Ford vs The Competition Technical discussion and comparison ONLY. Trolls will not be tolerated.

this sucks...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 07-02-2005, 01:16 AM
Caleb1's Avatar
Caleb1
Caleb1 is offline
Posting Guru
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
this sucks...

I know long stroke ford engines have better low end torque compared to short stroke chevy engines, but it still sucks that a chevy can smoke us at least in stock form, for example the 350 has 255 horsepower compared to the 351 at like 210, but would the low end torque of the 351 help us fords get a better launch than the chevies?



Chevy 400- 2 barrel 185 HP 4 barrel-215 HP (i dont know torque figures)
Ford 400- 140 HP

Chevy 350-255 HP
Ford 351- 210 HP



so what's yall's say on the matter?
 
  #2  
Old 07-02-2005, 01:01 PM
theshyguy's Avatar
theshyguy
theshyguy is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Use a pickup for its intended purpose.
 
  #3  
Old 07-02-2005, 02:39 PM
pfogle's Avatar
pfogle
pfogle is offline
Lead Driver
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oak Harbor, OH
Posts: 8,140
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
When ford designed the engine, and it's power curve they designed to tow, and haul loads. Not win races. They also decided that rather than make it FAST we'll make it durable and reliable. How many late 70s early 80s chevies do you see on the road? Not very many. Now how many older fords do you see? I see them here all over and this is a pretty heavy chevy area.
 
  #4  
Old 07-03-2005, 12:44 AM
Caleb1's Avatar
Caleb1
Caleb1 is offline
Posting Guru
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Well the intended purpose of a 4 wheel drive is self explanatory, and I go four wheeling, so when mudbogging I like to get up some momentum, so therefore my "launching" questions.
 
  #5  
Old 07-03-2005, 12:50 AM
ford390gashog's Avatar
ford390gashog
ford390gashog is offline
Fleet Owner

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brentwood,CA
Posts: 26,006
Received 519 Likes on 398 Posts
the chevy engines are over rated from factory. in a 4x4 you want a lot of low end torque something the 350 can't do thats why ford used the 360 engines in the 4x4 trucks until 76.
 
  #6  
Old 07-03-2005, 02:23 AM
NickFordMan's Avatar
NickFordMan
NickFordMan is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,221
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Do you have any charts showing what RPM the 350, and 351 make peak HP and torque? Either way, Ford knows what they are doing. A truck is a truck. In comparably equipped trucks, i would put a 351 against a 350 any day. You'd think that there would be a big difference, but there isnt.
 
  #7  
Old 07-03-2005, 02:38 AM
200000+F150's Avatar
200000+F150
200000+F150 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hendersonville, TN
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If you're comparing a 350 and a 351, I don't get where you're coming from. Chevy 350:
4" bore, 3.48" stroke. 351W: 4" bore, 3.5" stroke. Virtually identical. If you drop to 5.0's
then the chevy is the long-stroke motor. Still a 3.48" with a little 3-7/8" bore, compared to the 302's 4" bore and 3" stroke. On the 350/351 comparison, I think both use 1.94/1.5 valves. The only significant difference is the chevy's larger port volume on the heads and shorter intake runner length.
 
  #8  
Old 07-03-2005, 10:09 AM
Caleb1's Avatar
Caleb1
Caleb1 is offline
Posting Guru
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Good points. I love fords (up until 97 anyway) and I love torque, and Ford defintely did that right!
 
  #9  
Old 07-07-2005, 11:31 AM
Pkupman82's Avatar
Pkupman82
Pkupman82 is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Muskegon, MI (home)
Posts: 3,441
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Like these guys were saying, Ford builds their trucks to be trucks not racecars. If I was into any kind of racing, I would build a Chevrolet...they are easier and cheaper to get tons of horsepower out of. But you can bet all of your worldly possesions I will tow that Chevy to the racetrack with a Ford truck. I noticed a lot of people don't understand that high performance motors don't live as long as workhorse motors. So what do you want? High performance...but short lived, get a Chevy. Okay you want something that will work hard and run for a long time buy a Ford. I am 22 yrs old and I could care less about speed. We can't go fast on the roads anyway...there are too many vehicles and cops on the road nowadays. Don't get me wrong I love ALL (Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, AMC...they were all bad a$$) the old muscle cars, but we can't have that kind of stuff anymore...NOW THAT SUCKS!
 
  #10  
Old 07-07-2005, 11:38 AM
ARMORER's Avatar
ARMORER
ARMORER is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The 350 in my friends 76 malibu classic was only rated at 144 hp. Pretty sure that the ford inline six for that year was close to that.
 
  #11  
Old 07-07-2005, 01:19 PM
polarbear's Avatar
polarbear
polarbear is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Damascus-Boring, Ore
Posts: 10,728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Armorer- this is kind of interesting- Ford didn't rate them at all, or at least publish the numbers in the brochure. Just listed the engine sizes, tow capacities, etc.
 
  #12  
Old 07-07-2005, 01:37 PM
Schmids4.9l's Avatar
Schmids4.9l
Schmids4.9l is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bored town OH
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ARMORER
The 350 in my friends 76 malibu classic was only rated at 144 hp. Pretty sure that the ford inline six for that year was close to that.
thats what im talking about. Nothing in the 70's had any power anyways. after 1970, everything went downhill. Well, car wise anyways. I wouldn't think a 351 from 76 had any power either.
 
  #13  
Old 07-07-2005, 01:44 PM
NickFordMan's Avatar
NickFordMan
NickFordMan is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,221
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The 351M was being used in '76 wasn't it?
 
  #14  
Old 07-07-2005, 01:48 PM
osbornk's Avatar
osbornk
osbornk is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marion, VA
Posts: 2,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NickFordMan
The 351M was being used in '76 wasn't it?
Yep, it was in mine. M was for Modified Cleveland.
 
  #15  
Old 07-07-2005, 02:00 PM
ARMORER's Avatar
ARMORER
ARMORER is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Polar, I didn't nessicarily mean in the brochure, just what they are known to be. Listed at places like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series And after finding this site I realized that the 300 was only rated at 114hp for 1978, couldn't have been much different in '76.................................Also, if you could PM me and tell me where you found those online sales brochures that would be awesome. I would love to have one for my truck and galaxie.-----Ryan
 


Quick Reply: this sucks...



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.