SBC vs SBF Windsor design comparison, pros? cons? of each

Great68 · Jun 14, 2004

A comment about Ford messing things up in the engine department sparked my interest. Did one company have a better design? or are they just different? What are the Pro's and Con's of both?

IE:
Pro for Chevy:
Some SBC's were available in 4 bolt mains
Pro for Ford:
SBF's had the distributor up front

Please add to the list and discuss.

foghorn67 · Jun 14, 2004

Great68 said:
A comment about Ford messing things up in the engine department sparked my interest. Did one company have a better design? or are they just different? What are the Pro's and Con's of both?

IE:
Pro for Chevy:
Some SBC's were available in 4 bolt mains
Pro for Ford:
SBF's had the distributor up front

Please add to the list and discuss.

that 4 bolt main should be a con for chevy. It's not as big an issue with the Ford's. 4 bolt mains are reserved for the boss mustangs, and the 'siamese blocks'. Ford's con is probably the twisting force on the rods. even that isn't a big issue, especially on the smaller ones like 289-302.

SadbutTrue · Jun 14, 2004

its been said that the LS1/2/6 family, the latest Chevy small block series, has much more in common with SBFs than SBCs. And i love being able to see the distributor, heh. However I have heard that the firing order on SBFs, as well as exhaust port design, leaves much to be desired.

ratio411 · Jun 14, 2004

Chevy (Excluding very early or late models)
Pros:
One basic block. No need for a large variety of intakes. One basic head design. No need for C, W, M, and all the crap needed to swap from engine to engine. I guess it all boils down to ONE engine family. Even their BBC swaps tranny, mount, and accessories from an SBC as easy as 289 to 302. Try using 302 mounts on a 428 or 460. Try putting a 460 bellhousing on a 221... You can do these things with Chevy.
Even the internals are a super easy swap over the largest and smallest of the family. A 265 can take a 400 crank without a whole lot of doing. Try to shove a 390 crank into a 289.
I guess all this can be summarized as: Much better interchangeability.
HEI is great IMO. One wire, no external coil or control box...
Try swapping from points to Duraspark with only a distributor and one hot wire.
Timing cover has no water going through it. The water pump is extremely simple.
Cons:
I can't stand a rear distributor.
Steel timing cover.
Oil filter location and large mounting pad.
Siamese exhaust ports. They concentrate heat.
Weak blocks.
Siamese intake ports. They don't have a straight shot at the valves. This is why GM went to Ford style heads for NASCAR first, then eventually the LS family. The BBC was a dead end for ideas because it suffers from unequal port lengths and horrible fuel distribution out of the box.
I guess the pros/cons for the Fords would be the above list in opposite form.
Dave

bifs66 · Jun 14, 2004

Quick observations:
SBF (289/302) Significantly lighter and physically smaller than the SBC.
SBF Thrust plated cam position. SBC cam floats, only held in place by the timing chain (hence the famous timing cover "button").
SBF fuel pump mounted on front cover. SBC fuel pump activated by funky rod in the block.
SBF easy access, front distributor. SBC hard access, rear distributor. Technically better to drive distributor/oil pump from same position where cam itself is driven (the front).
SBF symetrical intake/exhaust ports. SBC early fifties-type siamesed intake and exhaust ports.
Interchangeability:
Some say SBC has better "interchangeability", but SBFs offer more variety. Aluminum or cast iron bellhousings (small and large 289/351W/351C/5.0s), in-line or canted valve heads (289/351W/351C/5.0s can interchange), Cranks from a 400s can fit a 351Ws, cranks from a 351Cs can be made to fit 289/302s, front covers interchange between 289/351W/5.0s). How many parts interchange between SBC 350s and 348s/409s?
Other issues:
The SBF is the ONLY modern production V-8 to ever win the 24 hrs of Lemans outright. The Ford Indy engine is the ONLY modern production-based V-8 engine to win the Indy 500.
The current SBF based NASCAR engine is the only V8 in NASCAR that still has its roots directly traceable to a production engine. Chevy and Chrysler both abandoned their small block engine designs with new, pure racing designs. So, in that sense, the SBF has proven to be the longest lasting design.
The completely new Chevy LS1/6 engine appears to be more a deritive of a Ford engine than the traditional SBC....Symetrical ports, 10 bolt head/block/Y-block design/cross bolted mains.

ratio411 · Jun 14, 2004

Actually I like the fuel pump pushrod. It beats the long arm and multipiece afterthought of a cam that the SBF uses. For under 20 bux you can get a hardened thin wall pushrod. Strong and light as a feather.

usedtobe 67p51d · Jun 14, 2004

sbf has less polar enertia {it only matters for road racers with cubic inch restrictions}

PoliceInterceptor · Jun 15, 2004

Pro for Ford: It is not a Chevy.

dmoody · Jun 15, 2004

Here are a few that nobody has mentioned yet:

Pros for Chevy:

1) Rear sump oil pans so that when you step on the gas, you don't get oil starvation.

2) Chevys use more head bolts so that you are less likely to blow a head gasket when building a high compression motor. I think most Chevys use five bolts per cylinder whereas all Fords (and Pontiacs) use four.

Pros for Ford:

1) Putting the ignition relay where you can find it instead of on the starter.

2) Using the actual battery posts instead of those things that screw into the side of the battery.

3) None of that quadrajet carberater crap.

d

PoliceInterceptor · Jun 15, 2004

dmoody said:
3) None of that quadrajet carberater crap.

d

I actually like Q-Jets. Ford used them on some 429's in the ~71-73 year ranges..

Max Power · Jun 15, 2004

SBF is a 60 degree design that is narrower than a SBC.

jesserose17 · Jun 15, 2004

SBF has thinner cylinder walls compared to SBC. I have seen a cylinder wall cracked & pushed out in SBF - something I haven't seen in SBC.

3spd on floor · Jun 15, 2004

Max Power said:
SBF is a 60 degree design that is narrower than a SBC.

are you sure about that? i thought the 60* V configuration was a relatively recent thing, and its been mainly turning up in boat motors and other places where size is important. my 289 certainly looks like a 90* V.

slackr · Jun 15, 2004

Max Power said:
SBF is a 60 degree design that is narrower than a SBC.

the sbf's and bbf's are 90 degree engines.... including the new modulars
as well as the chevy's and chryslers

the 60 degree engines were primarily v6's used on in production vehicles (firing order/balancing/size, etc)

1badII · Jun 15, 2004

slackr said:
the sbf's and bbf's are 90 degree engines.... including the new modulars

I thought the mod motors were a wider design, like 120 degrees.

foghorn67 · Jun 15, 2004

jesserose17 said:
SBF has thinner cylinder walls compared to SBC. I have seen a cylinder wall cracked & pushed out in SBF - something I haven't seen in SBC.

that's subjectable...or objectionable.

I've seen plenty of ugly chevy engine wrecks. kind of a dead heat between the two.

one2gamble · Jun 15, 2004

dmoody said:
2) Chevys use more head bolts so that you are less likely to blow a head gasket when building a high compression motor. I think most Chevys use five bolts per cylinder whereas all Fords (and Pontiacs) use four.

this could also be considered a bad thing as it would put uneven stress on the bolts due to the staggered pattern of using five bolts.

63_Fairlane · Jun 15, 2004

The mods are 90°. The heads are just too damn big.

As for Ford versus Chevy. The variety at Ford is more interesting. If things had gone slightly differently... no oil crisis, Ford was poised to really blow everyone away in the early seventies with the 385's and Clevelands. Instead, they had to make the best of the situation, which was to continue producing the more economical Windsor and turn the 385 into a truck engine. Of course, we love the Windsor engines because Ford and the after-market finally started producing really good heads and intakes in the early 90's plus the addition of fuel injection.

The Clevelands still have a lot to offer. They have stong bottom ends with big bearings and four bolt mains and some huge heads, but the modern Windsor parts are just as good.

So which is better? That depends. I would say that the Ford did a pretty good job on on the Cleveland and Windsor designs. GM is currently using a design that incorporates many of the best elements of both along with some touches from the aftermarket. Or you could say that Ford had to move on to a completely new design, the Modular to keep up. Or maybe Ford has moved ahead. It is all in how you look at things.

Sorry about the length.

slackr · Jun 15, 2004

1badII said:
I thought the mod motors were a wider design, like 120 degrees.

their taller deck height and massive heads give it a really wide appearance, but they are 90 degree engines

dmoody · Jun 15, 2004

one2gamble said:
this could also be considered a bad thing as it would put uneven stress on the bolts due to the staggered pattern of using five bolts.

That doesn't make any sense to me... digress a little please... uneven stress? If I remember correctly, the five bolts are spaced evenly around the cylinder... so how would you get uneven stress?

d

SBC vs SBF Windsor design comparison, pros? cons? of each

Great68

foghorn67

I'll save you the time and choke myself

SadbutTrue

ratio411

bifs66

ratio411

usedtobe 67p51d

New Member

PoliceInterceptor

Keeper Of Automotive Oddities

dmoody

PoliceInterceptor

Keeper Of Automotive Oddities

Max Power

Active Member

jesserose17

New Member

3spd on floor

slackr

New Member

1badII

Member

foghorn67

I'll save you the time and choke myself

one2gamble

63_Fairlane

slackr

New Member

dmoody

Similar threads

SBC vs SBF Windsor design comparison, pros? cons? of each

I'll save you the time and choke myself

New Member

Keeper Of Automotive Oddities

Keeper Of Automotive Oddities

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Member

I'll save you the time and choke myself

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency