GM pushrod engine at Indy?  No.  No one has successfully run a pushrod engine since Penske dominated with his "Mercedes" badged Illmor almost a decade ago. Penske won because he exploited a rules advantage (more boost and more cubes allowed for pushrod engines) to encourage "stock blocks" such as the Buick V-6.  Nobody expected a purpose-built pushrod racing engine.  Once the rules advantage was repealed, Penske retired his now-uncompetitive pushrod engines.

Since the IRL formed in 1996, all engines have been DOHC V-8s with four valves per cylinder.

The 4.6 is not a piece of excrement as some suggest.  Sure, if and when Ford steps up to variable cam timing such as the DOHC Vortec 6 4200 (kind of proves my point about cammers, don' t you think?), power output will exceed 70 h.p per litre.

Ford's tuning of the DOHC 4.6 is very conservative (as nearly any Mustang racer can tell you--Ford left a lot on the table)

Here are comparative rated horsepower per litre figures.

*supercharged

Remember, the new three-valve 5.4 is a truck engine tuned for low rpm torque, not horsepower.

Sure, the '99 Cobra tested by CC was down on power. But they were recalled. And GM may have sandbagged a little on rating the LS-1 Camaro. But my premise was when cubic inches are equal, cammers win is not refuted by anything GM is doing at the moment.

Your right it was the mercedes badged Illmor that I was thinking of. So they got a little extra out of the rules to make the motors work, but as you said they "dominated" with a pushrod motor. This is kind of the same as Nascar letting ford run a 4 door or less rear spoiler to have a higher top speed. GM is always getting the short end of the stick. Nascar lets ford and mopar get away with everything so that they can keep up with chevy. But they have to do this cause the sport wouldn't be fun if the first 10 cars across the finish line were chevy's. I say lets unrestrict the motors, make everone run the same spoilers and ground clearance and not let them change any of the body, and the winner would be chevy every time.

And as I said I don't believe any of fords HP ratings. Every time I see a dyno shootout the ford is putting out less HP than they are rated at. Also I have raced many 5.0 and 4.6 liter Cobra SVT mustangs with my stock '96 Z28 and smoked them all.

I know from real life experience that the newer mustangs don't have the power, how can a mustang with 320 HP lose to a car that is rated at 285 HP, and so badly at that.

Ford lies about it's power numbers cause who would buy a mustang that is rated at 260HP.

And I don't think the recall in '99 was cause of the power output. They had a problem with the independant rear suspension. And even if they did recall it for the power what did they do, put bigger cams in it. All in all they sold a car that was supose to put out 320 HP and it only put out 260 HP and to me that is fraud.

And one last thing look at Formula 1 they don't even use cams, the valves are openned using electronic solenoids. Think of the variable valve timing with that.  

Well, that wasn't my argument. 

Mines was Ford don't know how to build engines, regardless displacement or technology.

Chevy was doing so bad in Indy that they, as of recently, started using Cosworth FORD engines in their Indy cars, I #### you not.  They put a Chevy lgo on the valve cover of a FORD ENGINE and now they do good in Indy.

The typical Chevy smallblock that has been around for 50 years may still be in produuction, but you can only get it in an ASTRO VAN.  Despite what a lot of people think, the LS1 series engine is in no way related to the old 350.

I've got nothing at all against Chevy, there's even a few on my list of cars I wish I could afford, but saying that GM is the only company that can make a good engine is just plain ignorant.  Ford engines (And Mopars) have consistantly kept up with Chevy everywhere you look.  You think a Ford can't be built for "all out drag racing"? theny ou must not be looking very heard.  Ever hear of Pro 5.0?  Or about 4.6s not being a good engine, there's more than just a few guys in the higher NMRA classes that use blown 4.6 or 5.4 DOHC modulars pushing 1200+ horsepower on the COMPLETELY STOCK SHORTBLOCK AND HEADS, with no more than a cam and a #### of boost.  And Mustang GTs ARE rated at 260 horsepower, well 265, and they obviously have no trouble at all selling.  That's why they're still in production, whereas the Camaro isn't.  And you're right, Cobras don't make their rated power.  They make more. I've seen 2001 Cobras making well over 300 horsepower at the wheels.  And the 2003 Cobra has been known to make in excess of 390 AT THE WHEELS, that's damn near 75 horsepower more than it's rated at.  Plus, the N/A 300 horsepower Mach 1 can run 12 second 1/4s all day for a lot less money than any new LS1 was.

Or what about the 351 Clevland.  Back in 1970 you could revv a 4V Clevland up to 7000 RPM if you had the balls.  A cam and headers made them the subject of every Chevy boys nightmare and no smallblock Chevy ever came close as far as factory performance ability.  Or look at Mopar smallblocks, they all came stock with shaft mount rocker arms and 18 degree valve angles, yo boys pay thousands for that stuff in your Chevys.  Not to mention that pre-smog 340/360s were built with far stronger blocks and rotating assemblies than any SBC.  Don't even get me started on how bad a Hemi will #### up most Chevys.

You watch NASCAR TubbedCamaro?  FOrd has nearly TRIPLE the amount of career wins as Chevy in Winston Cup racing, and you can bet they have FORD motors under the hood.

Or howabout Top Fuel Drag Racing?  I Those are about the fastest engine powered vehicles on this planet, and just about every one of them uses an aftermarket variant of the good ole CHRYSLER HEMI ENGINE, no Big Block Chevys there.

You think that GM V8s get good emmisions eh?  How come the EPA is all over Chevy because their SUVs are by FAR the least efficient gasoline vehicles on the road, and if the don't design a more efficient engine by the time the new fuel milage laws take effect in 2005 we won't be seeing any more GM SUVs on the road (although i wouldn't complan if ALL SUVs were rid of).

You need to face the facts and accept that Chevy is not the undesputed master or the universe, there ARE engines out there besides the tree fiddy and all the ignorant coments in the world aren't gonna change that.

PS: TC, do you have a bowtie shaved in the back of your Mullet?

The LS1/LS6 engines are FAR from being "ancient pushrod engines".  Sure they use a center cam, OHV layout, but that's where it ends.  That whole engine is designed from the ground up with everything GM has learned in the past 75 years.  The cylinder heads and intake manifold are designed from modern advances in their knowlege on how power is made and benefit from modern machining as well.  That engine is no dinosaur, it's a purpose built modern race engine that's been nuetered and thrown into a 4000 pound ass ugly F-body.  

YEah, but Rather than PORT THE HEADS, I just had it BLUE PRINTED AND BALANCED!!! What Size of Motor do you have? I just want to know not to HATE you or anything, man.  

what size: 406 small block, 427 Big Block are my two now

and you dont even know the definition of balanced and blueprinted, and i know you dont know this but porting heads is going to pick up more horse than balancing and blueprinting a engine, of course there is some situations where your going to need a balance, but in low performance situations like our street big blocks weve not even balanced them and theyve lived for years

i very much so agree, the pushrod engine is feisable, you dont think they can have the potential to make enough horse without spending four times as much money on valve-train if its DOHC, you want indy cars go with DOHC, you want pro streeters go with pushrods

I wasn't saying Chevy was doing good in Indy, I was saying that the Mercedes/Illmor motor was a pushrod motor that spanked the over head cam motors.

The LS1 is just the evolution of the small block, and again it is still a pushrod motor.



And 4.6's and 5.4's that make 1200+ HP using the stock long block and heads, man you need to quit hitting the crack pipe. I  don't think the stock heads could even flow that much HP. And I'd like to see how long those stock low ends last. And I take it they make this power all on race gas too.

And SuperPeeBrain426 if you look back in some of your old Car Crafts you will find a dyno shootout where a stock SVT Cobra mustang that was rated at 320 HP only put out like 260 HP. The chassis dyno doesn't lie, but ford does.

And the 351 clevland is really a little big block, and the 351 windsor would be a better choice, since you can do more with the motor. Also the clevland has to big of intake ports so you end up losing low end power. In this case the 2 barrel heads are better than the 4 barrel heads. And parts are not as readily avalible for the clevland and they cost more money. Also the clevland had poor oiling and that is why they  made the modified motors.

And yes slowpar did have sh*tty nonadjustable shaft rockers. Which were fine until you needed to adjust your valves.

And you can't tell me that a hemi hasn't been beaten by a chevy. It happens every weakend in America. Chevy's beat fords and slowpars and they beat Chevy's. Like I say you can't win them all.

And the only reason ford wins in nascar is cause of all the breaks in the rules they get. Running a 4 door in nascar, come on, if it wasn't for that ford wouldn't even have a car to put in nascar.

And the only thing a top fuel motor has in common with a hemi is the combustion chamber. And that is it.

And no I have a picture of your mom shaved in it.  

Don't you dare mention respect. They way you post reminds me of a ricer. The doc knows what he's talkin about.  As for the gran-master TC don't mess with him he forgot more in the last year than you'll ever know. Quit puttin down the 15yr old, if he does have a PS2 at least he's not tryin to stick in a honda be happy he's on our side. I've never built a motor myself so i'm not going to act like I know what the hell i'm talking about there but I do know more about respect than you could ever. and this bulletin is the most pathetic display I've ever seen. what really matters here is we all like v-8's not 4-clangers. After that the big three preference war goes on just try to be more respectful, your older than me but there are people in this hobby older than you and I don't think they appreciate the way you are represting this pastime.

Chevy Ford or Mopar Doesn't everyone agree?

"the only reason ford wins in nascar is cause of all the breaks in the rules they get"

The crack pipe must be in the "stock 96 Camaro."  Let's compare the "breaks" GM gets to the ones Ford gets:

Body:  Ford--Slightly updated variation of the 1998 Taurus (oldest in Cup). No new body allowed until 2004.

           Chevy--so-called "common template" rule allowed GM to adopt the Taurus body and to update and improve it with wind tunnel developed, "brand specific" tweaks from the 2004 Monte Carlo-- over a year before its sale to the public.  Before that, NASCAR allowed GM to widen the rear end of the old Monte Carlo (a/k/a MONTE CHEAT-O) FOUR inches so that they could run a bigger spoiler for more downforce.

Engine:  Ford--Runs the Yates aluminum variation of the old Cleveland head.  Easily bolts on to any Cleveland or Windsor-style block.  It's been around for over 10 years.

              Chevy-- Allowed GM to copy and "improve" the Yates head and adapt splayed valve design to SBC. Called the SB2 head.  Never factory installed on ANY street car.  Not remotely similar to any "stock" SBC or LS head.  To bolt on one, you must use head studs, tighten some of the nuts from inside the ports and then install hole plugs (not easy)

Transmission:  Both Ford and Chevy run race preped versions of the Ford Top Loader or the T-10 (both installed in Fords from the factory)

Rear Axle: GM axles are too wimpy, so Chevy allowed to run Ford 9" rear.

NASCAR's "brand parity" (a/k/a Chevrolet's unfair aero and engine breaks) this year have allowed the Bowtie bunch to win half of the races and lead over 3/4ths of the laps so far in 2003.   Factor in Dodge's seven wins (based on NASCAR's gifts to Mother MoPar of . . . an improved Taurus body and a non-stock, splayed valve, Cleveland-style head)  and it's been slim pickins for the old 1998 Tauri this year.   Somehow the "four door" thing doesn't seem all that important.

My theory is that NASCAR's blind-eyed Tech Director John Darby and Mr. Helton are getting in on some phat stacks from GM (just like Camaro Craft).   Do they write the checks directly or do they launder it first?

Man I agree but the motor I got was SEIZED up and NEEDE to be Balanced and BLUE printed, I think I will PORT and POLISH the HEADS, man thanks you, I need a little more HP!!  

"Mines was Ford don't know how to build engines, regardless displacement or technology."

Gee, I wonder how my '98 Cobra, my F-250, my F-100, my Falcon, or my Thunderbird turbo coupes get me anywhere?

Cool!! I have a question? I have a 1988 T bird with a 302, can I put a 302 HO in it? Do I need special Motor MOUNTS!!  

Bolt it up!   Do it tonight! 

Depending on the original 'plant, some '87-88 T-birds have fluid-filled motor mounts (it's a luxury car!).  Some folks get rid of these for solids.  However, to use aftermarket Mustang urethane mounts, you need a Mustang K-member.  Not worth the trouble IMHO.