Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - View Single Post - Chevy vs Ford
Thread: Chevy vs Ford
View Single Post
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-2004, 02:33 PM
bullheimer's Avatar
bullheimer bullheimer is offline
NEVER use credit cards!
 

Last journal entry: car with tt2's, (stockers going back on)
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of Seattle
Posts: 2,532
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
i dont know much about fords quality because i never got into them. as for block thickness etc. i couldnt even begin to tell you. i can tell you that yeah, chevy does have a little prob with the siamesed ex. ports and i really wish the guy who decided to put the distributor in the back of the engine had one shoved up his happy hole! as for general overall quality, since chevy's camaro went **** up due to lack of craftsmanship and ford is still selling a ton of mustangs, i would have to give that to ford. i also prefered ford 4x4's to chevy's as well even tho i own a chev. but only because in the late 70's ford put limited slip front and rears in their trucks while chevy used open gears, which blow.

even tho magazine writers may or may not know what the hell they are talking about and i just said this in my pony car post i will quote you word for word an article about a FORD build up 347 stroker to be exact , out of a truck mag: oct 2003 custom classic truck::

"the chevy small block is undoubtedly the king of racing and hot rodding, but there is little doubt that the ford small block beats everything else for a solid second rankning in performance engines. in the mid 60's the mustang debut was a success because the high perf. 289 competed on an even footing with the chevy 283. as the muscle car era progressed, the small block ford 289 and 302 fell behind in performance to the larger 327 and 350 chevys. the maxs hp of a production line boss 302 was 290 hp, while there wer numerous factory stock small block chevys that easily exceeded that number. when ford eventually upped the displacement of the small blocks to 351 in 1969, the performance still never exceeded 290 hp "
later he talks about how the ford heads have a hump that restricts flow, needs to be enlarged to at least 160 cc from 145 to match a chevy, and bags on the stock intake design with too sharp of bends due to intake ports being some close to the carb and some far away ( dont dont have any idea what he's talking about) and the smaller size of the valves.

just that writers opionion.

Last edited by bullheimer; 01-12-2004 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote