2 valve vs 4 valve

32ValveRom · Mar 24, 2009

mustang50v8 said:
im speaking from personal knowledge, and i may not be right...

oh and above all, a 4v motor looks so much sexier in the engine bay than the 2v.

No offense guys but to me these photos really make the SOHCs look like a piece of crap compared to the cobra motors.

BTW mustang50v8 how much power you runnin?

98COBRA281 · Mar 24, 2009

2v POWER!!!!

LaserSVT · Mar 24, 2009

4 is more then 2. So 4 is greater then 2.

98COBRA281 · Mar 24, 2009

CobraRed_96_GT said:
This, however, is teh truth. Most fools wont mess with a cobra - no matter how slow (ish) it might be. Plenty willing to play around with a GT and get served a plate of pwnage.

thats the best part!!, they think its only a little GT....haha

LaserSVT · Mar 24, 2009

Thats true. Over half the GTs on here would smoke my old Cobra and there is a LARGE ammount that would smoke my current Cobra. Yet nobody would ever rev me or try to race my old Cobra and the new one I only get messed with by Dodge Turbo Disels

My buddies with hot ass GTs get called out all the time and its just hilarious the crap that tries to run them. Always love to see a mildly modded GT crush a "Oh, engine swapped from Japan, 18A with a T3/T4 turbo."

scupking · Mar 24, 2009

LaserSVT said:
4 is more then 2. So 4 is greater then 2.

and 4v + 2v = 6V FTW

LaserSVT · Mar 24, 2009

scupking said:
and 4v + 2v = 6V FTW

Now youre just being silly.

mustang50v8 · Mar 24, 2009

32ValveRom said:
No offense guys but to me these photos really make the SOHCs look like a piece of crap compared to the cobra motors.

BTW mustang50v8 how much power you runnin?

i know it doesnt look good on the 2 valvers, but its the only engine pic i had of my last mustang, and that was after it had been sitting in the gravel bodyshop parking lot for a week and a half

i will find out about the power when i get it dyno tuned in a couple weeks.

im hoping for 355-360rwhp and 370+ tq

Stan Weiss · Mar 25, 2009

CobraRed_96_GT said:
So 2V heads that flow the same as 4V make the same or more power and can add just as much timing? That's convenient.

So I can put on a stock 03 blower set-up and make as much as a 03 cobra, cool! Actually more, i have aftermarket cams.

You do understand that the better the chamber design, spark plus location and other factors, help to reduce the amount of timing that an engine need to make max HP and in a small way helps to reduce pumping loses.

CENTENNIALSTANG · Mar 25, 2009

N.A.

DOHC FTMFW

32ValveRom · Mar 25, 2009

mustang50v8 said:
i will find out about the power when i get it dyno tuned in a couple weeks.

im hoping for 355-360rwhp and 370+ tq

360hp? Did I talk to you a couple of weeks ago on another site? Nevermind

Was that your car in that photo?

bhuff30 · Mar 25, 2009

I'm a bit tired of reading this kind of unsupported non-sense. It has already been discussed that the 4v has a less than optimal spark plug location and a poor burn compared to the 2v. So if you and others that boldly state 4v is better, you should give a reason or evidence about WHY. Not just the bad-ness factor of having 4 valves instead of 2. That's pure rice. So support your claim! I want to hear why 4v instead of 2v!

I don't mean to single you out in particular, but this is a message to everyone that wrote 2 words, saying 4valve is better.

CENTENNIALSTANG said:
N.A.

DOHC FTMFW

billfisher · Mar 25, 2009

ummmm.......
a 322cuin. 4v makes 540rwhp at 7500.

a 322cuin. 2v makes 330rwhp at 6600.

its kinda the way it is.

a 1800.00 port job on a 2v and an 1800.00 port job on a 4v: 220cfm vs 340cfm.

that isnt flowbench racing, that whoppin 2v ass. and 1800.00 porting of 3v = 305cfm.

ask yourself why a bolt-on mach1 makes 330rwtq at 4200.

because more airflow+smaller cams = better torque.

billfisher · Mar 25, 2009

and for the record 99+ 2v chambers are better than early 4v for emissions.

TFS WILL even things up no doubt. 4v C heads can be had for 400.00 and ported for the remainder of the TFS cost. and it (4V)comes out on top.

mogs01gt · Mar 25, 2009

billfisher said:
ummmm.......
a 322cuin. 4v makes 540rwhp at 7500.
a 322cuin. 2v makes 330rwhp at 6600.
its kinda the way it is.
a 1800.00 port job on a 2v and an 1800.00 port job on a 4v: 220cfm vs 340cfm.
that isnt flowbench racing, that whoppin 2v ass. and 1800.00 porting of 3v = 305cfm.
ask yourself why a bolt-on mach1 makes 330rwtq at 4200.
because more airflow+smaller cams = better torque.

bull****! First off it doesnt cost 1800 for a port job on a 2v. Second 322cu in 2v will make a hell of a lot more than 330rwhp. Third bull**** on a 4v making that power on pump gas @7500 rpm. Also, that would be a ****ty power band and running 4.56 gears would suck ass on the street.

Everything costs double with the 4v as well. On price, its not even a comparison. The only time 4v's make more power is when cams and reving to 8k. Talk about a ****ty street car.

The average price for 4v heads arent 400 bucks, that is retarded to name the lowest price around and use it in a comparison.

98COBRA281 · Mar 26, 2009

billfisher said:
a 322cuin. 2v makes 330rwhp at 6600.

my motor (281) with mild compression(10.2:1), stock size NPI valves, and mild cams, but down 310rwhp, i know if i went high comp, oversized valves and bigger cams, i know i could have made over 330rwhp with the stock displacment

mogs01gt · Mar 26, 2009

98COBRA281 said:
my motor (281) with mild compression(10.2:1), stock size NPI valves, and mild cams, but down 310rwhp, i know if i went high comp, oversized valves and bigger cams, i know i could have made over 330rwhp with the stock displacment

I put 325 to the wheels with tiny ass Comp 262ah's cams. 400hp in this current age is no problems for a 2v.

LaserSVT · Mar 26, 2009

NO BRAKES said:
+1 for the 4v

bwahl602 said:
should have bought a 4 valve.... :'(

CatmanJJ said:
For sheer badassness of the exhaust sound alone yes.

LaserSVT said:
4V>2V /thread

LaserSVT said:

LaserSVT said:
4 is more then 2. So 4 is greater then 2.

CENTENNIALSTANG said:
N.A.

DOHC FTMFW

mogs01gt · Mar 26, 2009

What an intelligent post...

Stan Weiss · Mar 26, 2009

billfisher said:
ummmm.......
a 322cuin. 4v makes 540rwhp at 7500.

a 322cuin. 2v makes 330rwhp at 6600.

its kinda the way it is.

a 1800.00 port job on a 2v and an 1800.00 port job on a 4v: 220cfm vs 340cfm.

that isnt flowbench racing, that whoppin 2v ass. and 1800.00 porting of 3v = 305cfm.

ask yourself why a bolt-on mach1 makes 330rwtq at 4200.

because more airflow+smaller cams = better torque.

If you are building an all out race engine the 4 v setup will be better. But if you are building a daily driver performance engine you are better off going the 2v routine.

Bill your head port charges the same to do all that extra work that 4v's require? Double the amount of valve seats, valve bowls and a divider wall.

2 valve vs 4 valve

32ValveRom

Member

98COBRA281

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards

98COBRA281

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards

scupking

Active Member

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards

mustang50v8

Member

Stan Weiss

Member

CENTENNIALSTANG

Member

32ValveRom

Member

bhuff30

billfisher

Active Member

billfisher

Active Member

mogs01gt

98COBRA281

mogs01gt

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards

mogs01gt

Stan Weiss

Member

Similar threads

2 valve vs 4 valve

Member

Got FB banned again for saying nards

Got FB banned again for saying nards

Active Member

Got FB banned again for saying nards

Member

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Got FB banned again for saying nards

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency