TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
5w30 Guzzler
Joined
·
1,462 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i have a chevy friend and he doesnt dislike fords, but he doesnt really like them. the two reasons are "lack of displacement" and "2 bolt mains". i know you could argue circles all day saying how nowadays nothing has enough displacement. but is it true that most fords have only 2 bolt mains? he says he's heard fords have a lot more bottom end failure than chevies and it's bc of that. but i figured if it's true, then it obviously isnt that big of a problem since ford hasnt fixed it. so what's the deal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,223 Posts
someone correct me if im wrong but 2V (281ci) have 4bolt mains and the 4V (also 281) have a 6bolt main. and fwiw, 66 mustang 289, 03 mustang 281 ci, thats only 8 less cubic inches in 38 years.
 

·
High Output Poster
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
5.0 has 2 bolt main
4.6 OHC is 4 bolt main
4.6 DOHC is 6 bolt main

The more bolts on the main, the engine can handle high RPMs better.

Displacement is good for torque, which is good for heavy cars. V8 technology has changed and improved so much over the last few decades that smaller engines now can put out as much power as the larger engines of yesterday. The displacment that your Chevy friend talks about is arguable. The reason some Chevy people talk smack is because Chevy didnt build as a good smaller V8 (compare the Ford 302 to the Chevy 305). A Ford 302 (2 bolt main) will beat a Chevy 305 (2 bolt main) on any day. But you get up to a Ford 351 (great truck motor) against a Chevy 350 (great truck and car motor) and its all different. It all comes down to how its built and peoples opinions. I like Ford and Chevy both about the same, but damn if you ever see me drive a Dodge. The reason I drive a Thunderbird instead of a Monte Carlo is because in my opinion, the V8 power, rear wheel drive and looks of the Thunderbird beats anything Chevy did with the Monte Carlo. Again opinions, opinions...I've rambled on enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
I'd say you covered all points, but I would like to remind everyone of the 4.0L V8 that GM put in the Aurora...it's an amazing engine, but GM refuses to supply the aftermarked with the capeablities to tune the computer...so there is, and probably never will be an aftermarket for it.

-danimal
 

·
Sheepish
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
I don't understand why GM won't allow aftermarket for the Aurora 4.0L DOHC V8. That engine was built for Indy racing so you know its got serious potential. But they're so hung up on their SB 350 and LT1/LS1 and the variants of each, they won't develope anything else. Disgusting, isn't it.
 

·
High Output Poster
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
The Aurora V8 is a baby Northstar V8 variant. From what I understand, the reason that the car hasn't been "hotrodded" is because there isn't a FWD transmission that can withstand 300hp on a daily basis except for Cadillac. Cadillac won't even share the knowledge with the rest of the GM manufacturers. You are very correct about the 4.0, just look at Shelbys latest car. He hardly even looked at the Ford 4.6 (talked some choice words about it too) and went straight to the Olds 4.0 and didnt look back. The car just cruises with 325hp! I think its called the Series 1?
 

·
Sheepish
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
You hit the nail on the head there BlackBird. You guys know the "weenie" little 3.4L DOHC V6? Did you know that when that engine was designed they had it dynoing roughly 275hp in full production trim? But it they had to cut it back to 210 because FWD trannies suck.
 

·
5w30 Guzzler
Joined
·
1,462 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
93BlackBird wrote:

"5.0 has 2 bolt main
4.6 OHC is 4 bolt main
4.6 DOHC is 6 bolt main

The more bolts on the main, the engine can handle high RPMs better."

is the reason the 4.6 sohc redlines at 5300 bc of the torque converter? if not, what is it and with the stock cam, could a lot be gained if the engine were allowed to rev higher?
 

·
Sheepish
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Well, you'll gain a bit by letting the engine rev higher, but not a whole lot with the 94-95 heads. Lets just say they're pathetic. Simple as that. And yes, the main reason our cars redline at 5250 stock is because the stock converter balloons at 5400.
 

·
High Output Poster
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
The stock torque converters aren't that great in our cars. At least they put a better trans in the 94-97. I would a lot rather put in a new TC than trans. Anyway, redlines are set at a certain RPM to protect the engine and trans as a whole. The only way to bypass that is to get a chip/reprogram so that the rev limiter is increased. But, with the increase of rev, the increase of failure to a stock motor/trans. There really isnt any point in wanting to rev any higher anyway since it already revs past peak hp and torque anyway. In my opinion anyways...
 

·
Sheepish
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
True, but think about this point. If you free up the intake and exhaust a little, you'll generally help out with the higher rev power? Possibly even raise the hp peak? Ok, there's a possibility. Here's another. If I rev it a little higher, i won't drop out of the power band after the 1-2 shift.

I'm not trying to sound smart or bossy or claim that I know more than you, I'm stating logic. I'm not positive that I do fall out of the power band after the 1-2 shift, but it sure feels like my car falls no its face past 4Krpms as well as after the stock 1-2 shift. But the J-Mod has sure helped out with the losing power during and after the 1-2. :)
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top