Ford Rulz

Home  \  Classic Cars  \  Ford Rulz

ADMIT IT ALMOST ALL HOT RODS R

F O R D :fu: LOL

posted by  SCARECRW

Ford sucks.......I guess if you have lots of money, you can build 1 for double the cost of a chevy and have the same horsepower

posted by  blt2tzz

I'm currently rebuilding a Windsor and I have to say it would get my vote as the engine with the least possible parts that actually runs. Primitive is a word that comes to mind. :mrgreen: But my 1966 Ford coupe would look out of place with a decent Japanese or Euro V8 and driveline wouldn't it?

posted by  Wally

I have no clue what you are saying.

O, now I get it. Almost all hot rods are Fix Or Repair Daily. Given the fact that on average they are old.

posted by  StiMan

HOW ABOUT NO :thumbs:

posted by  Boss_302

Why is it when some newb comes on here and tries to prove how closed minded they are, everyone jumps on board to prove that they are just as, if not more, closed minded in return? Can't we just correct him using actual knowledge instead of just "Ford's suck" or the usual acronyms?

Oh, wait, that would require you guys to actually HAVE knowledge, too...

posted by  ChrisV

Everyone? Using that word displays the same type of close mindedness you're against. How about a select few. Besides, with people like him it doesn't really matter. You could beat him to death with fact and figures and you'd still be the one who is wrong. Sometimes it's easier to just fight fire with fire and shout the little assholes down.

posted by  vwhobo

Sorry, Hobo. Look up "hyperbole" used to make a point. It's commonly used, even by intelligent people. And the point wasn't directed toward the original poster (as you said, it wouldn't matter) but to those reading and thinking of responding in kind.

BTW, telling someone they are wrong and closed minded IS NOT also being closed minded. Much like if you corrected someone who said "VW suck" as being a closed minded twit, you would not be being closed minded, yourself.

Don't know how many times I have to say it before it sinks in with people...

Now, let's stop arguing amongst ourselves and worry about the real problems of the board...

posted by  ChrisV

If you step back and look at the entire picture you will realize that open-mindedness enables a person to like and dis-like. "Corrected" someone for saying VW sucks? That is being closed-minded.

posted by  DodgeRida67

Bullshit. 2+2 is 4. Agreeing with someone that asserts 2+2 is 7.5 is not being open minded, it's being retarded.

Correcting someone who uses easily disproven statments is not being closed minded.

Here, try it with your teachers (or your boss). Tell them that you weren't wrong on that test, but they were merely being closed minded about your "opinion" of the answer.

Don't be a dumbass.


Someone comes on here and says "Asians suck" or Blacks are retarded" and I say "you're wrong and a moron." Am *I* the one being closed minded for correcting someone else with a closed minded opinion? Not a chance. Don't know how I can make it clear enough for you to grasp.

posted by  ChrisV

man i like ford to, but DUDE, SHUT THE **** UP MAN!

posted by  Ki2AY

I was mostly just trying to get him to shut up. Classic Ford Muscle is fine by me. :thumbs:

posted by  StiMan

I have a ford 292 Y block, it doesn't suck. :fu:

posted by  Ground Rat

To be honest I see the same ralative numbers of Chevy to Ford, Except for one exception, and that is the Ford Mustang. Furthermore, The 1962 Ford Falcon was purchased completely by a Southamerican country, where they were then produced in mass much like the beetle. Something tells me there is more to this car then nostalgia. Go to Australia. There's some eral Nutheads down there, you think americans have redneck mechanics, they have redneck mechanics on Steroids. They still understand Musclecar, which is why I want o see US Ford and Aussie Ford to start competeing against eachother in an anual car car and see who can produce the best production car (not a specail/prototype/one issue deal) They got falcons down there with 6 cylinders that put our big boys to shame.

My car is a 63 Fairlane, She has a straight 6 in her that is pretty much original, and she still have a lot of kick in her...I suspect a rebuild at least one in the past. My question has always been, Why use 8 when you can use six? More low end torque, and once you get moving, its all up to the Transmission to determine the maximum speed of your car, simple as that. Ford...well, that Ford 6 was made from near 1962 all the way through 1985, with basically no change. There is a Chevy block with nearly the same kind of heritage that goes back to the late 1920s, and you will find that basic block all the way up the line.

Bullet simple, words that may be something that the really nerded out car geeks shudder at, but that is the essence of a bulletproof design. But we still have yet to see True Engineering revolution withint he car industry, beyond what we already know...the true power/efficiensy of the old design still has not been found.

posted by  Benny

You are probably right about a lot of that, but americans are still very good at getting their product up and boogying.

The sixes you refer to in the Australian context do vary from the USA ones for their time. The Oz engineers for instance pioneered the 2V head for the 200's and the cross flow for the bigger cubes. These were exported to the USA in large quantities.

Similarly the Aussie Cleveland 351 had much better heads than the american counterpart, thus much more stock power. We also had the 302 cleveland, while the USA had to make do with the 302 Windsor.

Of course this all means zip, coz DSmer will say so.

posted by  Wally

Hmm...why would someone say FORD sucks, If you look at the facts...back then ford was out beating Chevy and Pontiac in everything...so both of them formed a bond known as GENERAL MOTORS...showing the fact that Ford was kicking there ass. I wanna know why people hate ford so much and what the rumor was going around that people started accepting it. cause ford had probably 1st or 2nd biggest engine know as the 563 Cobra Jet... :fu:

posted by  xX1968MustangXx

This entire thread is ridiculous. I like Fords and for anyone to say that any particular brand is XXXX is just highlighting thier (extremely low) IQ. As far as this post goes;

- Ford was NOT " out beating Chevy and Pontiac in everything". The crown was worn by many and changed often, year by year and sport by sport (ie. NHRA, SCCA, NASCAR, etc.)

- General Motors had aquired Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, etc. long before the musclecar era arrived.

- There was no car produced with a factory 563 ci Ford big block of any kind, especially a cobra jet which was originally a 428 FE series engine until the 429 "shotgun hemi" replaced it in '71.

Oh, and why use a V-8 instead of a 6cyl? There were some interesting sixes produced in the '60's and '70's (like Pontiac's "sprint six" OHC engine), and some of them were good and reliable motors, such as the Dodge 225 ci slant six and Ford's 300. What they weren't was particularly powerful. There isn't a 6 of that era that made even half the power of the big block supercar engines ( 427 L-88's, 454 LS-6's, 455 stage 1 Buicks, 455 W-30 Olds, 400 RAIV Pontiacs, 428 SCJ Fords, 440 6-Pak and 426 Hemi Chryslers, etc.)
6 cylinder engines do have some engineering advantages esp. for low RPM operation. My 5.9 Cummins Turbo-diesel in my pick-up(s) for instance, develops 600 ft lbs of torque (stock) and red-lines at only 3000 RPM. Torque curve is completely flat from 1400 rpm to 2700 rpm. It is a superb towing motor. Won't win any drag races with it, though.

Dave

posted by  DPelletier

Lol! The guy who doesn't even know what the Ford Windsor engine family is is giving out even more priceless gems of misinformation...

:banghead:

And the worst part is he is already on the internet, and in 20 seconds could have researched his claims and found how wrong he is (as usual).

General Motors was formed in 1908! The first part of the company was Buick, and teh conglomerate became official when Oldsmobile was sold to William Durant in November 1908. GM aquired Oakland Motor Car in 1909, and that division becomes Pontiac in 1932. Also, in 1909, GM bought out Cadillac. GMC is formed in 1911 as the outlet for Rapid and Reliance trucks (which are built by GM). And in 1915, Chevrolet joins GM. General Motors Company, becomes General Motors Corporation in late 1915.

Now how this translates in to Chevy and Pontiac joining forces beceuse Ford was beating them, is a mystery.

As for the imaginary "563" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The largest engine in a street Ford/lincoln car was the 462 cid MEL engine (MEL standsing for Mercury/Edsel/Lincoln), an engine family that included 383, 410, and 430 cid versions. the 462 was superceded in the late '60s by the 460 Lima, which was a larger displacement version of the 429. There was a 514 cid crate version of this engine, but not installed in a street car (the block is available from SVO in displacements ranging from 429 cid to 727 cid for Mountain Motor drag classes). As for the Cobra jets, there were 4: 428 Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet, bult from the FE series big blocks that included the famous 427, and the 429 Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet, which used the 429/460 block, and were the mild brothers of the BOSS 429 (which used an actual Hemi head on the 429 block).

While this is all stuff I already know, the information is easily available in 20 seconds with Google or any decent search engine. There is NO reason to spout off the kinds of misinformation found in that post...

posted by  ChrisV

Chevy 572 i believe is a bit larger

posted by  durangoman

True, although the GenV 572 ci big block is only available as a crate engine and was never installed in any automobile by the factory.

Dave

posted by  DPelletier

but really, man... they did wrong with the 3.8L v6, in that asspect ford really sucked the choda.

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

The Mustang is sweet. GM is lossing billions.

posted by  fedroger

dude this thread is MONTHS old

p.s. Chevy kicks Ford's blue ass :thumbs:

posted by  TurboLag

That's not the point.

posted by  fedroger

yeah but no one has touched the thread in months.... Its old stuff bud

posted by  TurboLag

alright after reading alot of this bullshit. ive come up with a few things. how come no one mentioned the kammer? and also one of the main reasons (in my opinion) that ford was percieved as better than chevy youll have to look back into the mid-late 60s. the mustang came out and it was pretty damn cheap. then the camaro/firebird came out. now one of the reasons the mustang caught on so much and why it is still around today was from two reasons. marketing and price. they marketed the mustang pretty well and were selling it to everyone from highschool kids to buisness men. the other thing was price, the mustang came in at about 4-5 gs ( i think im not 100% sure and to lazy to look) where as the camaros/firebirds costed a whopping 7 grand. whereas in my opinion the firebirds/camaros looked alot better, that style came at a price that alot of people werent willing to pay. cause remember back then gas was a quarter a gallon and people were making like 10gs a year (again not sure on how much they made a year back in the 60s but it wasnt much) and thats alot of the reasons why the ford sold as well as it did and why people say ford is better. there cars may have been cheaper but ford made up for it with overpriced parts. and in my opinion theyre both about the same.

posted by  72firebird

Personality, I think Ford is alot better then GM now, but before, like in the 70s, 80s and 90s GM was pretty good, but now Ford is doing ALOT better and their cars are built alot better.
One thing I dont like about GM is the fact that they cant bring back car styles for shit. New GTO looks like a ****ing Grand Am or just like all the other Pontiacs out right now.
Now look at the Mustang, that looks good.

Overall Ford > GM now.
Back then GM > Ford.

posted by  nsupra27

If talking older cars (60's-70's) i would say Dodge ruled them all, followed by Chevy and then Ford close behind Chevy :thumbs: . But thats just my opinion, i'm an old Dodge fan.

posted by  car_crazy89

Man i got your back with old cars and mopar. Mopar ruled them all. They loves to cram big engines in little cars or even bigger engines in big cars. Look at the cuda. The highest selling muscle car of all time and probably one of the most bueatiful muscle cars to.

posted by  Enthusiast

i dont know what crackhead you got that information from enthusiest. but the mustang has been and always will be the best selling muscle car of the 60s. and in the 70s no one sold as many cars as the pontiac firebird. too bad you seemed to be missinformed alot. but the cudas are a sweet car from the years 70-73.

posted by  72firebird

...well he was wrong about the cuda, but even you have to admit that the chevy sold an assload more camaros than pontiac did firebirds...

posted by  dodger65

yea i know alot people liked the camaros. but personaly after 69 i think the firebirds started to look better than the camaros. but the 67 and 68 firebirds still look really nice.

posted by  72firebird

and yea but in the mid to late 70s no one sold as many as the firebird. untill then it was mostly camaros and mustangs

posted by  72firebird

Actually even the Mustang IIs sold more than the Firebirds. In '74, 385,000 Mustang IIs were sold, and though sales dropped off every year after that, they still sold almost double the Camaro and Firebird combined. Sales increased again in '79 with the introduction of the Fox Mustang.

The Firebird's best sales year in the '70s was 187,285 units in '78 (93,341 being Trans Ams). 1976 was the first model year in which the Firebird sold more than 100,000 units.

posted by  ChrisV

First the Chevy thread...and now this one :banghead: Damn newbs trying to start shit.

posted by  FordFromHell351

Actually, your statement is VERY closeminded. Keep in mind I made my Windsor run in the mid to low 10s with under 4,000 in the engine, and making close to 700hp.

I think the reason you like Chevrolet so much is because theyre easier to work on than a Ford right? The 350 Chevrolet is a much more simple engine than a Ford 302. But this just means your a lazy fool, whos grandpappy told you that Fords were no good.

posted by  FordFromHell351

God dammit! I just realized the date on this thread. :banghead:

posted by  FordFromHell351

I believe the Mustang was always loosely based on the fox body platform right from the beginning...but maybe Im mistaken. :ohcrap:

posted by  FordFromHell351

there is a lil truth to that. for 4000 bucks you can make a 1000 plus hp chevy 350. and yea chevys are simpler. but thats not always a bad thing. plus i like the 289s better than the 302s. i still have the hi po 289 from my brothers 68 mustang and its pushin close to 350 hp. and it sounded really nice.

posted by  72firebird

Nice engine for it's time the HP289, but IMHO the 302 is better, especially when stroking to 347. I started doing up a 289 for my '66 Falcon coupe, but ended up doing a bitsa starting with a 1969 mexican block. My only complaint is the cost of ford parts compared to chev. I'm currently trying to coerce Gonzo Racing Pipes into fabricating a set of extractors/headers for me to make the most of the SBF tone.

posted by  Wally

Sometmes parts for Fords are more expensive than the ones for Chevrolet. I also like the 302 better than the 289, it has a better sound to it, and I think has more potential. Ive talked to Chevy guys that say that the 302 has the best hot rod sound out of any engine that GM, or Chrysler makes.

posted by  FordFromHell351

if you ask alot of true die hard ford fans 7/10 will pick the 289 over the 302. but the 302s still a good engine. personaly i like the fe blocks too

posted by  72firebird

I know some guys like that. You can always tell the sound of a Ford V8 apart from a Chevy engine or Chrysler engine. You ever hear a car going down the road and you say to yourself "Thats a Mustang, with a 302 V8." Theres really nothing that sounds like that engine. :wink2: :smoke:

posted by  FordFromHell351

I agree with the sound statements. At one stage the cops here had a pecking order where the young guys got the pursuit vehicles with the holden engines and the seniors the ones with ford. The almost potato sound of the fords compared with the rasp of the general was seen as more authoritative even though they may not have been as fast.

posted by  Wally

They do sound unique, but I can't say that I really like the way they sound. I've personally always preferred the sound of a 350 SBC. But that is just a matter of preference.

posted by  Bino

yea i love the way my firebird sounds with those headers and straight pipes. i need to get a cam for it to get that sound even better. but you guys wanna know what i got goin in the car and whats been put in already? well i dont care if you dont want to im saying anyways. 350 cevy with edlbrock intake,carb,and heads. it has flowtech full length headers (its a branch of holley) and the exhaust is straight from my bros mustang lol. i cut it off from the muffler back. so the pipes are straight. and it theres like 1 inch of pipe after the muffler thats bent towards the ground. there flowmaster mufflers too. right now i have the 289 stripped to a bare block cause it sat for 2 years. i rebuilt the c4 last month. im rebuilding a mustang using his engine for when he gets back from his tour in kosovo. hes military police. also i got the ford 9 incher in my garage wich is goin in next month after i get my check and buy air shocks and a trutec locker. i just got some brand new centerline rims and euro t/a tires for 500 bucks off my uncle steve. he had them on his 68 stingray for a month and he bearly drives it 3 times a month so there was only like 100 miles on the tires. he has a 350 in his vette he built the motor himself but doest drive it too much cause he has 11.5:1 compression so it tends to overheat in the warm weather. its pulling like 440 horses and its backed by a m22. its really nice. but yea my family is really into cars. alot of us own pre 73 muscle cars. but my point is ford makes some good products as well as chevy. and even mopar. thats why ive integrated alot of ford and chevy parts into my firebird. even the bucket seats are out of my bros mustang. nice black leather. plus i also used em cause whats better then free parts. its every gear heads wet dream :mrgreen:

posted by  72firebird

The Mustang was a Falcon with a different skin from '64-73, then it became a Pinto with a different skin from '74-78. In '79, it switched to the Fox platform that was originally created for the '78 Fairmont. The Fox chassis saw various upgrades to the point that the SN95 was introduced in '94 (though loosely based on the Fox chassis, none of the structural stampings interchanged). It stayed on the SN95 chassis with modifications up to the '05 version, which is on the DEW Lite, a completely new chassis.

posted by  ChrisV

yes most r fords WITH CHEVY ENGINES!!!!!!! LOL dumbass!!! :fu:

posted by  green machine

Only because Chevys are cheaper to build up, rather than building a Flathead V8 or a badass 302, I assure you, its not for reliabilty reasons :laughing:

posted by  SlipKnoT

and chevy got it right all interchangable truck heads on a car engine with a waterpump off a wagon thats why there cheaper!!! nothin on fords interchange!! and reliability i have been drivin chevys for 16 yrs never been stranded yet the only time i was was in a ford granada what a peice of ford junk!!!!!!fords blow alot of money for a lil power thats why most people who have them dont know squat about cars!! lol

posted by  green machine

I hate to argue cause i myself am not a huge Ford fan but i'm starting to like and respect them alittle more. Fords are more reliable then you are making them out to be. Ya they have their problems but then again so does Chevy and Dodge. There hasnt been anyone who could prove that Ford really is that unreliable compared to Chevy and personal opinion/encounters will not be enough. If this would of been about a year ago i'd be on your side but lately Ford is doing something right (in looks AND reliabily) and Chevy and Dodge gotta kinda step it up.

posted by  car_crazy89

So want to explain to me why *I* like them? Considering I've been working on and building cars for 27 years? the two Fords i bought new (my '96 Ranger and my '99 SVT Contour0 were flawless.

Not interchangeable? My '74 302 used '66 289 heads with Chevy 1.92/1.64 valves, with a '67 water pump, pulleys off a 429, bolted to a '85 AOD transmission. Heads and parts interchange from the 289/302/351W, and you CAN put the 351C heads on the 302 to duplicate the canted valve BOSS302.
Yeah, sometimes when you get to newer ones, the truck and car specific parts are different, but the actual engine and parts do interchange. And on older ones, there is no problem interchanging. I can put 351w truck heads on a 289 0r 302 passenger car without a problem. or use a truck block with hi-po car heads. It's easy.

If you've been driving Chevy's for 16 years, that would make you in your '30s, at least, which means that in order to form sentences like you have, you must be uneducated.

I've owned may GM and Chrysler cars, as well, over the years. I'm not partial to any single brand. And after owning over 100 cars, and working on/driving vastly more, I can't denounce any one brand like you just did.

posted by  ChrisV

:laughing:


*Blinks*

Chris - I think that's the first time I have personally seen you debase someone and be quite nice about it. But it wasn't even that bad this time, you just called his bluff :orglaugh:


As for reliability of any vehicle, it all depends on a few key things(IMHO).

One is how you drive it. I wouldn't touch any 80's/early 90's Mustang in my city, because almost every one of them I have seen is being sh*tbagged by some 16 year old. But say I found a nice 'Stang that some sweet old lady had bought, it would be a damned sight better then the other ones...(for as much as I like Ford.... :laughing: )

Secondly is maintenance. If you take care of your car, and keep up with it, then a vehicle will last for years, the only problems you will have is standard wear and tear. On the other hand, if you do not maintain your vehicle, then it will be a lot more likely to have serious problems a lot quicker.

Thirdly is what quality you put into it when you do have to maintain it(if that makes any sense). If you put no-name parts into your car versus a slightly pricer but brand name parts, then you're running the risk of those parts being lower quality and more likely to fail again.


Personally, I've been driving for about 6 years(legally for 4) - thank god for living on a farm :) My family has nothing but Dodges, so I'll admit that I have grown up biased towards them. Although most of the vehicles we have are 'troopers', and have long lives. The 47 dodge that still runs to this day, the 64 dodge grain truck that we still use on the farm, the 92 caravan that has over 360,000kms on it, and the biggest piece of work having been a transmission rebuild.

But I have driven other vehicles too - my friends 2005 Civic Reverb, had a good ride, good handling, and acceleration. Wouldn't be a bad car to own, except I just can't stand Civics, I'd take a Ford before I took a Civic. I also drove a Chevy Silverado for a week as a work truck, and it was nicer then driving my grandpa's Dakota(which he never should have gotten anyways....it's worthless as a farm vehicle). Oh yeah, can't forget the 94 Ford Probe I drove, the Ford Escort ZX2, or the 2004 Cavalier. All of the other vehicles I have driven have good qualities and bad qualities, but I still stand by my Dodges.

posted by  dodgerforlife

Not wanting to piss anyone off. I can take the heads off a 98 vette 350 and bolt them on a 70 350. from what i have been told by many mechanic freinds of mine u can't take 302 heads from a 98 ford and bolt them onto a 70 302 block. Do not take my statements in the wrong way i love all the old muscle cars ford, chevy, and dodge! If i really wanted one the 70 426 hemi cuda would be the car of my choice but with the market going insane on these cars lately (past 10 yrs) I would never pay 100,000 for one. My brother has owned fords all his life trucks,cars etc. He has had problem after problem with mechanical failures and getting the dealers to back up their warranties so he finnally bought a dodge truck no problems yet! But he told me he would never buy a chevy cause he knew how much crap I would give him!!!! Guess i turned a possibale chevy person away with my own love for the brand!! LOL Buy the way i wouldn`t mind having one of those ac cobras with the 428 but would probably eventually drop a 427 chevy into it sooner or later LOL!!! :laughing:

posted by  green machine

Well from what i've heard, the 350 has hardly changed over the years, some minor updates but nothing major. Most engines from that time (60's and 70's) have needed more changes in order to meet emissions, etc. Really i'm an older Dodge fan and would love a 1969 Charger R/T Hemi, but Chevy and Ford are good brands, even if some people have had problems with them doesnt mean ALL cars of that brand have the same problems.

posted by  car_crazy89

Probably because there were no '98 302s. By '98, Ford had gone to the 4.6 modular OHC series, with both SOHC and DOHC versions. And they interchange with the 5.4 parts (and internally with the Triton V10 parts).

But, you can take the heads from the '95 302 (5.0) known as the GT 40 heads, and bolt them onto a '70 302 with no problems. Many people do. Same for truck to car and vice versa.

Oh, and you can't take the '98 Chevy parts and bolt them onto a '70, either, as the '98 vette used the LS1, which is an almost completely different engine than the early 350s. The LS1 heads on the vette will not interchange on the older 350. Even the motor mount castings on the block are in different locations. the crank has different journal sizes, and the heads have different mounting bolts. the water passages don't line up. Even though it looks the same, it's as far from the SBC 350 from the '60s and '70s as the Ford 4.6 modular motor is from the 302/5.0. So that part of your argument is not quite valid, either.



And I can tell the same stories about GM owners, Dodge owners, Toyota owners, Nissan owners, BMW owners, VW owners, etc. Considering how many cars I've owned over the decades, if I disliked a company because a car I owned of theirs broke, there'd be no cars left to like. :laughing:

posted by  ChrisV

I have a 4 bolt main date coded 1970 350 block with 98 vette 350 heads on it in a car right now and it runs spectacularly, no water journal alignment problems??? I dont have dome top pistons or anything in it so as far as different journal size and stroke length no clearance issuse either?? As far as the 350 not changing over the years and the others did say 302`s IS beacause if its not broke dont fix it! the 350 is probably the most varied and widely used engine of any hot rodder or muscle car builder to date? if you don`t believe so you should do some research11?? :banghead:

posted by  green machine

I did do research. I've been working with these engines for decades. the all aluminum LS1 is a different engine than the 350. You can't use the LS1 crank in the 350, which is what I'm talking about when I mention journal size. If you worked on these engines, you'd have known that. The LS1’s greatness comes from being a clean-sheet-of-paper design. The only major feature it has in common with the Small-Block is a bore center-to-center measurement of 4.40 inches. it carries six-bolt, steel, main bearing caps and a deeper "skirt" that extends below the crankshaft centerline. thes changes alone make it incompatible with earlier 350 parts. The crank is noticeably shorter than that of a Small-Block 350 and the main bearing size is larger than that of all except the old 400. And the crank is cast with an integral ignition trigger wheel that means it can' tbe used in earlier blocks, nor can earlier cranks be used in the LS1. The biggest visual differences between pistons for the new engine and those for LT1/4s are 1) LS1 units have no valve reliefs, 2) they have 6mm. less compression height which allowed the longer connecting rod and 3) the top ring was moved up 1.5mm. This means that the pistons will not interchange between the '98 engine and a '70 engine. or even a '93 LT1 engine.

The LS1's cams can't be used in the earlier engines and vice versa. Bearing sizes and locations are different.

I've done the research many times. I'd like to see how you managed to install '98 Chevy LS1 heads on an early 350.

posted by  ChrisV

id just listen to him and stop the argument right there green machine. hes right. and your wrong. no point in going on any further. everyone just needs to remember weve all had bad experiences with different types of cars that affects our opinions on the company. but remember that shit just happens. not always a reason and most bad experiences your brother had with his ford trucks was probably his own fault. lack of maintanence and what not. not the fault of a crappy product on fords part. ive had pontiac motors that were shitty, doesnt mean all pontiac motors were shitty. just the one i had with a shot main bearing which resulted in two shattered piston rods and 3 or 4 holes in the oil pan. you cant base everything on your own experiences alone. cause if that were true from my opinion hondas wouldnt be around no more. but in truth they have reason to be around. as much as i hate imports i drive one every day because of gas prices and the fact that it gets twice as much mpg as my firebird. and you were wrong about ford parts not being interchangable like others said most parts for the 289 302 and 351w are interchangable.

posted by  72firebird

to be put more bluntly take a 69 428 scj mach1, 70 hemi cuda, 69 copo 9561 camaro, and a 70 ram air IV trans am. a basicly in the same class. take all of these cars stock. and you got close to the same displacments (with exception of the ram air which is a 400) . and close to the same hp (even though they may not have it listed all of these cars are relatively close in hp ratings) you look at these 4 cars from some of the major manufactures and what i see is basicly their top of line shit. and only fractions of a seccond split them apart. (all of these cars being stock of course) the cuda will fo 5.6 0-60s and 13.41 1/4's. the yenko will do 5.4 0-60s and 13.5 1/4's. the mustang with 5.7 and 13.9s and the trans am with 5.6 and 13.9 1/4s. i dont know what you think but in my book those are some close numbers. close enough to were the wins mostly come from driver error/skill. and if well maintained all of these cars are reliable. so to those of you major manufacturer bashers need to stop cause its not about shitty products. its about opinion. and thats mostly what your thoughts are based on. your opinions not facts. ive owned a dodge a ford a chev a pont, and a honda. and i have not had any big problems with any of them that make them shitty brands. just different

posted by  72firebird

OK here's a little addon in regards the Ford motors:

I am currently building up a cruising motor for my 1966 Falcon Coupe and I might say I'm doing it tough getting parts locally because of various reasons. But just to illustrate the legacy issues:

The block is a 1969 Mexican 302;
the heads are aggressively ported E7 (1987 design) from a 1991 fairlane;
valves are 351W;
the valley cover is an E5TE truck inlet manifold;
the plenum is a 1984 4 litre one welded onto E5 intake runners;
injection rail from E5TE;
pencil injectors late model falcon six;
the conrods are 1967 289 standards (pistons are 0.1mm over deck);
the pistons are flycut 1970 style;
the crank is a non stroker early '70s;
the water pump is standard clockwise;
the pulleys are mustang HO six tooth minigroove;
the bumpstick is clevo Boss profile;
Alternator is ZF Fairlaine six;
Dizzy is 1968 autolite modified to motorcraft Duraspark I;
split lip rear main seal from AU falcon six;
PCV from ford six;
C10 tranny and 168 plate from seventies 302 Clevo;

Then of course there is the after market stuff: Scott Drake 1964 replicate alloy rocker covers for closed emmisssions, Romac timing gear, oil pump, fuel pump, Denso iridium plugs, magnecor KV85 leads, etc

Not a hiPo, but enough, I expect, to cruise comfortably without worrying too much about breaking down in the sticks.

And I'm seriously looking at either an LS1 or Boss throttle body.

posted by  Wally

wtf does a '91 fairlane look like?

posted by  dodger65

http://www.mynrma.com.au/images/1/use_fordfair.jpg

posted by  Wally

wow, that's really weird. i think it's cool how they resurrect old names for some of their overseas (to me) cars...

posted by  dodger65

Oz never got rid of the name, and kept it as a model since it started.

Wally, did Oz Fairlane production start with the '66-67 ZA? Or did you have the name as a top trim on Fords in the '50s like we did?

posted by  ChrisV

picky, picky... :wink2:

posted by  dodger65

I'm no expert when it comes to these things, but yes the a fairlane is a kind of marque for Ford here. I seem to recall the local fairlane reared it's head when the XR falcon was released in 1967 as the ZA. Prior to that they were imports. The ZC started to depart from the US designs.

Since the 80's the Fairlane has been a stretched verison of the Falcon, a lot of it done labour intensively.

posted by  Wally

Ive got a '63 falcon and in my opinion theres nothing more bad*ss than a ford smallblock. Theyve got such a distinct sound.

also, ford is kinda repsonsible for the original hot rod---'32 flathead roadster?

anyways its an opinion thing, thers no facts that could place chev or ford or mopar or whatever as a better hot rod

posted by  -THR-

Hey, cool car! You ought to do an introduction!

I've had a couple older Falcons, and am building a '63 Comet convertible right now (the Mercury version of the Falcon). This was my last Falcon:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/falcon4.jpg

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/falcon1.jpg

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/falcon2.jpg

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/falcon3.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

ChrisV I have a nice chrome bonnet bird that fits an XL XM.

posted by  Wally

i think people w/ falcons are kinda weird... :wink2:

my friend has a 64 falcon w/ a 383 chevy stroker :banghead: in it, tubbed 2 dr, orange...

he's pretty weird... :screwy:

posted by  dodger65

And what was your second clue...?

Hehehehe....

posted by  ChrisV

Anyone like new Falcons? I am not to familiar with them new or old but they seem to be fairly different as far as keeping in touch with it's roots, but not in a bad way. I guess its too upscale for Ford in US ($$$).

posted by  VG30DE

I don't particularly like it, but I'm presently tossing up between an an XR8 and a Holden.

posted by  Wally

given any thought to the xr6 turbo?? they're supposed to be pretty sharp.

posted by  windsonian

Yeah the 240T is also in the soup, but I have had hairdryers before and they didn't like Oz summers, plus with most bootstrap breathers the power sometimes lags when you need it most .... maybe this one's different?

posted by  Wally

Dunno, I'm not speaking from experience ... they're a bit out of my range atm. What's the v8 you've got now?

posted by  windsonian

i think ford is out and pontiac is one of the best of the muscule cars there is and chevy is close to it. :thumbs: the old mustangs are ok but i think trans-am and firebird are the best. what do you think is the best. :confused:

posted by  zackman

For a company that's 'out' (WTF is that supposed to mean, out of touch, out of competition, out of the closet?), Ford seems to be doing fairly well with it's current lineup of performance-oriented cars - in particular the Mustang.

As for the Camaro/Firebird/ T/A, sure they were good cars, and the last-gen cars gave a lot performance for the dollar (I had one myself and loved it), even if it wasn't exactly ideal for daily driving.

But then I wanted a good-looking ~300hp V-8 car with a warranty, RWD, manual trans and for about $25k, with a large aftermarket base if I decided to mod it down the road, and I wanted to put the first miles on it. So tell me, where are GM's offerings at this price range? Yeah.... :umh:

posted by  dontmatr

who really gives a shit whos better than who keep ur bullshit to urselves

posted by  minibuff

if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all ok peanut? :thumbs:

posted by  Pythias

I think the entire reason for this thread is to discuss who is better than who...and as there will never be an entire group to agree on the same thing, the "bullsh*t" or opinions of people are required to voice what they think...that's the entire point of a forum :banghead:

posted by  chris_knows

i suppose

posted by  minibuff

Personally I dont like ford. Except the GT.

posted by  6000LE

Why not?

posted by  hondaman

Personally I don't like dodge much other than the Viper.

posted by  Pythias

In the cases I know about, the reliability hasnt been that great. Of course im not talking about the new models, nor the classics, but cars generally from 1990-2000

posted by  6000LE

So my '96 Ranger Splash and my '99 Contour SVT, both of which had zero problems in the years I had them, are unreliable and not worth owning?

posted by  ChrisV

The old fords are fantastic, they created one of the greates hotrods in the US the Shelby Cobra. if ford sucks the why did Shelby but their moter under the hood. :evil:

posted by  rstifle3000

ok man calm down and lay of the steroids. :screwy:

posted by  rstifle3000

well the old trans-ams during the 74 to 85 years did fun good but the bodys where worthless pieces of crap. :laughing:

posted by  rstifle3000

Isn't reviving old topics fun?

posted by  PontiacFan27

Isn't post-whoring fun? :laughing: :doh:

posted by  chris_knows

In regards to performance Ford made excellent classics. Ford then shifted their production to more family oriented wehicles. They are only now beginning to create great performance cars Like the GT and the new Mustang.

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

WHO GIVES A CRAP IF THEY MAY NEED A LITTLE MORE WORK DAMN IT. :banghead: with just a little more work they can kick any other cars ass. (does the name GT-40 float through your head).

posted by  rstifle3000

Not quite...what you are saying is that a Ford Taurus, with a little bit of work would be able to beat a Ferarri Enzo?...Alright, even it out a bit...even a GT40 couldn't do that without a new engine dropped in...one aspect to look at it is the 1/4 mile times...The Ford got 11.6seconds @ 128mph, and the Ferrari with half a second less...11.1@133

Not saying that Ford sucks, I like it, but be more open-minded...

posted by  chris_knows

So your saying that without a new engine there's no way the Ford GT could be made to get down to 11.1?

posted by  Pythias

I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, all I'm saying is that Ford is not the best car company for everything, they make nice cars and trucks, but they are not perfect...

posted by  chris_knows

Aaaand, when was teh last time you towed anything with an Enzo? And look at teh cost differnce, as well. You'd think that for teh differnce in price, you could do pretty much anything any vehcile wascapable of, not merely goa liittle faster.

BTW, the top speed of the GT isn't far off an Enzo, either, and that, like the 0-60 times, can be improved with a slightly smaller upercharger pulley.. ;)

I don't go around saying "Ford Rulez" but I also won't put the company and it's cars down, either as a generality (of course, I can say the same for most every car company..). I've had great luck with my Fords.

posted by  ChrisV

damn man don't i agree with you. :mrgreen:

posted by  rstifle3000

What i ment to say is that any ford of comparable specs can beat any car with comparable specs. :doh:

posted by  rstifle3000

And you're wrong again.

Name one ford vehicle that can beat a NSX around a track.

And you're forgetting the camaro vs mustang rivalry.
Ford is no better and no worse than any other manufacturer.

posted by  Godlaus

How much boost is the GT running at stock?

posted by  Godlaus

How about the Ford GT?

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

That's the only contender, and even then, in recent magazine tests, the GT fell short of the Corvette and Viper, despite having MR placement, and 150 more horses. If we're talking a 4 mile oval, then obviously the GT would outperform the NSX, but if we're talking pretty much any other track, a NSX with a seasoned driver would most probably win.

I've got a video of a NSX-R running laps with Porsches, Lambourghinis and Ferraris, and it's passing 'em up on the curves, but keeps getting killed on the straights.

posted by  Godlaus

Well seeing as how there is only a few new Ford sports cars damn straight that is the only contender! :thumbs:

I would like to see these magazine tests.

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

Ford isn't a supercar maker, they're a production car maker, and a sports car maker. That's why we see 300hp for 25 grand, and the 03',04' cobra's able to push 600 whp off $350 in upgrades.



I believe Motor trend, Car&Driver, Road&Track, and Automobile all tested the Viper, Z06, and GT in straight lines and around a track. I don't recall seeing the GT win any lap races.

posted by  Godlaus

AHH! Not this thread again! Lol...

Continue. :ticking:

posted by  StiMan

Don't know for sure... but not enough, a smaller pulley would make those times.

posted by  Pythias

The things running a 8.4:1 Compression ratio (http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/11132003105848.pdf), so I'm thinking that Ford either wanted owners to use smaller radial pulleys, or it's running double digit psi.

Although, I find those times quite believable, what's not to?

posted by  Godlaus

Damn, I was hopeing you'd link me. Fine I'll go out and buy one and take a look :thumbs:

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

I would, but they don't release the results of their current magazine to the general public on the internet, otherwise buying the paperback (where all their money comes from) would be kinda redundant :doh: .

posted by  Godlaus

But I'm poor and lazy. :banghead:

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

i could name you one that isn't one the market yet, the ford GR-1 (group racing 1) with about 600 hp+ and 550 ft pounds of tourqe could and has blasted the crap out of the nsx, GR-1, look it up. :drool:

posted by  rstifle3000

or the 2006 shelby cobra gt 500 (toung twister) with a 5.4 lt V8 under the hood

posted by  rstifle3000

they don't call the gt-40 a ferrari killer for nothing man (like the avatar)

posted by  rstifle3000

Actually, you need to read those tests closer. The GT used for the road course portion of the MT test against the ZO6 and Viper was a development model with 40k miles on it and down on horsepower. Even so, it was BARELY behind the Corvette and Viper, both of which use larger tires...

None of them are bad cars, but of the three, I'd rather have the GT.

posted by  ChrisV

I have alway's loved fords, but I do prefer other cars over ford, especially Chevy. But when it comes to sport's trucks, I have alway's loved the Ford Lightning. In my OPINION, I think they are a perfect blend of function and style. :thumbs:

posted by  fastpass

I think the Chevy Silverado SS or the Chevy SSR are awesome sport trucks! I never really liked Ford trucks. I prefer Chevy and Dodge trucks.



Well said :clap:

posted by  Sgt. Pepper

And even then, the GT pulled ahead by less than a half of a second in Automobile, and I believe C&R had the GT as the slowest (and an embarassing time really). I skimmed the articles at work, so excuse me if the times aren't reliable.


Because that Supercharger pulley is being replaced with one half it's radius as soon as you get your hands on it :mrgreen: .


The GT40 WAS called a ferrari killer back in the 70s (I believe) when Henry Ford was so upset Enzo Ferrari wasn't going to sell his company to Ford, that he created the GT40, and beat the then-dominant Ferrari in Le Mans. As for today, the GT and the F430 are very evenly matched, and comes down to personal preference, but the Enzo is a much faster supercar than the GT.


Not bad.....Considering the NSX is 15 years old, only has 300 horses, and is going out of production. And horsepower/torque/displacement figures have almost nothing to do with how well a car tackles a track.

posted by  Godlaus

Apparently the GT was more confidence inspiring on the track. Personally I'll reserve judgement until I drive one. (hope, hope)




And larger tires.. ;)




For the money, it better be.

posted by  ChrisV

My local Ford Dealership just got an '06 GT(although I didn't think they were making them anymore) and they're asking $230,000 for it?!?! the article in the paper(Rock Hill isn't that big, so yeah there was an article in the paper about it :laughing: ) even said the MSRP is 166K, which is also funny cause I thought it was 149. would it go up 17 in one year?

posted by  jedimario

yeah, Ford is still making them. And yes, the MSRP went up a tiny bit, but the MSRP is really meaningless as no dealership allows a car to be sold anywhere near that price, thus negating half the reason the car exists.

posted by  ChrisV

im sorry if im being rude, but could someone tell me if the blown motor in my 1996 pontiac transport is interchangeable with a 1996 bonneville.



MSRP: N/A - N/A
Body Styles: 2-Dr Minivan
Engines: 3.4L V6
Transmissions: 4 Speed Automatic
Drivetrains: Front Wheel Drive


1996 Pontiac Transport Performance
-3,350 cc 3.4 liters 6 V front transverse engine with 92 mm bore, 84 mm stroke, 9.5 compression ratio, cast iron block, light alloy head, overhead valve and two valves per cylinder
-Unleaded fuel
-Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 9
-Single-point injection fuel system
-Main 76 liter fuel tank
-Power: 90 kW , 180 HP @ 5,200 rpm; 205 ft lb @ 4,000 rpm
______________________________________________________________
Body Styles: 4-Dr Sedan Engines: 3.8L V6 Transmissions: 4 Speed Automatic Drivetrains: Front Wheel Drive
1996 Pontiac Bonneville Performance & Efficiency Standard Features
- 3,800 cc 3.8 liters 6 V front transverse engine with 96.5 mm bore, 86.4 mm stroke, 9.4 compression ratio, cast iron block, cast iron head, overhead valve and two valves per cylinder
- Unleaded fuel

hope I dont make anyone mad, I have been searching the net for hours needing help

posted by  kimberlyfaye

The short answer is no. Now I have a question for you. What would possess you to put this question into a thread titled "Ford Rulz"? I'm sure the answer will amaze me.

posted by  vwhobo

So start your own thread...

EDIT: Damn you hobo and your fast reading skillz :laughing:

posted by  chris_knows

I'm sorry, I'm too tired to even feel embarassed, suppose I got excited to thing I was somewhere I could get a honest anwer, took me fifteen minutes to realize i was on yesterdays thread and they were discussing chevy's(little closer to a pontiac than ford!!!)but overlooking my ignorance, could you be a little more patient and tell me is it cause ones a 3.8 and the other is a 3.4?

posted by  kimberlyfaye

It's because they're two entirely different engines with different mounting points, different engine management systems, etc. Essentially there are less parts interchangable then the same. It could be made to fit but it would require custom work to convert. BTW, this isn't yesterday's thread, this is last year's thread.

posted by  vwhobo

finally i find some blokes that know the aussie muscles. man you can't go past the ford XY GTHO with the originall 351 cleveland under the hood. who eva owns this car has to be living in heaven! bloody oath i want one!

posted by  sheepstyne

oooh, and the Ford Lotus Cortina Mk1
with its Lotus tuned 1500cc engine and its light weight body and chassis, really quick for its age
http://www.robroyhistoricgarage.com.au/images/mk1lotuscortina2.jpg

posted by  True_Brit

Thats a muscle car in the UK?

we had a game with a car like that a while ago...

i think it was called, put put saves the zoo :P?

posted by  Spade

You're showing what it means to be a closed minded child. Nowhere did he say it was a muscle car. Further, I've seen plenty of Lotus Cortinas show a small block Camaro or Mustang it's ass at a road course. Try opening your mind to reality.

posted by  vwhobo

Meh,

your right. I type before i think too much, gotta stop that.

posted by  Spade

Lotus Cortinas are a rare sight until you go to a historic rally event.

posted by  fudge

oh deffinatly, i like em in green and gold but i much prefer them in white and green

posted by  True_Brit

True-Brit did your Corties get the 4.1 litre like our TC,TD, TF and TE(Mark IV):

http://jaw.ii.net/cars/corty1.jpg

posted by  Wally

4.1??? Flip me, that mustve had some grunt!
as you can tell from my reply,,, no! im not much into classics but id think they had a 3litre or close to 3litres anyway (dont quote me, correct me if im wrong)

posted by  True_Brit

a mate of mine had a south african import Ford Sierra XR8, it had a us ford sourced 302 V8, pretty quick, sold it because it was getting expensive

posted by  True_Brit

Yeah a lot of S.Afrika's cars came from Oz...they even got the XY GTs and a promotional aardvark trailer:wink2: You are right, a Corty with the standard 250 crossflow could pull harder than a boy with a centrefold.

posted by  Wally

I was just about to mention that one!

Our Mk-5 Cortinas had a 3.0-litre in it's largest form I believe, but I think they put a 2.8 in some, too! I love the Mk-5's, I've always wanted one, problem is, they're few and far between these days......They bring back a few memories, too!

posted by  Cliffy

are they the ones that look like the old old granada??

im thinking of getting an old Ford Consul mkII or a Ford 100E, really old, nice when customised (not big wheels etc, just Mini lite wheels, chrome bumpers etc) and putting it on my dads insurance

posted by  True_Brit

Kind of...I guess. The Consul was basically a Mk1 Granada/Cortina I believe

Mk 5 Cortina:
http://www.british-classic-cars.com/pracclassic/FordCortinaMK5.jpg

Mk 2 Granada:
http://i24.ebayimg.com/05/i/06/78/9b/a2_2.JPG

posted by  Cliffy

Your Message