Fords 32 Valve SBF heads

[Steve]

Cliff,

The "seriously....self-righteous.." comment I made was in response to your rather personal slam "if you actually did some reading on this site....you wouldn't make such a silly statement." As you just eloquently stated in your last post, I have a right to my opinion (without personal attack) and, for the record, it's not silly. The dearth of 4v pushrod heads on planet Earth is proof of that.

I do think 4V heads have huge upsides but, for all the reasons Howard succinctly mentioned above and more, they're not cost-effective in pushrod form nor are they adequately competitive vs a DOHC 4V. I think it's not coincidental that the major auto manufacturers and the aftermarket (TFS, AFR, Edelbrock etc etc) haven't jumped on board. In the 80's when it was tough to get 400hp out of a SBF it might have been an an interesting idea. Today? You can reliably get 550hp or more out of a NA SBF and with a 9.5" deck aftermarket stroker 351W, 700hp isn't out of the question. If someone is gonzo there's always boost but really, none of these chassis were ever meant to handle even 700hp and probably can't adequately put that power to the pavement. Even the boys at Ferrari and Lamborghini are thinking we're reaching the practical limits of HP on cars for the street/occasional track and their chassis are more sophisticated than the GT40.

Soo, where's the motivation for a 4V pushrod? To be different or unique or as Sir Edmund Hillary said, "because it's there". That's fine, but I'm not sure there could be a more expensive mod per HP gained than that one. I'm with Jim on this one. My funds aren't limitless either and I've pissed away more than I care to already

Glad your feelings aren't hurt Alan

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Soo, where's the motivation for a 4V pushrod? To be different or unique or as Sir Edmund Hillary said, "because it's there". That's fine, but I'm not sure there could be a more expensive mod per HP gained than that one.

Sooo, where's the motivation for assembling an accurate street-driven GT40? To be different or unique or as Sir Edmund Hillary said, "because it's there". That's fine, but I'm not sure there could be a more difficult way to acquire a car than that one.

And an accurate GT40 will not accept a Modular V8 or its ilk either physically or philosophically. So if I want to push a little on the power envelope of my SBF-GT40 and I want it still to look reasonably accurate from the outside, thinking about and discussing 4V heads is reasonable, attractive and interesting.

So here we all are having a good time discussing this for the last year and "Jammin Man" walks up and asserts that "pining after one" is "idiocy." Nobody questions Jammin Man's right to that opinion. No feelings hurt (you couldn't if you tried). But you walk up to a group of guys having an interesting technical conversation at my house and say something like that and you'll get cold stares and no more invitations.

 

[Steve]

I would agree that a mod v8 is far from accurate, but would a 4V push rod be any more accurate? As I indicated, pushing the power envelope doesn't require a 4V, as nearly 700hp is achievable even without boost. It is far from certain that the 4V will top that significantly but it sure will run the price tag up, assuming you can find them so I don't think you could describe it as either a reasonable or attractive option unless you make "jet money".

I would certainly agree it's interesting and fascinating and warrants discussion. I've followed this thread from the beginning so I wouldn't assume my lack of input means I just walked up out of nowhere.

As far as questioning my right to that opinion, that's exactly what you and Cliff did when you got personal and told me to "quietly go somewhere else" in your words. You'll notice I apologized (which you wholeheartedly accepted) if my use of "idiocy" was offensive. I also clarified that in no way was I calling anyone an idiot. I don't mind at all if you disagree but make an argument, lay down some facts. That's the whole point of these forums, discussion debate, and even disagreement.

BTW, this isn't your house.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

.... make an argument, lay down some facts. .

Steve -- I already have. It's your turn. What do you actually know about the topic that hasn't already been said?

 

[Cliff Beer]

Afraid I'm with Alan here.

The point isn't that you can get a ton of hp/tq out of a NA 2-valver these days with all the performance mods available so why bother with 4V...

The point is that a 4V head (everything else being equal) will provide a meaningful performance advantage over a 2V head. Four valves (or even five ala ferrari) is being used consistently and universally by the manufacturers of the most high performance engines in road cars today. Just ask ferrari/maserati, lamborghini, porsche, etc. On a per liter basis these folks get more power out of an engine than anyone else, and 4+ valve tech is a material component of that achievement. Apparently they don't think it's "idiocy" and I'm fairly confident their collective brain power on the subject vastly exceeds any one person's experience with it on this forum.

Yes, everyone's entitled to their opinion, including jammin man and anyone else, but the above is neither opinion nor self righteous expression, it's fact.

 

[Darrin]

And an accurate GT40 will not accept a Modular V8 or its ilk either physically or philosophically.

This isn't the case at all. Dimensionally mine is the same as a Gulf version and it is set to house the Coyote/Roadrunner/Aluminator Ford modular engine. GTForte and Tornado both have a chassis that outwardly is the same as a GT40 yet accepts this engine.

I contest that if Shelby and the rest were to build the GT40 today they would be using it too FWIW.

Oh, and as for accurate reproduction, I'm not all about that, but if I were, then I would be looking at cams ground in 1965ish and iron heads and intakes. I'm just not one of those to forgo performance for the sake of historical accuracy thank you very much.

 

[Steve]

Cliff,

All the examples you stated are DOHC 4V. No one would argue that a well-executed DOHC 4V design will best a pushrod 2v. The pushrod 4V is a totally different animal and the advantages of the DOHC 4V cannot be automatically assumed to cross over to a pushrod 4V. You'll notice absolutely none of those companies you mentioned have pursued a 4V pushrod design.

BTW, here's your previous quote earlier in the thread: "I can't imagine a 4V head could ever work very well with a pushrod design.... A single overhead cam makes sense, a double overhead cam makes even more sense." Are you contradicting yourself or has your opinion changed?

Alan,

You make an excellent point. I would, however, state that the burden of proof is not on me to prove these heads aren't a valuable design. Rather, the burden is on the manufacturer/sales dept/advocate (in this case you) to prove they dyno better and have a broader torque curve AND are reliable. The below chart is their flow numbers vs an Edelbrock Victor at progressively greater lift. They're better at low lift but not by an order of magnitude. I'm sure compared to stock heads or contemporary heads of the 90's they flow much better.
<table id="table1" border="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="177">Edelbrock Victor</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="55">54cc</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="58">2.12</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">75</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">149</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">231</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">274</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">313</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">345</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">359</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="83">CNC</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="156">Total Engine Airflow</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="177">Edelbrock Victor</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="55"> </td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="58">1.62</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">61</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">125</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">180</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">230</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">263</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">280</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">295</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="83"> </td></tr></tbody> </table>
<table id="table1" border="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="177">Dominion 32V</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="55">62cc</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="58">1.65x2</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">105</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">196</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">272</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">321</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">337</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">344</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">n/a</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="83">Stage II</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="156">5.0 3/1998</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="177">Dominion 32V</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="55"> </td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="58">1.40x2</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">88</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">142</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">187</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">207</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">218</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">226</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="50">n/a</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" width="83"> </td></tr></tbody> </table>
Many of the pros of this head can now be achieved with a good aftermarket 2V design: shaft rockers? Can get Jesel shaft rockers for any number of 2V. Is the valvetrain lighter and able to rev higher? Unknown and many 2V engines can rev to 7000+. Light? Lots of aluminum aftermarket heads that are probably lighter than this large head.

Long story short is that while these heads have some flow advantages, they're unproven, have no comparative dyno data to some of the excellent 2V designs today, probably cost an arm and a leg, will double your valvetrain expenses, won't necessarily rev higher, have more moving parts (and therefore more things to go wrong) and, therefore, are likely to be less reliable, and I believe you'll need a custom ground cam. Finally, if something goes wrong, will there be company support to back you up?

So what are the distinct proven advantages that would offset those negatives?

 

[Darrin]

...many 2V engines can rev to 7000+. Light? Lots of aluminum aftermarket heads that are probably lighter than this large head.

True, and it's not all about flow (tumble/swirl, RPM capability, etc.). The STOCK Roadrunner can do 7,500RPM. Not many 2V 8 cylinder engines you can have for that kind of money can say that.

Here is great site for flow numbers of various heads.

Ford Head Flow Data and Specs

 

[Cliff Beer]

Cliff,

All the examples you stated are DOHC 4V. No one would argue that a well-executed DOHC 4V design will best a pushrod 2v. The pushrod 4V is a totally different animal and the advantages of the DOHC 4V cannot be automatically assumed to cross over to a pushrod 4V. You'll notice absolutely none of those companies you mentioned have pursued a 4V pushrod design.


So what are the distinct proven advantages that would offset those negatives?

Steve, you missed the point, again.

Of course, the modern 4V examples are OHC designs. That goes without saying.

I said, everything being equal (ie. pushrod v. pushrod or OHC v. OHC) the 4V is going to come out on top. Again, it is a superior design. That's why the examples I gave are 4V+ OHC designs, not 2V OHC designs. 4V works better because of it's superior flow characteristics. Simple.

Within the context of THIS discussion we are talking about pushrod designs. Why? Because OHC doesn't fit too well in a GT40 chassis.

So, again, a 4V head design (in pushrod form of actuation) v. a 2V (in pushrod form) is what's being discussed here. That's the whole point. A 4V head for SBF with pushrod actuation is the unicorn that so far has proven to be elusive because of shady suppliers and a small niche market, not because it's "idiocy."

 

[Brett James-McCall]

This isn't the case at all. Dimensionally mine is the same as a Gulf version and it is set to house the Coyote/Roadrunner/Aluminator Ford modular engine. GTForte and Tornado both have a chassis that outwardly is the same as a GT40 yet accepts this engine.

I contest that if Shelby and the rest were to build the GT40 today they would be using it too FWIW.

Oh, and as for accurate reproduction, I'm not all about that, but if I were, then I would be looking at cams ground in 1965ish and iron heads and intakes. I'm just not one of those to forgo performance for the sake of historical accuracy thank you very much.

Darrin, I think you will find that a modular will fit into a replica spaceframe chassis, as you have stated, but what Alan is referring to is a monocoque replica, such as a Adams and McCall (I could also be wrong in my understanding)

You may be right that Shelby would use the newer engine, but then again, it also wasn't available at the time, which is part of the history and myth.

As an aside, for what its worth. As an observer, you guys seem to be butting heads at anything you say to each other. Go and have a beer, agree we all like the car, people build different versions, but at the end of the day, we are all part of a very small group of special individuals who love these cars and have had the common sense to try and make our dreams come true.

Brett

 

[Keith]

As an aside, for what its worth. As an observer, you guys seem to be butting heads at anything you say to each other. Go and have a beer, agree we all like the car, people build different versions, but at the end of the day, we are all part of a very small group of special individuals who love these cars and have had the common sense to try and make our dreams come true.

Brett

Well put Brett and it's not the first time by a long chalk on this and many other threads as well. Your suggestion re: beer is very valid, as I fear there must be something nasty in the US water these days.

 

[Steve]

Sorry Cliff, you missed the point. My original post lauds the advantages of 4V design, specifically the mod V8 DOHC. I did (and still do) feel the 4V pushrod design is folly. It is a unicorn not because of shady designers/manufacturers but because it is an impractical design. If it had distinct advantages that outweighed the negatives FRPP (and the aftermarket) would likely be all over it as they continue to support the SBF heavily.

With all due respect, it seems you're disagreeing with my criticism of the 4V pushrod (not the DOHC, which I own and love) merely to be argumentative as you've offered no data that a 4V pushrod comes out on top of anything in head to head comparisons. Further you're posts contradict themselves.

To make matters worse, I've stupidly continued as well and Brett and Mr. Hardy are absolutely correct so with that said, I'll have a black and tan and call it a day.

:dead::dead:

 

[Grady]

I'M still trying to figure out my 40 valve Audi V8......

 

[Seymour Snerd]

As an observer, you guys seem to be butting heads at anything you say to each other. Go and have a ...

That is simply not true. There's nothing wrong with some debate, and the thread was healthy until somebody tried to "jam" down our throats the argument that the whole concept is invalid and "idiotic" to discuss. But he's gone now so the adults are in charge again.

Even if there were a problem, self-medicating with alcohol is not the solution. And "advice" like that, however well-intentioned, is patronising.

And Keith: you're doing what you always do: come zooming in at the end of the argument, make some similarly patronising comment and then disappear. Do you ever actually contribute to the discussion? I've searched your posts and haven't found a single instance.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Alan,

You make an excellent point. I would, however, state that the burden of proof is not on me to prove these heads aren't a valuable design. ...So what are the distinct proven advantages that would offset those negatives?

If "Jammin Jerusalem" were still here I'd say: I don't have any "burden of proof." I'm simply interested in the idea. You're the one who decided the whole concept needed to be "proved" somehow. The thread subject is simply " Fords 32 Valve SBF heads". It's not "Can Cliff and Alan convince Jammin Man he should like them".

So, now that he's gone off to "jam" up some other thread, anyone have any news on availability of these heads?

 

[Keith]

And Keith: you're doing what you always do: come zooming in at the end of the argument, make some similarly patronising comment and then disappear. Do you ever actually contribute to the discussion? I've searched your posts and haven't found a single instance.

This whole thread has been a disaster from the beginning. Poor old Kazoom for example just gave up in the end. I have been in touch with him separately, and whilst some people that post here were determined to put down his posts, I personally found them interesting as he posted a lot of tech I didn't know. I also found him to be a reasonable, sane, well adjusted human being.

I am not as clever as y'all and I found this stuff both interesting and educational. Is there anyway to have a discussion on GT40's without being trounced by self appointed forum tech police who know it all?

I am contributing to this thread by agreeing with Brett's analysis. You are just arguing for the sake of it mate.

I do not contribute anything tech anymore because whilst I have been a racer for quite a few years, I don't know everything but am always keen to learn which I have in spades from this forum. I don't think I could stand being fucked off like many have been in the past 6 months, that's all.

Shame it's gone like that really.

By the way, whilst I am a traditionalist by nature, but would love to own a suitable car that I could throw a Coyote in. To me, it's just the future, and, as we're dealing with replicas, I think it would make a marriage made in heaven. In fact, although in other parts of the forum do like to promote the GM LS engine products because it's said to be "cheap horsepower", I think it's all pretty low tech and yesterdays news, and Ford have the right idea.

If I couldn't get a Coyote then a 4 valve pushrod motor would definitely get the thumbs up.... (if such a thing exists that is!)

Anyway Alan, bang away mate, bang away. Feel free....

 

[Brett James-McCall]

Alan,
Seriously? It was a way of saying chilling out, not literally going for a beer - at times I appreciate that we all can be divided by a common language with words and expressions that have different meaning depending on your geographic location.



I was just trying to calm things down... there may be valid points made by both parties. You all have far greater knowledge than me on the engines, I just buy heads and follow a book to build my engines.




Brett

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Alan,
Seriously?...

I was just trying to calm things down...

Sorry, I just find the "why don't you just have a drink" advice trite and condescending. It presumes, first of all, that we're not calm in the first place, which you can't possibly know. It then presumes that it's your place to dictate what mood we should have, and that's patronising. And as spats go, this one wasn't a particularly egregious one. IAE, I've never seen "go have a drink" do anything to improve a thread. Show me one if you can.... To "moderate" you actually need to get into the discussion and help patch up the miscommunications, not just tell people to "settle down" like we're a bunch of hyperactive school children. I think you really need to look at the whole arc of the thread to do it effectively.

And sorry, Keith, but I don't see "voting" as a contribution. A contribution introduces new knowledge or point-of-view, or is at least entertaining. "I agree with that other guy" is none of the above. But I do now wish we could get Kazoom back.... I'd rather have his info and pictures along with the hysterical defensiveness than Jammin man's simple uncomprehending negativity.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

By the way, whilst I am a traditionalist by nature, but would love to own a suitable car that I could throw a Coyote in. To me, it's just the future, and, as we're dealing with replicas, I think it would make a marriage made in heaven. In fact, although in other parts of the forum do like to promote the GM LS engine products because it's said to be "cheap horsepower", I think it's all pretty low tech and yesterdays news, and Ford have the right idea....

OK, so suppose for the moment you could fit a Coyote in a close-to-real GT40. Does a '60s chassis and a Y2K engine make sense as a combination? Don't you have a feeling there that the engine has "gotten ahead of" the chassis?

OTOH, a 4-valve SBF is at least conceivable as something Ford (or others) might have done had GT40 development continued (this being the part that jammin man simply would or could not get no matter how clearly Cliff explained it).

I could rhetorically flip the argument around: why not take a modern corvette chassis and put a mechanical FI 283 in it? Is it just that we all find engines more fund to mess with than chassis?

The upshot is I don't completely get the modern engine in old chassis idea, but again, it's a matter of taste so I won't push it. As I've said repeatedly elsewhere, we're by definition in a "logic-free" zone with GT40 replicas.

And then finally, on the subject of pushrods, I agree with the "yesterday's news" sentiment but really, GM is certainly effective and successful with their "low tech" engines. I think it's worth examining that. Have they never built a pushrod multi-valve/tract head? If not, is that an argument that it's too hard/expensive to do, or is it an argument that it's simply not needed? Or what?

 

[Ian Anderson]

I am sure I read one was tested with a DFV but the vibration almost shook it apart

Cosworth DFV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I would think that is somilar to a Coyote! (4 valve head overhead cam but a different crank)

Ian