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

Max Power · Jun 15, 2004

I was wrong, it is a 90 degree design. It is much narrower than a SBC though....

brianj5600 · Jun 15, 2004

I don't think that they are evenly spaced. Even if they are, the head bolt layout on a sbc causes more bore distortion than a 10 bolt set up.

bifs66 · Jun 15, 2004

1. Why has Chevy abandoned the excess # of head bolts (17) in favor of the Ford-like 10 bolt heads in their redesigned LS engine series?
2. The Ford's "thin wall" casting technique (block and heads) saved lots of excess cast iron (power robbing weight in the FRONT of the car), yet still had a block with strength and rigidity equal to any GM produced SBC. As in the previous response, the SBF was the only modern American V8 strong and powerful enough to survive the grueling 24 hrs of Lemans and win it outright, multiple times.
3. I still consider the SBFs mech fuel pump setup a cleaner design and easier to maintain.
4. All SBFs had "Angle Plug" heads from the start (1962). It was a big deal for SBCs when they came out with the great "Angle Plug" heads!
5. The "external" balancing technique enabled the SBF block to be lighter, more compact, and rigid (the SBC went to external balance (ala Ford) when they went to 400 cubes).
6. As for Chevy's interchangeability and simplicity... Let's see we have the classic SBC, the 348/409, the 396/427/454, the LT5 350 (OHC), the LT1, the LS1/6, and the NASCAR SB-II. The only two that are close to each other are the classic SBC and the LT1 which are about as close as the Windsors and Clevelands. Funny thing, didn't the LT1 had the distributor in the front of the engine?

jesserose17 · Jun 15, 2004

SBC and SBF have their own strengths and weakness - I just like them both. I was disappointed that Ford abandoned OHV V-8 in favor of modular SOHC/DOHC V-8. Chevys still maintain OHV V-8, their LS-1/6 proves that you don't need superchargers to get 400hp.

ratio411 · Jun 15, 2004

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

Man! Folks don't waste time beating up something they don't understand.
Just like a Holley, you have to know what you are doing to work on a Q-Jet. When they run good, they run darn good!
I know from experience though, you can super-tune a Q-Jet to it's limits and it will still never out power a Holley.
However, it will out power anything else, AND have good economy while doing it.
I ran one on a 302, did a dam fine job.
Dave

D.Hearne · Jun 16, 2004

Maybe this is off topic , but has anyone else seen Toyota's new Nascar motor? Strangely enough , it looks just like a Cleveland I wonder why?

dmoody · Jun 16, 2004

ratio411 said:
Man! Folks don't waste time beating up something they don't understand.
Just like a Holley, you have to know what you are doing to work on a Q-Jet. Dave

I presented my opinions that's all. In my experience, I've never seen a Quadrajet run good. I'll agree you do have to know what you are doing to work on a Q-Jet... however since these carbs were installed on many engines from the factory they should have been easier to understand. I've seen many mechanics share the same experiences I've had working with these carbs so I know I'm not going out on a limb with my comments.

d

dmoody · Jun 16, 2004

bifs66 said:
1. Why has Chevy abandoned the excess # of head bolts (17) in favor of the Ford-like 10 bolt heads in their redesigned LS engine series?

Because it is cheaper and you don't have high compression motors these days due to the low octane gas. Imagine if you were a car manufacturer that made hundreds of thousands of cars every year and an engineer told you that they could cut 14 bolts out of each engine and it wouldn't change anything except the money in your pocket.

d

Max Power · Jun 16, 2004

Q-Jets are easy to understand with a little bit of training. They were fine tuned from the factory for a specific application and when peoplke swapped them around in the sixties, they didn't work well because people didn't know how to tune em. I worked at a Pontiac dealership in the early eighties and the computer controlled Q-Jets were just being introduced. They didn't help the reputation any.

There wasn't a mechanic in our shop that couldn't make an old Q-Jet run right.

PoliceInterceptor · Jun 16, 2004

dmoody said:
Because it is cheaper and you don't have high compression motors these days due to the low octane gas. d

Actually compression ratios are on the rise, mainly due to better combustion chamber design. There are production cars out there with 11.0:1 (Audi for instance) and bikes out there pushing 13.0:1, even that off brand stuff is pusing 10.5:1 with its reduced head bolt number (CTS-V - GTO).

dmoody · Jun 16, 2004

PoliceInterceptor said:
Actually compression ratios are on the rise, mainly due to better combustion chamber design. There are production cars out there with 11.0:1 (Audi for instance) and bikes out there pushing 13.0:1, even that off brand stuff is pusing 10.5:1 with its reduced head bolt number (CTS-V - GTO).

You are right, however most of those engines run on premium and/or have knock detection sensors that can automatically retard the timing. Combustion chamber design has come a long way and has played a heavy hand in notoriously strong engines like the Hemi being reintroduced. However the engines you mention that run insane amounts of compression (13.0:1) are rare... I'm talking on a broad spectrum. The engines in the 60's and early 70's on *average* had much higher compression ratios than today's engines.

d

dmoody · Jun 16, 2004

Max Power said:
Q-Jets are easy to understand with a little bit of training.

Ok, I'll submit that with a little bit of training anything can be fixed. But we're a bunch of guys that tinker and doink around with our cars for fun. How many of us honestly ever read the instruction manuals much less get training to work on anything? It sounds too much like work when I have to do that.

d

ratio411 · Jun 16, 2004

It was nothing personal...
I am just venting mainly due to folks getting on this and other boards bashing Holley carbs up and down. Telling folks that are asking for advice that Holleys are crap and they 'slapped' one on a car once, or a friend of a cousin had one and nobody on this earth could get it to run... or they tell folks that you have to tune a Holley every morning to get it to run.
Your comment just pulled up all that frustration and my comment was made more as general sarcasim and a wierd attempt at humor than anything towards you.
Apologys for the misunderstanding.
Dave

dmoody · Jun 16, 2004

ratio411 said:
It was nothing personal...
I am just venting mainly due to folks getting on this and other boards bashing Holley carbs up and down. Telling folks that are asking for advice that Holleys are crap and they 'slapped' one on a car once, or a friend of a cousin had one and nobody on this earth could get it to run... or they tell folks that you have to tune a Holley every morning to get it to run.
Your comment just pulled up all that frustration and my comment was made more as general sarcasim and a wierd attempt at humor than anything towards you.
Apologys for the misunderstanding.
Dave

No problem, I know what you are talking about... blind loyalty to a particular carb manufacturer simply because of serendipity. It is rare that you can slap any kind of carb on an engine and expect it to be optimized out of the box.

d

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

Max Power

Active Member

brianj5600

Active Member

bifs66

jesserose17

New Member

ratio411

D.Hearne

New Member

dmoody

dmoody

Max Power

Active Member

PoliceInterceptor

Keeper Of Automotive Oddities

dmoody

dmoody

ratio411

dmoody

Similar threads

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

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Keeper Of Automotive Oddities

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency