something to think about: Why are all these Chevy motors going into FORD products? Why are there so many FORD products around? Could it be that, for the last thirty years at least, Ford's cars have been consistently better built than their GM equivalents? This isn't a just a referendum on MOTORS this is a referendum on VEHICLES. And if someone wants a FORD with a GM motor in it, that says a lot about the whole rest of the vehicle. Go take a spin in a 1997 Taurus. Then tool around in a '97 Lumina. You'll know exactly what I'm talking about immediately. Junkyards are full of LS motors. Because, for the most part, they were put in junk cars. That all may be true. So using that analogy does that mean the Ford motor is junk? I think not! It comes down to cost PERIOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 Can't believe this Stupid thread made it this many pages. Thanks for your contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) That all may be true. So using that analogy does that mean the Ford motor is junk? I think not! It comes down to cost PERIOD. So, I buy a fox Mustang w/a V6, what's going to be the cheapest junkyard motor to put in it? An LS. Why? Because GM put tons of those motors in crappy trucks and SUVs. You would rather this cheapskate tune a 3.8L V6? Edited December 8, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Again, what did GM have that was comparable to the Fox body when it comes to building a race car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-Or-Nothing Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Thanks for your contribution. Hey the Thread IS stupid. Why would FORD care one single bit about people slapping junkyard Chebby motors in old Mustangs. If they want those Mustangs to go even slower than that's their choice. As Richard said......If there are 100 good LS motors sitting in a junkyard...there must be 100 POS Chebby cars and trucks that died way before there time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 Hey the Thread IS stupid. Why would FORD care one single bit about people slapping junkyard Chebby motors in old Mustangs. If they want those Mustangs to go even slower than that's their choice. As Richard said......If there are 100 good LS motors sitting in a junkyard...there must be 100 POS Chebby cars and trucks that died way before there time. Again thanks for your contribution. That would be a true statement if none of them were in the JY because of accidents. But most likely they are their because of accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Again thanks for your contribution. That would be a true statement if none of them were in the JY because of accidents. But most likely they are their because of accidents. Please. If GM vehicles are as good as Ford vehicles, then why are people going to all the hassle of jerry-rigging a Ford vehicle to hold an LS motor? Why aren't they dropping that junkyard LS into an old F-body? Is it perhaps because the F-body was a simultaneously flimsy and overweight product decidedly inferior to the fox? I'm not going to go poll the junkyard to see if there are disproportionately many GM products, but I can tell you from first hand experience that GM's products wear out faster than Ford products. Friend of mine and I used to laugh about the stink of old Chevy pickups. Go see for yourself. Hop into a late 90s, early 00s Silverado and notice the particular, peculiar scent of its interior materials disintegrating. Notice the squeaks and rattles and shimmying of a ten year old W-body. And there's just no point in talking about the Js and Ns. Those things were horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 And we're also back to the original, central, and very easy to answer question: Why should Ford care that junkyard LS blocks are cheaper and more plentiful than junkyard Windsor blocks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Please. If GM vehicles are as good as Ford vehicles, then why are people going to all the hassle of jerry-rigging a Ford vehicle to hold an LS motor? Why aren't they dropping that junkyard LS into an old F-body? Is it perhaps because the F-body was a simultaneously flimsy and overweight product decidedly inferior to the fox? I'm not going to go poll the junkyard to see if there are disproportionately many GM products, but I can tell you from first hand experience that GM's products wear out faster than Ford products. Friend of mine and I used to laugh about the stink of old Chevy pickups. Go see for yourself. Hop into a late 90s, early 00s Silverado and notice the particular, peculiar scent of its interior materials disintegrating. Notice the squeaks and rattles and shimmying of a ten year old W-body. And there's just no point in talking about the Js and Ns. Those things were horrible. Agree on the trucks and the Fox-body cars, but the Taurus and Sable were notorious for fragile transmissions when equipped with the more powerful engine option (first the 3.8 V-6, then the ohc 3.0 V-6). The GM A-bodies and W-bodies may have had inferior coachwork and cheesy interiors, but most of the drivetrains were pretty robust. The drivetrains of the J-cars were pretty reliable, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) The DN101 Taurus & Sable were exceptionally reliable compared to the previous models. Their powertrains were as solid as those of the W & G(?) GMs. And, of course, my whole point is that Ford's vehicles are better than GM's, which is why people would go to all the hassle of putting a GM motor in a Ford vehicle. Edited December 9, 2013 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schpark Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Agree on the trucks and the Fox-body cars, but the Taurus and Sable were notorious for fragile transmissions when equipped with the more powerful engine option (first the 3.8 V-6, then the ohc 3.0 V-6). The GM A-bodies and W-bodies may have had inferior coachwork and cheesy interiors, but most of the drivetrains were pretty robust. The drivetrains of the J-cars were pretty reliable, too. Yeah the Taurus transmissions aren't the most robust. Mine (97 LX with 3.0 DOHC) was rebuilt in the 130k's, transmission shop said many upgraded parts installed during the rebuild and still running good now at 197K. Rust just starting now for me but the seats (premium cloth) look almost new. These are the most comfortable auto seats I have ever sat in. Edited December 9, 2013 by Schpark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) The DN101 Taurus & Sable were exceptionally reliable compared to the previous models. Their powertrains were as solid as those of the W & G(?) GMs. And, of course, my whole point is that Ford's vehicles are better than GM's, which is why people would go to all the hassle of putting a GM motor in a Ford vehicle. No doubt that the 1996 and later Taurus and Sable were a big improvement over the first-generation models, which did have some notable flaws. The GM A-bodies (Cutlass Ciera and Century) were reasonably reliable by the early 1990s. The Taurus and Sable, however, beat them on ergonomics, driver comfort, chassis composure and overall refinement (and, of course, styling). The W-bodies were very problematic when first introduced, but that was as much a reflection of sloppy quality control as anything else. The only complaints I've heard about the drivetrains of the W-bodies concern the fragile intake manifold gaskets on some models built in the 2000s. Otherwise, the drivetrains are robust, and I've never heard of the GM transmissions having as many problems as the Ford transmissions. Edited December 9, 2013 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Yeah the Taurus transmissions aren't the most robust. Mine (97 LX with 3.0 DOHC) was rebuilt in the 130k's, transmission shop said many upgraded parts installed during the rebuild and still running good now at 197K. Rust just starting now for me but the seats (premium cloth) look almost new. These are the most comfortable auto seats I have ever sat in. My, how times have changed when we say a tranny being rebuilt at 130k miles is not the most robust. FWIW, that's about the number of miles I had on my truck when the 4R70W tranny in my '99 F150 was rebuilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.