Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A Somewhat Interesting Engine


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 31 August 2014 - 17:06

Here's a feature about a somewhat interesting and unusual engine, the 427 CID SOHC Ford, known in some parts as the Cammer. Mid '60s, mixed parentage. Not terribly in-depth, optimized for web reading and so on...

 

 

 

Cammer--the real story of the 427 Ford SOHC V8 |  Mac's Motor City Garage.com

 

 

 

 

 

iTP3bV.jpg

 



Advertisement

#2 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:35

A very big lump. The FE 427 was big enough! Without making it bigger. 

I have seen one in a 63 or so Galaxie.I dont think factory fit but it looked like it should be there.  Sounded very healthy. And manual.Though I suspect the weight would be a killer even in that size car.

Ford have made some strange engines. Even for Nascar the weight would have to hurt. Though at least they found a home in Drag racing where they were on the pace.

Those FEs were huge, yet the 289 302W are tiny little things. And some models used both,, and Clevelands as well.

My 71 Galaxie in the US had the 240ci 6, 302, 351W with 2 &4V. 390 2bbl and 4.351 & 400 M engine. 429 2 bbl and up to Boss level. At least that is a big car but most of those engines were used in 69-73 Mustangs and Cougars too. Where the Windsor is really the 'correct' engine.



#3 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 September 2014 - 10:34


Certainly is a very interesting engine. The valve gear (and indeed the cam/rocker cover) remind me very much of the Oz Ford big 4l sixes. The Oz engine's valve gear was very much like the Cammer's with the SOHC and rockers with roller followers - maybe it was inspired by the Cammer? The design of the Oz engine's valve gear is usually attributed to INA (at least, that is what INA told me).

The Sainty Brothers (in Sydney) use basically the design of the Oz Ford valve gear in their billet drag race engines (but they use two intake/one exhaust per cylinder). So, in a way, maybe the Cammer does live on in drag racing. The Saintys told me that their engine was banned in American competition because of its SOHC layout.

#4 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 September 2014 - 22:39

Many modern SOHC engines run that style of rocker arrangement. Though Ford did use it 50 years ago.

Though after all said and done the only real advantage  of a SOHC is that it less interferes with intake port shape. Significant maybe but manufacturers OEM and aftermarket have made heads for pushrod engines that make far more power. The 5.4 Ford really was not all that powerfull either with DOHC. The 4.6 is pretty weak generally. I once drove a 4.6 Mustang back to back with a very mild 302 68 and the 68 was nicer. The later car ofcourse was nicer to drive. The owner of both had the same opinion, and the 4.6 was hardly better in economy either.

The GM engines generally have always outpowered most others of similar capacity. And are not top heavy like any OHC engine and without all the complex, often unreliable and heavy cam drive set up. DOHC should make better power and with electronics moving the cam timing for different throttle applications should be more powerfull and more economical. Though from my perspective seldom are, though the torque is generally improved. Which for a road car is the most important anyway.

Decades ago I had this discussion with a very well known engine builder. Who primarily built speedway engines. His take was the OHC engines were all too heavy an inneficient [cam drives]  Plus the rules in speedway generally were against OHC engines anyway. But even for road racing any perceived advantage was offset by more weight too high in the engine and again the unreliability of timing chains that long.

He did though until his death have a fair go at making a Toyota 18RG  twin cam usefull in a midget. Though never a success really, it had very good power, better than any VW of the period but was too heavy. And a good Sesco style engine was as good and lighter. With the so called inefficient pushrods.

Yeah,, I know I am a dinosoar but useable power wise a late model LS2 engine is very hard to beat, and so damn simple. And if GM built the things better would be more reliable than most too! 



#5 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 September 2014 - 00:39

A very big lump. The FE 427 was big enough! Without making it bigger. 

 

 

According to the SAE paper, 765 lbs not including the carburetor, clutch assembly, and exhaust manifolds. 

 

And so wide they really didn't fit in anything except a full-size Galaxie or similar. I had one around for some years but gave up on using it for anything. Eventually they became valuable and that fixed that problem. 



#6 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 855 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:58

This engine was a great example of how the US OEMs looked at production costs back at that period. While this SOHC engine gave impressive performance, few buyers were willing to pay the added cost for this engine option. So Ford eventually dropped it. The same thing happened a while back with the DOHC V8 option offered by GM on the Corvette. It did not provide enough added performance for the higher cost versus the OHV V8 option to attract many buyers.



#7 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 September 2014 - 11:36

This engine was a great example of how the US OEMs looked at production costs back at that period. While this SOHC engine gave impressive performance, few buyers were willing to pay the added cost for this engine option. So Ford eventually dropped it. The same thing happened a while back with the DOHC V8 option offered by GM on the Corvette. It did not provide enough added performance for the higher cost versus the OHV V8 option to attract many buyers.

 

There was never any production intent whatsoever for the Ford Cammer -- and why it was never approved in NASCAR. If Ford had actually put some in the showrooms, the engine would be approved for competition. Instead, Ford engaged NASCAR in a long and complicated dance -- approve it for Grand National, and we will proceed to pretend it's a production engine. Ford went through several amusing bluffs at a retail version. 

 

I think the LS1 more than proved its superiority over the the LT5 32V approach. Even now, going on 20 years later, it's not easy to justify the DOHC V8...though it is ultimately inevitable. 



#8 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 02 September 2014 - 15:04

Compared to a pushrod single cam design, the DOHC architecture for a production V-8 looks stupidly, insanely overengineered to me. I wonder what the parts count for a typical DOHC 4-valve V-8 looks like compared to say an LS1? Who would care about specific output above more practical concerns for a production engine anyway? DOHC look *less* stupid for inline engines, but for vees--why?

#9 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 September 2014 - 16:33

Four valves offer greater VE than two. The 32V Ford Coyote V8 produces well over 100 percent VE at peak torque...without GDI. Also, with separate intake and exhaust camshafts you can do all kinds of silly and wonderful things with VVT -- to fill out the output numbers under the curves, for driveability, and for emissions and fuel economy requirements. 

 

True, the DOHC 32V V8 must have greater component count and mfg cost, but OTOH, with the Mustang Ford seems to have no trouble matching the Camaro's price points. Unless things get really screwed up again, the next gen GM V8 will be DOHC. 



#10 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 02 September 2014 - 16:59

I think the biggest gain you get with a 4 valve street engine is in the combustion chamber shape and that leads to better emissions. The newest GM pushrod engines are pretty damned good on HP, economy and emissions, so maybe the pushrod engines have a longer life than we once thought. It seems as if a 2-valve OHC engine is really just a passing-through point to a 4-valve head.

 

In a racing engine, the additional valve area is important, but when you consider the power than GM is getting out of their pushrod engines, then valve area doesn't seem to be a big stumbling block. Frictional losses of a 4-cam engine are not inconsequential, so it's not a complete 'slam dunk' against the yester-tech engines.



#11 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 02 September 2014 - 20:33

Why do you think it is inevitable Magoo? From a consumer perspective, I care about 4 things - cost to buy, cost to feed, cost to repair/maintain and power output. It seems that to date, nothing in the DOHC architecture seems to significantly improve one without a downside elsewhere. But that's just me.

#12 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 02 September 2014 - 20:35

Meh. That'll learn me for not refreshing before posting.

#13 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 496 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 02 September 2014 - 21:56

I the book "Corvette from the inside" by  former Corvette Chief Engineer Dave McLellan, on page 234 he discusses  the alternative V 8 engines for the C5 model.  From studies that GM had undertaken they believed that increasing an engine's weight by one pound would require an extra one pound to be added to the rest of the car.  Referring to the Lotus engine in the ZR 1, he claimed that if they could remove 80 lbs from the engine, then the total car weight would be reduced by160 lb.  This has significance for performance and vehicle cost.  He stated that by using the GEN III aluminum engine, a car designed around it would weigh about 405 lb less  than the same car designed around the LT 5 engine.  Hence, the LT 5 engine would have to produce about 55 bhp more than the GEN III engine to compensate for the extra weight.  The GEN III was to produce 405 bhp and the future LT 5 estimated at 475 bhp, an effective gain of 15 bhp at a cost of $25,000. 



#14 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 September 2014 - 22:58

I've never seen an exchange rate for engine mass before. I'd guess that applies to any non structural non chassis component.



#15 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 September 2014 - 23:22

I the book "Corvette from the inside" by  former Corvette Chief Engineer Dave McLellan, on page 234 he discusses  the alternative V 8 engines for the C5 model.  From studies that GM had undertaken they believed that increasing an engine's weight by one pound would require an extra one pound to be added to the rest of the car.  Referring to the Lotus engine in the ZR 1, he claimed that if they could remove 80 lbs from the engine, then the total car weight would be reduced by160 lb.  This has significance for performance and vehicle cost.  He stated that by using the GEN III aluminum engine, a car designed around it would weigh about 405 lb less  than the same car designed around the LT 5 engine.  Hence, the LT 5 engine would have to produce about 55 bhp more than the GEN III engine to compensate for the extra weight.  The GEN III was to produce 405 bhp and the future LT 5 estimated at 475 bhp, an effective gain of 15 bhp at a cost of $25,000. 

 

 

Isn't that a nice book? I told Dave he has a knack for technical writing, he should do more if he enjoys it. 



#16 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 September 2014 - 09:54

I think the biggest gain you get with a 4 valve street engine is in the combustion chamber shape and that leads to better emissions. The newest GM pushrod engines are pretty damned good on HP, economy and emissions, so maybe the pushrod engines have a longer life than we once thought. It seems as if a 2-valve OHC engine is really just a passing-through point to a 4-valve head.

 

In a racing engine, the additional valve area is important, but when you consider the power than GM is getting out of their pushrod engines, then valve area doesn't seem to be a big stumbling block. Frictional losses of a 4-cam engine are not inconsequential, so it's not a complete 'slam dunk' against the yester-tech engines.

The main reason for 4 valve engines,, emissions. Important I guess but nothing to do with performance or weight balance.

I suspect that GM have spent a lot of money on multi valve engines over the decades,, and then make more power from a 2 valve pushrod motor!

Remember there was a development OHC version of the small block way back in the 70s. And the 2 valve made more power.

 

The Ford OHC engine though did seem a strong thing, just [like many Fords] too big and heavy.



#17 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 1,848 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 September 2014 - 16:23

The main reason for 4 valve engines,, emissions. Important I guess but nothing to do with performance or weight balance.

I suspect that GM have spent a lot of money on multi valve engines over the decades,, and then make more power from a 2 valve pushrod motor!

Remember there was a development OHC version of the small block way back in the 70s. And the 2 valve made more power.

 

The Ford OHC engine though did seem a strong thing, just [like many Fords] too big and heavy.

 

Emissions are just another hurdle the road car engineers have to get over. On the racing side, we spend more time trying to figure out how to hide power than how to make it. Almost every street car has more horsepower than the corresponding racing version. Some of the power that is being made by these street cars is absurd. Sorry folks, there's just nothing that makes sense about having a 700 HP Dodge or 650 HP Chevy. You're just going to hurt people.

 

There's really very little bad that can be said about having an efficient combustion chamber design. It helps emissions, but it also helps efficiency and allows higher compression ratios. I'm blown out of the water at some of the compression ratios that modern street cars run. It wasn't too many years ago that if you tried to get over 9.5:1 on pump gas you'd raise eyebrows. What does that new 'Vette run? 11:1 or something. I don't know, but it's damned high.



#18 ladaok

ladaok
  • New Member

  • 2 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 04 September 2014 - 02:12

In many respects, there's no need for DOHC / SOHC in a street motor 

cast your mind back to the beautiful little ... Peugeot ... push rod alloy '   Hemi '    head's born in the late 1950's 

now there's a simple design just begging to be converted to modern 4 val tech 



#19 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 04 September 2014 - 15:21

The marketers would probably prefer triple (quadruple?) overhead cams. Nothing says speed like spinning bumpy rods. Except maybe cheesy rear deck wings and fiberglass fake "ground effects".

Advertisement

#20 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 September 2014 - 16:53

I am curious to know what finally convinced Lee to abandon the T-head. 



#21 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 855 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:06

There was never any production intent whatsoever for the Ford Cammer -- and why it was never approved in NASCAR. If Ford had actually put some in the showrooms, the engine would be approved for competition. Instead, Ford engaged NASCAR in a long and complicated dance -- approve it for Grand National, and we will proceed to pretend it's a production engine. Ford went through several amusing bluffs at a retail version. 

 

While the Ford SOHC V8 was not a true production engine, it also was not a race-only engine. You could actually walk into your local Ford dealer and buy one for around $2800, and put it into your street car. Ford manufactured and sold enough of these engnies to the public to homologate it for NASCAR racing.



#22 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 September 2014 - 08:45

I am curious to know what finally convinced Lee to abandon the T-head. 

OHV , with pushrods. the only way!



#23 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:50

While the Ford SOHC V8 was not a true production engine, it also was not a race-only engine. You could actually walk into your local Ford dealer and buy one for around $2800, and put it into your street car. Ford manufactured and sold enough of these engnies to the public to homologate it for NASCAR racing.

 

 

Homologation for NASCAR use required building complete production cars with said engine installed, which never happened. At best maybe 6 or 8 passenger cars were built from '64 to '66, all built at the Ford X garage or at DST. Never made it down any assembly line. 

 

At one point Gratiot Auto Supply was selling engines (your choice 4V or 8V) for $2300...I sat on one or two of them at the parts counter. In my memory they sat there for years,  but in reality it was probably only months. $2000 green in hand would take one out the door, I'm sure. Sounds really cheap but at the time, that $$$ was a new Vega, Pinto, etc. 



#24 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 September 2014 - 21:52

OHV , with pushrods. the only way!

 

Are you ok with hydraulic brakes and tubeless tires? 



#25 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 September 2014 - 00:03

His secretary must have a chuckle as she types in the posts he dictates.



#26 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 September 2014 - 11:00

Are you ok with hydraulic brakes and tubeless tires? 

Hydraulic brakes? Old hat, you need electric generating brakes.  Or maybe not!

And what is a tube?



#27 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,712 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 06 September 2014 - 13:15

And what is a tube?

Things that live in the wireless.



#28 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,656 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 September 2014 - 16:38

A series of defined holes.

#29 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 September 2014 - 05:13

I have to agree with the general point LN is making (or at least I think he is making). For everyday use (going to work, going to the shops etc.) a simple car with a simple engine is really all that is needed.
There is no doubt that a four cam, four (or five) valve engine is ultimately better - but - a simple car/simple engine is good enough for 95% of all purposes - even for most higher performance uses the simple etc. approach is just as good.
I think that the increasing complexity in cars is mainly a result of a company's attempts to sell a car by allowing them to say that "our car has more cams/valves/speeds in the automatic (nobody needs seven or eight speeds) etc. etc. than our competitors.

It is also notable that the Nissan V8 super car with its four cams/four valves had trouble making as much power as the two-valve pushrod V8s. Presumably over the 7500 rpm limit the Nissan would start to have the advantage.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 07 September 2014 - 05:15.


#30 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 September 2014 - 06:16

It is probably not surprising that the Nissan engine makes similar power to the GM and Ford competition.

 1. As you point out, the rpm restriction negates much of the breathing advantage.

 2. The CR limit of 10:1 negates much of the combustion chamber advantage.

 3. The Nissan engine is production based whereas the competition do not use production block, crank or heads. 



#31 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 September 2014 - 10:30

It is probably not surprising that the Nissan engine makes similar power to the GM and Ford competition.

 1. As you point out, the rpm restriction negates much of the breathing advantage.

 2. The CR limit of 10:1 negates much of the combustion chamber advantage.

 3. The Nissan engine is production based whereas the competition do not use production block, crank or heads. 

Again?  A Nissan Supercar engine production based.  Since the 'donor' engine, the V8 Patrol engine has a different bore and stroke combo to what is used it is NOT a production engine, Nor is the Benz, Nor yet the Volvo. The HMS engine is a Ford deck height Chev which 'operation blueprint' hoisted on them a few years back, And the Ford is interchangeable fully with a road car. The only one might I add.Though pre 02. Just a version of a 1969 Boss 302.

The so called efficient engines are in this situation inefficient. 45+ years of development helps ofcourse for the Ford and Chev.

But as Kelpiecross points out, it is a selling point to have more cams and valves. Though GM are doing ok with the LS engines in road cars too.

 

Hitech is often not the best.

 

For low speed road engines these modern multivalves go well and are reasonably economical. And meet the emission requirements too ofcourse.  While horses for courses the 4500 twin cam, and the 4700 V8 twin cams in my last two Landcruisers are actually quite lazy. It is all over at around 3500 rpm on both. 

My LPG 4 litre Falcon ute, twin cam,4 valve is at least useable until about 5000rpm. Still fairly weak compared with the more upmarket engines in the line. I suspect however the Toyotas have more torque to pull 2.5 tonne around.

And like the Nissan, small bore long stroke. Unlike a Supercar engine with bigger bore and shorter stroke. And bugger all torque!



#32 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 07 September 2014 - 10:34

I don't think the n>6 autos are being sold on performance, I'm guessing they offer better mpg and emissions.
 
As to the other point, yes, people buy engines based on technology and power. For $200 I can give you a marketing advantage in terms of bhp and number of valve grooviness, or a slightly better black round thing on each corner. I wouldn't want to be writing the advertising copy for the latter.


#33 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 September 2014 - 23:05

Again?  A Nissan Supercar engine production based.  Since the 'donor' engine, the V8 Patrol engine has a different bore and stroke combo to what is used it is NOT a production engine,

AFAIK the Nissan engine uses the production block and head castings unlike any of the pushrod engines it competes against.



#34 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 September 2014 - 00:25

AFAIK the Nissan engine uses the production block and head castings unlike any of the pushrod engines it competes against.

Bore is about 3.7" To stroke that to 5 litre would be a long stroke crank. They are special blocks, cranks, heads. Like everyone else.



#35 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 September 2014 - 03:25

Wrong engine Lee.

 

"The Nissan Motorsport VK56DE was launched in Australia for the V8 Supercars Championship in 2013 by Kelly Racing in Melbourne. The engine has been reduced in capacity to 4,990cc to fit the V8 Supercars regulations. It has a bore and stroke of 102.69mm x 75.31mm. It will be fitted to a Nissan Altima version of the V8 Supercars "Car of the Future" specification that will compete from 2013 onwards."



#36 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 08 September 2014 - 05:21

Are you ok with hydraulic brakes and tubeless tires? 

I drove a 1966 Plymouth Fury with manual steering into the eighties.

Never had a problem.

 

There were and probably still are, four valve push-rod heads for the Windsor Ford.

I have heard and read, from more than one auto related source that complexity and cost of OHC in large engines, out ways any advantage.

 

The ford mod. engine, including the new "coyote" version, is a huge engine, size wize, that cannot match Chevy and Dodge power without blower due to anemic bore spacing.

The ONE good thing is, to accept it the Mustang engine bay is big enough that it will accept a Kaase Shotgun Hemi.



#37 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 September 2014 - 10:49

I think the *PAS vs manual steering is interesting, and yet more conclusive evidence is from the dirt/paddock racers, who are madly fitting EPAS systems to their cars as quickly as they can.

 

Sure, you can drive a car with a 16:1 steering ratio, but 6:1 (with assist) is a damn sight less wheel twirly, and it doesn't tire you out and you can use whatever size handwheel suits you.



#38 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 September 2014 - 11:05

The ford mod. engine, including the new "coyote" version, is a huge engine, size wize, that cannot match Chevy and Dodge power without blower due to anemic bore spacing.

The ONE good thing is, to accept it the Mustang engine bay is big enough that it will accept a Kaase Shotgun Hemi.

 

 

That comparison is one of scale. The Chevy and Dodge cannot match the Ford in efficiency, so they suffer in fuel economy and emissions. 



#39 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 September 2014 - 11:06

His secretary must have a chuckle as she types in the posts he dictates.

 

Wow, female secretaries and typists Very progressive. 



Advertisement

#40 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 September 2014 - 11:09

I think the *PAS vs manual steering is interesting, and yet more conclusive evidence is from the dirt/paddock racers, who are madly fitting EPAS systems to their cars as quickly as they can.
 
Sure, you can drive a car with a 16:1 steering ratio, but 6:1 (with assist) is a damn sight less wheel twirly, and it doesn't tire you out and you can use whatever size handwheel suits you.


Have to agree - I find any car with non-assisted steering very awkward feeling these days - in the good old days (1960s) I hated assisted steering.

#41 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 September 2014 - 11:12

I don't think the n>6 autos are being sold on performance, I'm guessing they offer better mpg and emissions.
 
As to the other point, yes, people buy engines based on technology and power. For $200 I can give you a marketing advantage in terms of bhp and number of valve grooviness, or a slightly better black round thing on each corner. I wouldn't want to be writing the advertising copy for the latter.


Are you saying that an engine with multiple cams/four valves etc. is only $200 more than a "simple" engine?

#42 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 September 2014 - 23:12

From memory it was something like that, yes.Bear in mind a complete falcon i6 in total costs only a couple of thousand. 



#43 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 September 2014 - 23:22

From memory it was something like that, yes.Bear in mind a complete falcon i6 in total costs only a couple of thousand. 

Though again only if made in large volumes. The cammer was made in small volumes, and was comparitivly expensive.

And I suspect that is in comparison to the SOHC engine used from 88 on.


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 08 September 2014 - 23:23.


#44 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 September 2014 - 23:32

Wrong engine Lee.

 

"The Nissan Motorsport VK56DE was launched in Australia for the V8 Supercars Championship in 2013 by Kelly Racing in Melbourne. The engine has been reduced in capacity to 4,990cc to fit the V8 Supercars regulations. It has a bore and stroke of 102.69mm x 75.31mm. It will be fitted to a Nissan Altima version of the V8 Supercars "Car of the Future" specification that will compete from 2013 onwards."

The production engine has a bore of 3.9 and a stroke  of 3.6" . So a 4x3" version is NOT a production engine. The block would be extensively modified to go a 100 though bigger, eg bigger liners and machine and modify the block to suit. And a 3" crank is a LOT shorter. Ford and GM however made 4" blocks. And 3" cranks were also production items. eg 302 Ford and Chevrolet of the late 60s on. The engines that were used in F5000 racing!



#45 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,842 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 09 September 2014 - 00:26

Have to agree - I find any car with non-assisted steering very awkward feeling these days - in the good old days (1960s) I hated assisted steering.

Power steering for me is still for the towcar. I have cars here with probably the worst  and best powersteering feel. 71 Galaxie, 4 turns from lock to lock with very little feel. 6 deg of caster helps a bit!

Conversely the FG  Ford ute I drive is almost heavy with too quick a steering. For street use I find the AU Ford nicer in feel. Responsive and lighter.

Great for the road. I did hillclimb an FG earlier this year. The steering then was ok, BUT I still prefer manual steer.

My old Torana Sports Sedan was surprisingly light with 6 deg of caster coupled with a modified LX Torana rack had great feel.

The XE I play with though really is too slow. 3.5 turns lock to lock! But the feel and weight is ok. Though for hillclimbs with 'bus stops' I had to take some caster off of it. Heavier and slower than the Torana though  with far smaller tyres.

In classic speedway Supermodifieds many of the [older] blokes are fitting power steering. I call them girls! Though I did replace the worn out 16-1 Holden box with a 20-1 Falcon box which was a near bolt in,, and in stock. That car is set up properly and does not need power steering. The slightly slower, .9 to 1.1 turns I found to be better. On track I am still only using less than half a turn. Too quick is often detrimental,, though too slow is worse, but lighter.

A few dirt oval street stock racers are finding that no power steering makes them faster. Even using power steer racks. More feel, less crash!

In motorsport these days how many power steering failures do you see. Quite a lot. Without one less thing to go wrong, or at least for short events



#46 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 September 2014 - 00:28

AFAIK the Nissan engine uses the production block and head castings unlike any of the pushrod engines it competes against.

 

 

The production engine has a bore of 3.9 and a stroke  of 3.6" . So a 4x3" version is NOT a production engine. The block would be extensively modified to go a 100 though bigger, eg bigger liners and machine and modify the block to suit.

 

Yawn!



#47 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 September 2014 - 00:30

Very progressive. 

My bad.