Don't forget attention to the quench..... Glad you liked it. FWIW, I used to spin a hydraulic liftered 357W to 8k... I don't exactly fit into the profile of these "preconcieved SBF guy notions" you keep mentioning...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.That is the first I have heard of this... Can you elaborate on that?
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.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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?