Car Craft
Click here to find out more!


Car Craft
Item Posts    Sort Order


460-BBF-Turbo-In-CC 460-BBF-Turbo-In-CC
Guru | Posts: 1163 | Joined: 10/03
Posted: 10/11/13
10:27 AM

Pre-event Predictions based on the 400 cubic Inch Minimum Engine Size Rule
The Outsider, January 2013:

"There's been no particular incentive to build the mod for EM competition. Most engine builders aren't familiar with 'em. The leading mod specialists haven't seen the need to "plant the flag" at EM (apparently they have all the engine building business they need). The EM rules packages haven't been stable enough to encourage investment in learning to build 'em (especially since the Coyote came out). The intake manifold rules have always been biased against 'em. And the dominance of the medium-sized, non-inline-valve "porcupine" wedges (CHI, SB2) and hemis under the EM scoring format is the final factor that discouraged them (before they were completely outlawed).

While there will always be a few nostalgia mills, the majority of the competitive EM '13 engines are going to be CHIs, Windsor Edelbrock Glidden Victors, and LSxs, with the occasional NASCAR "cheater" head (SB2, P6, FR9) and Gen III Hemi. It's what Hunkins thinks will generate sponsor ads and fill more of those eighty slimfast pages of PHR . . . . "

THE REALITY:  400-cube DOHC 4-Valve Ford-based engines from Accufab, BES Racing Engines and Jon Kaase are battling it out for the overall win at Engine Masters '13.

Regardless of the final outcome, it's safe to say that era of 4-valve DOHC power has now arrived. The long-suffering "true believers" in the potential of Modular power have been vindicated.

However, the DOHC euphoria ought to be tempered by the following:

The "traditionalists" are already campaigning for banning four-valve DOHCs from future competitions (see e.g. Post #67).


460-BBF-TURBO-IN-CC back in 2011 . ..

". . .  BEFORE THE COYOTE/6.2 BOSS, FORD DID A HORRIBLE JOB AT MAXIMIZING THE ADVANTAGES OF THE MODULAR IN THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE REALM.  Ford has been far too stingy with four-valve heads. They've not done enough to get cam prices down.  They've not done enough to help Car Crafters swap to multi-valve heads. They've built too many 2V engines.  They went too cheap with the OEM rods and pistons on nearly everything but the 2003-2004 SVT Cobra engine.

7. Even now, Ford is missing huge opportunities.  They've failed to get enough DOHC 4V heads at the right price into the marketplace. Considering that the 2V 6.2 Boss is a proven 700 h.p. engine when built for drag racing (i.e. the Don Bowles/Jack Roush Boss), a DOHC 4V version of the wide-bore-center 6.2 Boss would absolutely destroy the "Less" V8.  Cube-for-cube, a 2V pushrod engine (even one as "advanced" as the "Less V8") looks like a flathead compared to a proper DOHC.  Ford has also failed to get enough OEM and crate forced induction engines into the hands of blue-collar high-performance enthusiasts.

8. Just as the flathead hung on for a long time (and likely would have even hung on longer had Ford "modernized" it as GM did with the "Less V"" (Ford-style flatheads built by others stayed in OEM production in other parts of the world into the 1980s)), the Less V8 will remain popular among cheapskates and neo-traditionalists.  A bunch of rich old men in the aftermarket have bet heavily on it. Blue-collar sanctioning bodies remain stuck in 1965, proping up OHV and banning OHC.  GM is still dumping crate engines and high performance parts at near-cost prices (Which has been Chevy's strategy since even before the 1963 Racing Ban, and was the principal reason for GM's aftermarket ascendency after 1970).

9. It will likely take at least five years before Ford's moves with the Coyote and 6.2 Boss begin to really pay off in grassroots high-performance marketshare. That's when the supply of take-out engines will begin to be enough to lower costs as it has with the boring "Less V8."    Ford should have acted in the '90s to kill the "Less", but they didn't (just as they failed to stem the Japanese invasion or plan enough for the post-SUV era)

10. Unlike GM, Ford still sees its high-performance parts business as a profit center instead of a marketing expense. That's a fifty-year mistake. But then Ford avoided bankruptcy, taxpayer ownership and public disgrace . . . ."

So, although it's a historic day for the advancement of grassroots street/strip engine technology . . . one that some have dreamed of since seeing Jim Clark's four-cam Lotus-Ford at Indy in 1966, or even before . . . , sadly it may prove to be more of a footnote than the beginnings of a revolution . . . .  
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on" -- Car Craft, July 2005
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad

class_guy class_guy
New User | Posts: 9 | Joined: 06/07
Posted: 10/14/13
01:21 PM

Lots of misinformation here.  It's ludicrous to link "Chevy's strategy" of "dumping crate engines and perfromance parts at near-cost prices" to their going bankrupt.  I know the profit margin on those crate engines and performance parts and it is the reason GM's Performance Parts division is one of the consistent high profitability centers within the corporation.  On the other hand, Ford was smart in the years prior to the economic disaster of 2007-2008 by getting out of debt and getting into a very positive cash position.  Thus, they were able to leverage their own money rather than ours during that period.  However, looking at the results of both corporations, neither is a poster child for being the great manufacturing entity of the 21st century.

Besides, if Ford was so smart, then why haven't they ever figured out how to win the hearts and minds of the blue-collar crowd that you eschew as "stuck in 1965"?  For as long as I can remember, Ford has been able to have some good ideas, but lacked the ability to get it into the hands of the grassroots high-performance marketshare.  A key part to Chevy's success has not been the introduction of super engineered trick parts, but the fact that for years their production stuff was much the same as their performance parts.  I have always been amazed that Ford did not learn from the success of the 428 CJ or the 5.0 Mustangs that people will swarm to combinations of common (cheap) production parts that possess good performance potential.  They seem to not really understand enough to capitalize on it.  For example, how difficult would it have been for them to build good flowing heads for the Windsor engines and put them on the gazillion 302s-351s that were built? It would have made a HUGE difference with an impact to the grassroots racer for as long as they built those engines. Their great performance engines - the 427 High Rise, the Boss 302, the 427 SOHC, etc. - were good, but they were out of reach to the grassrrots group and more often than not, even the psrts were not usable on the common production engines that the grassroots group could afford.

I fear the DOHC engine will go the way of all the other Ford missteps.  There will always be an uproar about trying to compare it to other common engines ("Less") because everybody knows that the multivalves and no valvetrain is an advantage, so they will never be considered as part of the competitive group.  Additionally, as expressed, the cost of camshafts, better heads, and the overall cost of the engine build will always be an inhibiting factor, and that has been a common situation associated with building Fords throughout the grassroots racing venue.  That's the reason why there were 50 Chevrolet Modified Production cars built for every one Ford back in the day, and why there will be 50 "Less" engines built for every one DOHC Mod motor built today.

Lastly, there are reasons why that "bunch of rich old men in the aftermarket have bet heavily on" the Less V8 - it will be available and it will be accepted and it will be affordable.  That spells success in lots of areas.  Those rich old men are not the ones who will make it successful; the grassroots will, and they are betting on it.  And that is exactly what Ford has missed so many times.