Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    raliegh nc
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haystack View Post
    Unless, you factor in that the same guy that worked at ford and built the 302, later moved onto gm and was head of a new engine project, which later became the ls motors...

    Ever wonder why its the first chevy motor to use a ford spaced exhaust pattern? Or why the Chevy v-8 bell housing shares all but one bolt with a ford?

    Personally, if you are starting from scratch, up to about 400hp cost wise isn't that much different. In already have a 302 (or three) so I'm not gonna bother with converting everything over to use a ls motor. If I ever get around to it, 400 hp will be plenty for a street car.

    Not claiming to be a expert on ford anything not the guy who designed the sbf 289 302 was an engineer in the late 50s early 60s i dont the he had a 50 somthing years working at ford and than gm the ls was released to the public as a 97 model year ...I dont think you rite on the bellhousing thing either you can still bolt any gm rwd trans to a ls with no adapter and I know for a fact you can't just straight bolt a c4 c6 aod ford t5 to it . and you can't put a 302 header on a ls anything ...kinda weird stuff you coming up with man. It would have been way easier for you to say hay dumb ass build the 302 you already got .just sayin no disrespect

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    East Coast Virginia
    Posts
    10,228
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    AFAIK most everything presented here about Ford & Chevy having same this, that and designed by a set of siamese twins is bullshit... The 396 became a regular production engine in '65, was first Chevy with equally spaced exhaust ports... Sooo in interest of cooling & flow, Chevy had known for years it was better to to have exhaust ports separated from one another...

    Ford's 302 ancestry traces back to the 221 that was designed in '60/'61 for the new '62 Fairlane... Till that point Ford had no V8 engine that would fit in the chassis & why Falcon didn't have a V8 engine option(avail approx mid '62) till Fairlane debuted... Other than both being V8, about the only shared traits between the F & C small blocks are that Ford did use the stud rockers pioneered by Chevy... AND Pontiac, their new V8 for '55 also used stud mount...

    By mid '62 the little 221 had grown to 260 cubes(smallest V8 to be available in Falcon & 1st gen Stang) and by mid '63 up to 289... Apparently Ford had the foresight to design the small blocks with enough bore spacing to allow growth, which happened within approx 1 years... Production blocks are pretty much limited to a .060 overbore at 4" which is size of 289 & 302 piston(Ford only recommends .030)... The little 221 was woefully underpowered, rated at I believe 145Hp gross, in todays net figures that may have been 115Hp... The 260 was answer in Fairlane(still anything but a fireball), but was underpowered in the full size Fords that used the 292 Y block through '62... For '63 the base V8 in full size was the 260 but when the 63 Galaxie Fastbacks debuted the base V8 became 289... The 64 Mustang was introduced with similar V8 engine availability as Fairlane, the Falcon 170 6cyl was base engine... Lineup changed with introduction of true '65 models...

    As already mentioned 302 became available for '68 models, 1968 was also last year of 289 production... The Windsor plant that built 289 shifted to 351 for '69... Previous to '68, Cleveland built all the 289 and continued to do so with 302... For whatever reason Ford dropped the 352 FE, for '67 & '68, so had no mid size V8, engines jumped from 289/302 to the 390... The 351 came on scene in '69 to fill that void...






    My other rides (that actually do run & drive)

    1969 Fairlane Cobra 428CJ 4-Speed << New 49th Birthday Picture

    1972 Comet GT - 306 C4

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    8,440
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    As for the rumor that GM based their LS design on Ford, or else out and out copied the 5.0....


    LMFAO!

    They may have used some design influences of the 351c, and it's nothing more than sheer coincidence that the bore spacing is close enough to be called identical, but face it, as long as it's been, if it were true, we'd know it by heart.

    I was even told by a chevy guy that Ford designed the LS, but then sold the blueprints to GM as they were going with the modular engine. SMFH.

    Maybe these guys ate paint chips as kids, or sumpin'.

    He wants to put (insert engine brand here) into his car.

    Who gives a fuck? not me.

    You...do you. Go fast, enjoy it.
    '84 Mustang, work in (sloooooooow) progress...
    '87 Stang notch
    1994 Ford F150 Flareside
    1997 Explorer V8 conversion (in progress)
    1998 Explorer 5.0
    and a couple of tractors. Ford, of course.
    FORD power, for life!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dunnville Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,993
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default

    I have a 6.0L LQ4 in my 1984 Thunderbird. Do it. You won't regret it. I am using a team Z K member and coil over kit. I have a couple threads here about it. I don't update it much here but have the full build on Facebook

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •