Engine build. $7000 budget. What would you do?
- Thread starter wythors
- Start date
Stock for stock, of course the LS is superior. It should be, it's about 30 years younger than the SBF! Toss in the aftermarket though, and the Windsor is every bit as fearsome. Windsors took first place in both the Street and the Extreme classes of the last Engine Masters Challenge, beating out a LOT of LS engines. Neither one used Yates heads, either
That is exactly what came to mind when I saw that article in Engine Masters. I've probably made the aftermarket argument 20 times on this forum, but for some reason, people think that there's something magical about the cylindrical shaped spaces, capped on one end by the piston of your choice and capped on the other by the head of your choice, where gas and air are mixed and ignited when it's in an LS. For some reason, it's "just superior." That kind of defeatism irritates the hell out of me, but there's no point in arguing it. Just makes you look like you're holding on to the past or something. You never hear anything specifically superior that hasn't already been equaled or improved upon in the aftermarket by some ford part for the windsor motors.
Now if you want to talk about engines that are truly superior, you should be talking about direct injection, variable cam technology like the engines FORD PRODUCES TODAY. Those are the way of the future. Now you can have a race cam, high compression, high reving (thanks variable OHC) motor on the top end with a stock idle quality, low NVH, and excellent fuel mileage running on pump gas AND it's even more boost friendly. I'm looking forward to direct injection making it into Ford's V8s. I know DI has a shortcoming (injection window) at present, but I'm sure the aftermarket will get around that. The variable cam, and high compression on pump gas, and direct injection are advantages that cannot be replicated in the aftermarket by a Windsor or LS.... at least that I'm aware of. THAT is impressive stuff worth getting excited, or defeatist if you're so inclined, about.
My only beef with the OHC stuff is that it is SO complex that it becomes a deterrent for most hot rodders. It is VERY expensive, and compared to pushrod stuff it is very difficult to work on. It is also small displacement in a BIG package, where the compact size of the LS and SBF engines make them easy to stick in anything. I am blown away by the things that Ford is doing with the Coyote and the modular platform, but I just don't know that it will really catch on in the automotive hobby, outside of the late model Mustang crowd. I'll be curious to see what GM's next generation of V8s look like; I wonder if they will be forced to go OHC.
By the way, some of the more recent LS stuff does have VVT. I don't know a lot about it, but I think it may just be fixed advance/retard like the 3V 4.6 stuff was, not the twin independent system like the Coyote.
bentley429isBAC
10 Year Member
351 is deff a BIG BLOCk1. 460 is DA MEGA BUIG BLOCKSe!~!!
HotFox
15 Year Member
All I know is my AFR heads work well in my combination. Pickup up 93hp swapping AFR185s and a Performance products single plane for 205 and a super victor (the latter flowed 25cfm more @.600). Believe it or not has much better street manners at lower rpms.
Although I feel if the TW is unshrouding the valve so much why not put a 2.08-2.10 valve the the bitch? Sure seems the port size would increase significant CFM.
Also another thing that a lot of people don't realize is the more optimized valve train geometry with the inline valve heads. Anyone that has studied Kinematics knows that the geometry is compromised on any canted valve head.
Scott
Although I feel if the TW is unshrouding the valve so much why not put a 2.08-2.10 valve the the bitch? Sure seems the port size would increase significant CFM.
Also another thing that a lot of people don't realize is the more optimized valve train geometry with the inline valve heads. Anyone that has studied Kinematics knows that the geometry is compromised on any canted valve head.
Scott
- Dec 19, 2010
- 5,721
- 4,244
- 224
Well, I can say that I don't follow Engine Masters write ups, and maybe I should. I'm sure I could learn a lot from it. I live in the Houston area, and I do follow what happens around here. If you all are not familiar with the Houston racing scene, check it out. A lot of trendsetting stuff happens here.(including the article from LS1 tech I posted, NIK.) I have several friends who have 900-1000 hp street cars, aaand none of them are windsors. Most of them ARE LS engines and one is a TT Terminator. I do, however, plan on joining those ranks representing with a windsor... One of my buddies that I get most of these opinions from has a 900+ HP 76mm turbo LS2 Camaro and it was knocking on 600 rwhp BEFORE he even turboed it. That was with some piss ant PATRIOT HEADS. Hell, some guy just made some stupid record breaking run at The Texas Mile in an 1800 hp camaro.... so forgive me if I offend you with my so called "defeatism"..but I've actually stood next to those monsters and seen what they can do, not read articles in a magazine and spouted off statstics. Again, my plan is and will continue to be giving these guys a run for their money with a windsor mill, so again, defeatist? BAH!
OHC cam timing and installation only looks complex from the perspective of one never having done it before. Granted, it's not as easy as the old familiar, but once it's done, the immediate reaction for me was "That's it?".
Oh, I said that the torque to yield head bolt tightening sequence was unnerving, ( and it still is) But again, after doing it three times, (remember, I'm do it twice mike) even that becomes a non issue ** Torque to 35 ft lbs, then tighten a 1/2 turn, and then another 1/2 turn.
I mean,..... Durr,..... what the hell is so hard about it?
Given that a pushrod head has all of the paraphernalia that goes along w/ it,....pushrods, rockers, guideplates, and that pesky zero lash adjustment procedure
( since most aftermarket head users also prefer adjustable rockers),.....I don't think the pushrod guy will be drinking a beer for too long before the 32v guy is done, given both started w/ a shortblock in front of them.And there's never a bent pushrod, or the BS excessive guide wear that comes w/ incorrect valvetrain geometry w/ regard to a high lift cam, and a wrong length pushrod.
The twisted wedge is not a canted valve head, valvetrain geometry is not an issuse with them. A canted valve head like the Kasse SBF head are a nightmare geometry wise, but the twisted wedge heads are nowhere close to those valve angle wise.
I don't think that's true at all. If you look at how they are set up the rocker and everything is relocated. Everything is designed to be where it is.
I agree. This stuff has been going w/ the 426 Hemi, and the BBC forever, and later the 351C w/o incident,.....guess we're waiting for the Kinematics lesson.
HotFox
15 Year Member
Right the rockers and valves are relocated but the lifter is still inline. Side loading of lifter in any direction, is not optimal. If I understand the TFS TW has the same ratio rocker on IN and EX right? So the exhaust pushrod is angled out toward the outside of the block, the intake is toward the inside right?
Ideally you want the push rod right over the lifter for most optimum movement.
I never have had a set of TFS TW so, it may be less of a issue then what I have brought up
. Now I am really confused on why there can not be a 2.08" intake in a TFS TW
.
I've done a lot of optimizing valve-trains on tractor pulling engines. Using a OEM head with a valve train that was designed to run at a 1, 250rpm max. Then changing everything to roller/better parts that is made to run at 3000rpm and not destroy itself.
Scott
Ideally you want the push rod right over the lifter for most optimum movement.
I never have had a set of TFS TW so, it may be less of a issue then what I have brought up
. Now I am really confused on why there can not be a 2.08" intake in a TFS TW .I've done a lot of optimizing valve-trains on tractor pulling engines. Using a OEM head with a valve train that was designed to run at a 1, 250rpm max. Then changing everything to roller/better parts that is made to run at 3000rpm and not destroy itself.
Scott
Ill say it again, the twisted wedge is not a canted valve head, neither is the high port. The TFS R head is a little different design and back when they were all the rage guys were having issues with getting the geometry right, but on the standard TW heads this isnt an issue. You can use an off the shelf rocker, no custom parts, just get the pushrod length right and go
Right the rockers and valves are relocated but the lifter is still inline. Side loading of lifter in any direction, is not optimal. If I understand the TFS TW has the same ratio rocker on IN and EX right? So the exhaust pushrod is angled out toward the outside of the block, the intake is toward the inside right?
Ideally you want the push rod right over the lifter for most optimum movement.
I never have had a set of TFS TW so, it may be less of a issue then what I have brought up
I've done a lot of optimizing valve-trains on tractor pulling engines. Using a OEM head with a valve train that was designed to run at a 1, 250rpm max. Then changing everything to roller/better parts that is made to run at 3000rpm and not destroy itself.
Scott
Ah, OK, I see where you're coming from now. I'm just not sure the TW relocates the valves drastically enough for the pushrod to be very far off-axis with the lifter. If it was an issue, it seems like we'd be hearing of it. The TW has been around for a long time, and guys have been putting a lot of miles on them.
As for the 2.08" valve... Good question. I find it odd that all of the TW heads (standard, not "R") use a 2.02. I know Fox Lake offers their own flavor of TW porting, and their biggest big daddy has a 2.055" IV, but doesn't seem to flow a whole lot more than the CNC 205 with the 2.02 valve. Maybe it has something to do with the bowl or the short turn radius, but I suspect marketing has something to do with it, too. The CNC 205 is already stepping into "R" territory, maybe Trick Flow doesn't see a business case for making a bigger "standard" Twisted Wedge head when they've already got the TW-R stuff available.
Similar threads
