LS1 Heads on a Ford

1320stang · Dec 8, 2007

Why shouldn't GM make SBF's, Ford isn't.

3-0-II · Dec 8, 2007

AWESOME!!!!!!

I find it absolutely hilarious that this guy is making it all work. That right there is real hot rodding

Fast63 · Dec 9, 2007

1320stang said:
Why shouldn't GM make SBF's, Ford isn't.

Hahahahah, so true.

I think putting the LS1 heads on is a fun idea. Personally, I think the LS1 is a nice engine, putting the heads on a ford could prove interesting.

Hack · Dec 9, 2007

mrmustangman357 said:
because its always mustang vs camaro.

I would personaly run the LS motor instead of tghe ford. Lets face it, the LSx is better in almost every respect than the regular small block ford windsor or cleveland. Its just better made, makes more power, and in the end is cheaper. I would like to see

The LSx engines are not cheaper than a Ford engine. You can get two or three built crate small block Fords that make easily 500 HP each for the price of one LS1 crate engine. Face it, the LSx are GM's max effort for a push rod V8. That's why they cost big bucks and don't last very long. Ford never built a max effort V8 for a production car. They built mild engines that last a long time.

Aluminum blocks, heads and titanium valvetrain components help make more power, but they aren't cheap.

ratio411 · Dec 9, 2007

Hack said:
That's why they cost big bucks and don't last very long. Ford never built a max effort V8 for a production car. They built mild engines that last a long time.

I have never heard the LSx accused of being a fragile engine.

I have owned them and been involved with groups and forums dealing with them for many years. They are tough engines.

The Ford Mod engines are far more defect prone in my experience. Especially the earlier years.

I might raise some hackles here, but IMO the LSx is the best production pushrod V8 ever built.

bnickel · Dec 10, 2007

i think the ls motor would be a much better motor if it had been made by ford. and actually ford has built some max effort v8's just not many in the US, at least lately, but they were made in the land of Oz.

D.Hearne · Dec 10, 2007

No max effort production V8's ? Then what were the 427's, Boss 302's, 428SCJ's and the 429's, both CJ, SCJ and the Boss 9? And the newest, the DOHC 5.4 used in the GT40?

bnickel · Dec 10, 2007

D.Hearne said:
No max effort production V8's ? Then what were the 427's, Boss 302's, 428SCJ's and the 429's, both CJ, SCJ and the Boss 9? And the newest, the DOHC 5.4 used in the GT40?

now talk about a truck motor stuffed in a car...that would be the 5.4 in the Gt40. ok, so it's a totaly redesigned truck engine. also, i keep seeing different diplacement numbers for the GT, i've seen 5.4 and 5.7.

Hack · Dec 11, 2007

D.Hearne said:
No max effort production V8's ? Then what were the 427's, Boss 302's, 428SCJ's and the 429's, both CJ, SCJ and the Boss 9? And the newest, the DOHC 5.4 used in the GT40?

Well, those are all great motors. However, the LSx is aluminum block and aluminum heads, which is a big deal for performance in reducing weight. Also, don't they have 11:1 compression and titanium valvetrains? IMO these engines are tweaked close to their limits from the factory, especially for crappy modern gas.

The DOHC 5.4 from the GT40 is a very good motor, but I would still say it's set up very safe. You could get at least 30-50% more HP out of that motor with small changes and still run it on the street. Am I wrong? IMO Ford made great motors and then typically detuned them for the street and only sold a few of them.

The Boss 302 and some high riser 427s were pretty hairy and they're probably engines that Ford made closest to a production V8 that was max effort - but they still didn't go as far as using exotic materials. Also 11:1 compression now a days would compare to 13+:1 compression back when there was good pump gas.

I hope this makes sense; I'm not knocking on Ford. I think a motor in a production car should last 200k miles or more; even if it's a sporty car like the Mustang. I think Ford has made great stuff and they play it safe and make it last.

Jester67 · Dec 11, 2007

ratio411 said:
I might raise some hackles here, but IMO the LSx is the best production pushrod V8 ever built.

Agreed if this was in the new Mustang it would be the $hit.

bnickel · Dec 11, 2007

actually the LS motors are not on the ragged edge of performance from the factory either. even GM sells the "hot" cam kit for them, there are a ton of intakes, computer flash controllers, etc available for the LS motors and just about anything else you can think of too.

Hack · Dec 11, 2007

Maybe this is obvious and silly to say, but my point was this.. I don't know as much about other Ford motors, but as a for instance if Ford put Yates style heads and a big cam in the Cleveland in 1970 they could have made 500-600+ hp with it easily. They chose not to do that. The Nascar Clevelands make 800 hp with 351 cubes.

You can buy a crate Cleveland for $5-6k or so that makes 500-600 hp.

Or you can get an LS1 crate from Summit for $14k that displaces about the same as the Cleveland and makes 450 hp.

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=ZOP-9203M&autoview=sku

Yeah, the LS1 might be a little lighter, but the Cleveland will stomp all over it in every way - including cost. You could choose a different SBF as well, but I think my post makes my point. I'm not saying you can't beat an LSx with a SBF, just saying that Ford didn't really make their engine builds as powerful as they could have originally.

bnickel · Dec 11, 2007

i completely understood your point and was just making the point that the GM didn't build the LS to be as powerful as it could be either.

BTW, the Yates heads weren't available until the late 80's/early 90's so that wouldn't have worked back in 70 anyway. i assume you didn't know that, but maybe you did and were just making a point

D.Hearne · Dec 11, 2007

I agree with bnickel, I don't know much about the LS1, but no sane manufacturer would put max'd out engines in production cars. If they did, there would be no warantee with it, and that wouldn't fly today with the lawyers. I doubt the LS1 is any hotter in comparison to the 60's motors, yea it's all aluminum, but that was done too back in the 60's on a select few production motors. The best thing going for the LS1 is it's simplicity, something you cannot say for the Mod motors. I just think you're off base saying that Ford never put max effort motors in production cars. It's your opinion though.

StangDreamin' · Dec 11, 2007

bnickel said:
now talk about a truck motor stuffed in a car...that would be the 5.4 in the Gt40. ok, so it's a totaly redesigned truck engine.

I dunno, Bryan; I drive two different 5.4's daily - a 2V in my '02 4x4, and a 3V in "my" '08 F250 company truck. Both of them don't really "wake up" until around 2200-2400 RPM. That's not my idea of a "truck engine".

also, i keep seeing different diplacement numbers for the GT, i've seen 5.4 and 5.7.

Hooo-leeee cr@p! It's got a Hemi????

D.Hearne · Dec 12, 2007

StangDreamin' said:
I dunno, Bryan; I drive two different 5.4's daily - a 2V in my '02 4x4, and a 3V in "my" '08 F250 company truck. Both of them don't really "wake up" until around 2200-2400 RPM. That's not my idea of a "truck engine".

Hooo-leeee cr@p! It's got a Hemi????

The 3V 4.6 in my 06 Stang does the same thing. It's a function of the cams being dialed in by the computer, and the secondaries kicking in. Slow up to about 2500, then hold your ass, cause this thing's about to take off........................

Hack · Dec 12, 2007

bnickel said:
i completely understood your point and was just making the point that the GM didn't build the LS to be as powerful as it could be either.

BTW, the Yates heads weren't available until the late 80's/early 90's so that wouldn't have worked back in 70 anyway. i assume you didn't know that, but maybe you did and were just making a point

Trying to make the point that could also have been made many other ways. A Cleveland could make big power with factory 4V CC heads if the supporting parts were there.

Yeah I agree with you and D.Hearne - perhaps maxed out is the wrong way to say it. The only real maxed out motors are rebuilt at the end of each quarter mile they run. There's a continuum of mild to wild and the LSx are farther toward the wild.

You may still not agree, but that's my thought. My whole point is that you can make the same HP/cube with a small block Ford, and people do it all the time when they customize their engines. However, Ford didn't do it for us.

StangDreamin' · Dec 12, 2007

D.Hearne said:
The 3V 4.6 in my 06 Stang does the same thing. It's a function of the cams being dialed in by the computer, and the secondaries kicking in. Slow up to about 2500, then hold your ass, cause this thing's about to take off........................

I don't think the ECU "dials in" the cams on my '02.... the model year is too old for that. Understand; the '02 5.4 was still pretty young; Ford hadn't ("officially")even figured out yet the problems with the heads and spark plugs yet. That fix didn't come in until mid-year '03 for the "common" 5.4's; although the first PI heads for the Lightnings had addressed the issue.

The '08 company truck - probably, even if it's a bare-bones work truck. I haven't yet researched the truck - still in awe of how Fugly they made the exterior of the vehicle in '07.

bnickel · Dec 12, 2007

Hack said:
Trying to make the point that could also have been made many other ways. A Cleveland could make big power with factory 4V CC heads if the supporting parts were there.

Yeah I agree with you and D.Hearne - perhaps maxed out is the wrong way to say it. The only real maxed out motors are rebuilt at the end of each quarter mile they run. There's a continuum of mild to wild and the LSx are farther toward the wild.

You may still not agree, but that's my thought. My whole point is that you can make the same HP/cube with a small block Ford, and people do it all the time when they customize their engines. However, Ford didn't do it for us.

oh i agree, but my point was that even though the LS motor may be a little more one the "wild" side, if you like, it's still far from it's potential in stock form.

bnickel · Dec 12, 2007

StangDreamin' said:
I dunno, Bryan; I drive two different 5.4's daily - a 2V in my '02 4x4, and a 3V in "my" '08 F250 company truck. Both of them don't really "wake up" until around 2200-2400 RPM. That's not my idea of a "truck engine".

Hooo-leeee cr@p! It's got a Hemi????

basically it's just like a 4v cleveland then.....

actually i don't really consider the mod motors to be either good passenger car, muscle car or truck engines, they're too high winding, even the weenie 4.6 SOHC in the crown vics. it's really better suited to something like the GT that's more in the supercar category, especially with the huffer, same for the SC cobras and the GT500s as well thos are cars that are meant to wind higher anyway.

my point, though, was that since the 5.4 mod motor was really designed for the trucks since the SOHC 4.6 couldn't pull a small boat down the damn highway. ford needed something bigger to keep selling trucks so they built the 5.4.

the windsor was never designed to go in a truck it was built to cover the bases between the 302 and 390 in passenger cars, ford didn't even put it in a truck until the late 70's instead they used the 302, 360 or 390 until the 351m/400 and 460's came along, then after they killed the 351m/400 they decided to use the 351w because they didn't even have the 360 anymore, so again it was used to fill the gap between the 302 and 460

LS1 Heads on a Ford

1320stang

3-0-II

Member

Fast63

New Member

Hack

ratio411

bnickel

D.Hearne

New Member

bnickel

Hack

Jester67

Member

bnickel

Hack

bnickel

D.Hearne

New Member

StangDreamin'

D.Hearne

New Member

Hack

StangDreamin'

bnickel

bnickel

Similar threads

LS1 Heads on a Ford

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency