Mustang ready to go to war vs. GM/Dodge

[hemisbc]

Ford-Boy>>>>""""So, by your logic the new aluminum Chevy engine is a copy of the old Ford Y block? Deep Y sides for rigidity.""""""

 

GM was building skirted engines before Ford woke up to overhead valves.

[hemisbc]

F-Boy>>>>""""As far as firing order is concerned, there are many different sequences that can be used. Some are much better than others. Some place uneven loads on main bearings, some cause unwanted crankshaft harmonics. Chevys 18436572 ......IS..... the Ford 15426378. The GEN III and GEN IV Chevy (LS- series) engines have both copied the Ford Windsor and 5.0 small block firing orders. Whats up with that? We had it first and Chevy just outright copied it!! What Ford has used in the past is NOW commonly called the Pro Stock firing order. It was originally used by Ford since the flathead V-8 was released. It continued over onto the Y block. Now the new Corvette is using a variation of THAT firing order. 4 outer cylinders fire in sequence, then the 4 inner cylinders fire in sequence and so on."""""""""

 

You are in over your head and it ain't that complicated. Study these http://boxwrench.net/specs_index.htm

and you will learn that the standard GM and Mopar firing orders do not resemble the listed Ford orders.

Neither does the new GM 18726543 resemble the Ford orders although it does appear to be a good order.

 

As I mentioned before there is very little that can be done to cause great improvement with the conventional V-8 orders. The big problem is that it is impossible to prevent at least two adjacent cylinders from firing one immediately after the other, you can move these two around, but you can't get rid of them.

 

And by the way, the aforementioned "blubber" was not talking about weight; it was the gosh-awful sound from open mufflered exhaust when the engine reached about 4-5000 RPM and the tractor type grind on the stock cams reverbs or whatever.

[jpd80]

What Ford has used in the past is NOW commonly called the Pro Stock firing order. It was originally used by Ford since the flathead V-8 was released. It continued over onto the Y block. Now the new Corvette is using a variation of THAT firing order. 4 outer cylinders fire in sequence, then the 4 inner cylinders fire in sequence and so on."""""""""

 

You're talking about flat plane cranks and boxed firing order, they sound sensational (Ferrari V8). I can't find anywhere on the net where they say LS7 uses a flat plane crank. They all say the Z06 uses LS/GM 18726543 ("Cleveland" firing order). Stops front two cylinders firing together.

 

You are in over your head and it ain't that complicated. Study these http://boxwrench.net/specs_index.htm

and you will learn that the standard GM and Mopar firing orders do not resemble the listed Ford orders.

Neither does the new GM 18726543 resemble the Ford orders although it does appear to be a good order.

 

GM 18726543 corrosponds to "Cleveland" 13726548. Draw out the cylinder pots write number cylinders the way Ford does then write the chevy numbers next to it. Next write the Ford or GM firing order out in a straight line twice over. You have to extend one of the firing orders a bit as they have different starting positions for No. 1. Now directly below these numbers look at your sketch and fill in the "chevy numbering" on those pots. Have a go at that and tell me what you think?

 

Chrysler & Chev SB/BB 18436572 = Ford 302 SB 15426378

Edited November 16, 2006 by jpd80

[hemisbc]

jpd80>>>>>"""""""

What Ford has used in the past is NOW commonly called the Pro Stock firing order. It was originally used by Ford since the flathead V-8 was released. It continued over onto the Y block. Now the new Corvette is using a variation of THAT firing order. 4 outer cylinders fire in sequence, then the 4 inner cylinders fire in sequence and so on."""""""""

THE ABOVE WAS NOT MY QUOTE.

 

"""You're talking about flat plane cranks and boxed firing order, they sound sensational (Ferrari V8). I can't find anywhere on the net where they say LS7 uses a flat plane crank. They all say the Z06 uses LS/GM 18726543 ("Cleveland" firing order). Stops front two cylinders firing together.""""

CADILLAC DEVELOPED THE CROSS PLANE (90 DEGREE) CRANK IN 1924 WHICH HAS BEEN THE STANDARD OF THE INDUSTRY EVER SINCE, IF ANY COPYING WAS DONE IN ALL THIS DISCUSSION IT WAS FORD COPYING THEIR CRANK.

 

You are in over your head and it ain't that complicated. Study these http://boxwrench.net/specs_index.htm

and you will learn that the standard GM and Mopar firing orders do not resemble the listed Ford orders.

Neither does the new GM 18726543 resemble the Ford orders although it does appear to be a good order.

 

''''''''GM 18726543 corrosponds to "Cleveland" 13726548. Draw out the cylinder pots write number cylinders the way Ford does then write the chevy numbers next to it. Next write the Ford or GM firing order out in a straight line twice over. You have to extend one of the firing orders a bit as they have different starting positions for No. 1. Now directly below these numbers look at your sketch and fill in the "chevy numbering" on those pots. Have a go at that and tell me what you think?'''''''''''

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING WRONG, IT BECOMES DIFFERENT WHEN THE SECOND CYLINDER FIRES; FOR THE GM THE 2ND TO FIRE IS #8 AND IS THE REAR CYLINDER ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, FOR THE FORD THE 2ND TO FIRE IS #3 AND IS THE 3RD CYLINDER FROM THE FRONT ON THE SAME SIDE. AND REALLY I FIRST MADE THIS TYPE COMPARISON SOMETIME IN THE 50S WHEN FORD FIRST ATTEMPTED TO BUILD A DECENT V-8 ENGINE.

 

''''''''''Chrysler & Chev SB/BB 18436572 = Ford 302 SB 15426378''''''''

SAME SONG, DIFFERENT VERSE; IT BECOMES DIFFERENT WHEN THE SECOND CYLINDER FIRES; FOR THE GM THE 2ND TO FIRE IS #8 AND IS THE REAR CYLINDER ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, FOR THE FORD THE 2ND TO FIRE IS #5 AND IS THE 1ST CYLINDER ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE.

[ford-boy]

The stock Chev firing order 18436572, as I have said before, IS the Ford 15426378. And the Ford Windsor and late model 5.0 IS the recent LS-series GEN III and GEN IV Chev new firing order. I'm not lying, honest.

Listen to jpd80. He told you how to do it.

[jpd80]

The stock Chev firing order 18436572, as I have said before, IS the Ford 15426378. And the Ford Windsor and late model 5.0 IS the recent LS-series GEN III and GEN IV Chev new firing order. I'm not lying, honest.

Listen to jpd80. He told you how to do it.

 

Thanks Buddy, I'll try again,

 

Ford (Chev) RHS Bank Cylinder Nos 1(2), 2(4), 3(6), 4(8)

 

Ford (Chev) LHS Bank Cylinder Nos 5(1), 6(3), 7(5), 8(7)

 

 

FORD ........1 - 3 - 7 - 2 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 8 - 1- 3 - 7 - 2 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 8

LS Chev.....2 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 1 - 8 - 7 - 2 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 1 - 8 - 7

 

Does the fog lift old son? LOL

 

PS, Of course you're right about Cadillac 1914? They're now GM, Right? manufacturers moved on from flat plane cranks because the secondary imbalance needs balancing shafts. So blub-blub-blub became the cross plane gurgle-gurgle-gurgle.

And as he tried to imitate those sounds his wife became very worried, LOL

 

See ya.

Edited November 16, 2006 by jpd80

[hemisbc]

The stock Chev firing order 18436572, as I have said before, IS the Ford 15426378. And the Ford Windsor and late model 5.0 IS the recent LS-series GEN III and GEN IV Chev new firing order. I'm not lying, honest.

Listen to jpd80. He told you how to do it.

 

I don't understand what is wrong here; you have made several claims that GM copied Ford and really the very opposite is true. In a previous post I spelled out the difference in the firing orders. Now look at these links and SPELL OUT how they are the same. You simply can't do it.

 

http://www.boxwrench.net/specs/chevy_sb.htm

 

http://www.boxwrench.net/specs/ford_302_351W.htm

 

http://www.boxwrench.net/specs/ford_351C.htm

 

Even if they are the same then Ford would have copied GM due to Cadillac, Chevrolet and Oldsmobile all having V-8 engines before Ford.

[jpd80]

I don't understand what is wrong here; you have made several claims that GM copied Ford and really the very opposite is true. In a previous post I spelled out the difference in the firing orders. Now look at these links and SPELL OUT how they are the same. You simply can't do it.

 

http://www.boxwrench.net/specs/chevy_sb.htm

 

http://www.boxwrench.net/specs/ford_302_351W.htm

 

http://www.boxwrench.net/specs/ford_351C.htm

 

Even if they are the same then Ford would have copied GM due to Cadillac, Chevrolet and Oldsmobile all having V-8 engines before Ford.

 

 

Hemi, No1 on Fords and GMs are different cylinders, you have to convert the firing order cylinder numbers to the other guys numbers, read my post above.

[hemisbc]

Hemi, No1 on Fords and GMs are different cylinders, you have to convert the firing order cylinder numbers to the other guys numbers, read my post above.

 

You know I had seen that before and apparently forgot it or thought it to be meaningless, MY BAD, but yes I knew the numbering was bass ackereds. I'll be more careful.

[RichardJensen]

Speaking of flat-plane cranks...... Not just the Ferrari V8s the Ford-Cosworth DFV & DFX.....

 

One of the competitive advantages of the Cosworth V8 was its flat plane crank. IIRC, it was Kevin Duckworth that had the idea of keeping the Ford-Cosworth FVA's flat plane crank design for a V8 that would wrap to high RPMs and come 'on the cam' faster than other racing engines, even if it was not necessarily an engine that would run well at low RPMs.

 

The result: An engine that sounded like a rusty chainsaw and ran like heck for 25 years. Winning something like 12 straight F1 championships, about as many consecutive CART championships, any number of F1 and Indy car races, and the 24 hours of Le Mans. Twice.

Edited November 16, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Paul Selby]

Speaking of flat-plane cranks...... Not just the Ferrari V8s the Ford-Cosworth DFV & DFX.....

 

One of the competitive advantages of the Cosworth V8 was its flat plane crank. IIRC, it was Kevin Duckworth that had the idea of keeping the Ford-Cosworth FVA's flat plane crank design for a V8 that would wrap to high RPMs and come 'on the cam' faster than other racing engines, even if it was not necessarily an engine that would run well at low RPMs.

 

The result: An engine that sounded like a rusty chainsaw and ran like heck for 25 years. Winning something like 12 straight F1 championships, about as many consecutive CART championships, any number of F1 and Indy car races, and the 24 hours of Le Mans. Twice.

 

Richard, nice going pal, now you did it! You just had to bring up Cosworth around hemisbc. :slap: :shades:

[hemisbc]

Hey Paul, where you be so long, you and RJ been hanging out together, probably among the dry cows.

Speaking of Cosworth and SBC is quite proper and fitting to use both names in the same sentence since the SBC was the only U.S. made engine mentioned in the 8-10 links of Cosworth history I have read.

[RichardJensen]

There will never be an engine like the DFV again.

 

 

The days when a single engine could dominate in venues as diverse as Indy, Le Mans, and Monaco are gone.

[hemisbc]

There will never be an engine like the DFV again.

 

 

The days when a single engine could dominate in venues as diverse as Indy, Le Mans, and Monaco are gone.

 

Does anyone know if the Cossie used a balance shaft with respect to the single plane crank.

 

And by the way Ricardo, we should NEVER say NEVER. In fact, I suspect the surface has only been scratched in ICE technology.

 

Actually the F/C deal was no doubt the smartest deal ever made; for what now could be considered pocket change, for $100,000 Ford obtained many millions worth of advertisement and false technology glory without ever even making a sketch/blueprint or picking up a wrench. As they say, even a blind hog roots up an acorn once in a while ;-).

[RichardJensen]

Does anyone know if the Cossie used a balance shaft with respect to the single plane crank.

 

And by the way Ricardo, we should NEVER say NEVER. In fact, I suspect the surface has only been scratched in ICE technology.

1) No. One reference of dubious merit mentions a 'splined torsional damper', but elaborates no further on it. http://forums.autosport-atlas.com/showthre...?threadid=76726

 

One other interesting thing is that the flat plane crank requires no counterweighting, which was another reason why the DFV could wrap up so quickly. It really was a masterpiece of engineering. In addition to going with an unconventional flat plane crank, the DFV was also engineered to be a stressed member of the vehicle's chassis. A revolutionary concept requested by Colin Chapman, that is part and parcel of F1 and Champ Car engineering today. Pretty much everything behind the fuel bladder is bolted onto the drivetrain.

 

2) The thing is that as greater output is being pulled from ICEs, they have become more specialized. For instance, F1 engines no longer use valve springs. They use pneumatic valves that are banned for being cost prohibitive everywhere else, and they are not used on any prodution cars (durability), which means they cannot be used at Le Mans or any sports car event where they run modified road cars.

Edited November 17, 2006 by RichardJensen

[hemisbc]

Thanks RJ; one other thing of interest would be con rod length, that is ratio of rod length to stroke. You know that I personally am one of the very few that believe shorter makes more power and I have been of this opinion for a good many years.

[RichardJensen]

Thanks RJ; one other thing of interest would be con rod length, that is ratio of rod length to stroke. You know that I personally am one of the very few that believe shorter makes more power and I have been of this opinion for a good many years.

You might be able to find that. 'Course it'll all be in metric.

[jpd80]

Thanks RJ; one other thing of interest would be con rod length, that is ratio of rod length to stroke. You know that I personally am one of the very few that believe shorter makes more power and I have been of this opinion for a good many years.

 

Small blocks are so effective at making good horsepower because they have relatively short strokes and this inturn allows a good rod ratio whilst maintaning a short and light connecting rods.

 

Once the stroke is increased to 3.75" or beyond, the choice is either use an ideal rod ratio results in long heavy rods for best low end torque or use short light rods for revability. At this point maintaining an ideal rod ratio and keeping the weight down is hard unless titanium rods are used (LS7).

 

Without Titanium rods, I beleive the cost effective upper limit of a small block is:

400 CID : 4.125" bore x 3.75" stroke, 6.2" rods, 1.43 piston height. 9.5" deck height.

This gives the best balance with maximum size and would be equally at home in either an F-150 or a Mustang.

[RichardJensen]

Thanks RJ; one other thing of interest would be con rod length, that is ratio of rod length to stroke. You know that I personally am one of the very few that believe shorter makes more power and I have been of this opinion for a good many years.

The Cosworth DFV has a 5.23" rod with a 2.55" stroke. The ratio's about 2.03. Duckworth was concerned about piston acceleration causing excessive wear, and lengthened the rod used in the FVA/Ford Cortina 4-cylinder to reduce that.

[hemisbc]

The Cosworth DFV has a 5.23" rod with a 2.55" stroke. The ratio's about 2.03. Duckworth was concerned about piston acceleration causing excessive wear, and lengthened the rod used in the FVA/Ford Cortina 4-cylinder to reduce that.

 

Thanks, and longer than I would have guessed. Not trying to second guesss, but I do wonder if the concern justified a rod that long. Check out Porsche with a 1.66 ratio and I have read of quite a few high performance engines with ratios in the 1.50s.

http://www.jepistons.com/pdf/2006-je8.pdf

[ford-boy]

I would think RPM has something to do with it. What was the operating RPM range of the Ford Cosworth?

[hemisbc]

It seems that, generally speaking connecting rods are getting shorter, thus ratios smaller. For some time I have wondered if the old "long rod syndrome" has roots from the day of the double acting steam engine which of course required a crosshead which operated in an open atmosphere with lots of dirt, dust and little lubrication so that the longer the rod the better. In many cases there is and has been a sort of "monkey see", "monkey do" way of doing things. I reminisce the days of "Prairie Locos" with tall wheels and early cutoff. Just yesterday I was waiting in a hay field when a sort of museum steam train left Rusk, Tx for Palestine and the track was about 4-5 miles from me, but I could clearly hear that steam whistle as it plowed thru the woodlands. Chill bumps galore.

[RichardJensen]

Well, the engine came 'on cam' at about 6,000 RPM, and delivered a substantial boost in torque from 6,000 - 6,800 RPM that put many a rookie driver in the weeds, before coming to grips with it.

 

The peak range of the DFV was in the 6,000-8,000 RPM area, and by the time of the DFY (early 80s) the engine would rev up to about 11,000 RPM.

 

At such high revs, Duckworth's concern about piston acceleration (and side loads) that would come with a shorter rod seem justified. When your engine comes on cam past the redline of EVERY other V8 in production at the time, what makes sense for other V8s might not make sense in this application.

 

The DFV was an incredible little box. In '82 the DFY iteration was making over 500hp, naturally aspirated, out of a engine that was just about 2' in any direction, with a displacement of 2.65L. Granted, with today's F1 engines, that's nothing spectacular, but consider that the DFV and DFY used conventional camshafts and valve springs, and the DFV had no computer management (first dyno run was 408hp from 3.0L at something like 8k).

Edited November 18, 2006 by RichardJensen

[ford-boy]

Well, the engine came 'on cam' at about 6,000 RPM, and delivered a substantial boost in torque from 6,000 - 6,800 RPM that put many a rookie driver in the weeds, before coming to grips with it.

 

The peak range of the DFV was in the 6,000-8,000 RPM area, and by the time of the DFY (early 80s) the engine would rev up to about 11,000 RPM.

 

At such high revs, Duckworth's concern about piston acceleration (and side loads) that would come with a shorter rod seem justified. When your engine comes on cam past the redline of EVERY other V8 in production at the time, what makes sense for other V8s might not make sense in this application.

 

The DFV was an incredible little box. In '82 the DFY iteration was making over 500hp, naturally aspirated, out of a engine that was just about 2' in any direction, with a displacement of 2.65L. Granted, with today's F1 engines, that's nothing spectacular, but consider that the DFV and DFY used conventional camshafts and valve springs, and the DFV had no computer management (first dyno run was 408hp from 3.0L at something like 8k).

 

A company that builds racing engines (DSS-where I got my short block) says they can PROVE that a 331 small block (4.03 x 3.25)makes much more power than a 347 (4.03 x 3.4) As much as 60 HP more, depending on RPM. They said if the engine is going to see north of 7000 RPM the 331 is MUCH better and it all has to do with piston rocking and side loads at those elevated RPM's. However, they said an under 7000 RPM street 347 would out accelerate an under 7000 RPM street 331, no doubt because of the additional torque.