Fords 32 Valve SBF heads

OK, so suppose for the moment you could fit a Coyote in a close-to-real GT40.

Remember now, there is no need to "suppose". It's already been done by Tornado and a couple of chassis' (one being mine) by GTForte are completed as well.

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?

To me, no. Yes, it will produce some power in a more efficient way but it's still a Ford engine doing it just like a modified push rod V8. Granted, it is more technologically advanced in relation to the chassis, but in my case (and probably everyone else's that isn't going for originality) my chassis isn't a stock GT40 one either (CAD design, etc.). Going with that, one might extrapolate that you would be against modern brakes, wheels, and tires since, well, they are "ahead of the chassis" too.

Like you say, it's all taste. To me, I value performance over originality while keeping the "spirit" of the GT40 alive. It's kind of all or nothing, to me, with the originality thing. If I wanted original, then I would buy an 1960's sideoiler stock...no modern cam, heads, etc. Use old style Goodyear tires, and original brakes, etc. etc. The thing would look like an original, and perform like an original, but it wouldn't be one, and would perform far inferior to what a more technologically advanced hybrid would (better engine, tires, brakes, etc.).

To each his own. :)
 
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:

Steve,

Please take a chill pill. This isn't an "argument" and nobody is being "argumentative." It's called a "discussion" and this is a discussion forum, so it's completely appropriate to discuss and debate it here. Trick is to not offend somebody by saying what they are saying is "idiocy" as that personalizes it and there's no need for that. Just debate the technical merits and skip the personalization. That's my process suggestion.

On the technical side of things, a 4V push rod SBF would be a great thing. You say my thoughts are flawed because I haven't offered any proof of the performance advantages of a 4V push rod engine. OK.....fair enough....but as far as I can tell you haven't offered any actual proof of any technical deficiency (ie. "idiocy") of a 4V push rod engine. What IS out there is a s-load of data showing that a 4+V head is vastly superior in performance to a 2V head. And based on THAT it's not that big of a technical stretch to conclude that a push rod actuated 4V head would have superior performance characteristics. There's no real big technical hurdle to push rod actuation of 4 valves.

The reason there's no supplier of 4V push rod SBF's is because it is an infinitely small niche market....one which doesn't justify the R&D costs of developing the whole head in manner which is commercially scalable and viable. The meager attempts (ala ARAO) that have been made have fallen short because there's just not enough customers and $'s to make it happen not because it's technically flawed.

Just for clarity, that's my $.02 only, and I can certainly appreciate somebody's else's alternate position, I'd just like to avoid being called an idiot if you don't mind.
 
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).

IIRC Ford considered the 255 'Indy' four cam engine but decided on the SBF instead.
(Not sure if this is the original or the second original that had it's SBF replaced)
GT-40-eng.jpg


So it's more than conceivable that Ford themselves would use a QOHC engine, they did, even if it didn't get beyond testing and into 'production'.
 

Keith

Moderator
I was just about to chime in on that. I am not totally sure but I believe the Ford DOHC motor was originally the engine of choice, then the Fairlane aluminium pushrod engine and from that the 289? Not too sure but it stands to reason Ford wanted the best engine in their new toy.

Was that a picture of P103 - Bill Wonders car? I am assuming the only reason it fitted an unmodified chassis is that the intake and exhaust ports could be interchangeable, but according to the new rules of this thread, this is nothing new and therefore not a contribution but it's the best I can do.

Good day.

PS Not exactly interchangeable with in- cam valley TB's but I'm sure you get my meaning.
 
Not sure which car it was, probably either P1027 or P103, have another picture
256-indy-ford-3.jpg


Actually more likely P103 due to the vents on the back of the spider making it a very early car.
 

Keith

Moderator
I only know the car when it was red but it has been sold and perhaps this is the new colour. I also believe the DOHC was fitted by Bill after it was delivered (with a 289 in it). Not too sure, but I would give my left arm (not my right - that's my shifting arm!) to own a '40 with the 'original DOHC coyote' motor!

Although it probably only bcame a Coyote after AAR got hold of it? Not sure, this is from memory - I do not Google.

Again, nothing in post post is new info so I trust it is acceptable as a 'contribution of sorts' in this thread.

Aythankyou....
 

George

CURRENTLY BANNED
Is there ever going to be 4v heads available for the Fords since 'all other exotics use 4v per cylender" or is it going to be a myth.
 

George

CURRENTLY BANNED
Thanks Tim,

Thats why i asked as I can not work anything out from what has been said, except, it seems to not be existent but would be a good idea if it did.

Would a pushrod 4v be as performing/reliable and so forth as a DOHC design or are the DOHC designs better just not 'original' if you will for the GT40s and hence why Alan is talking about the 4v being a good idea for those that still want an 'original' sort of engine but with 4v improvements?

That I couldnt seem to work out from all the arguing.

Engine to engine design, what is better DOHC 32v, or a 32v Pushrod?

The what fits better in a GT40 i understand is the Pushrod.
 

Ron Earp

Admin
In summary:

*There are four valve head conversions for pushrod Ford motors. You can order them but be prepared to wait a little while for delivery.

*If you get a set you can make some massive power with them. You may, or may not, make more power than various two valve head designs.

*Since 1993, Ford US has used a production DOHC four valve V8 (32 valve V8) in a passenger car. It, and all the Ford DOHC four valve V8s since then, can be put into GT40 replicas - all GT40 replicas - GTDs, Tornados, SPFs, Roaring Forties, etc. You might want a DOHC V8 in your GT40 replica. Or you might not.

So does that about cover it?
 

George

CURRENTLY BANNED
What would have influenced the idea to having exhausts going over the top of engine in centre like that of the 1027/103 car?
 

Keith

Moderator
What would have influenced the idea to having exhausts going over the top of engine in centre like that of the 1027/103 car?

The "optional" location would be on the side of the cylinder head and thus no space in the standard chassis, but apparently there were some advantages from the direct injection location straight into the pent roof chamber in any case.

I believe later turbo editions used the side exhaust as there were fewer space limitations on the open wheelers plus that configuration suited the turbo plumbing better.

The exhaust configuration shown in 103 is the true and original "Bundle of Snakes".

Lovely - I wish they would have perservered with this motor, as it did not have the major vibration problems of the later flat plane Cosworth Ford V8.
 
Back
Top