okay I have all three all rangeing in the years of 76-79
79 ford
76 high-boy
77 chevy 4 door
76 dodge

and I'll tell you what.
There is good and bad in all.

Here are my views

ford and dodge should have followed chevy on the part of the tranny fitting all the motors...

chevy should have followed ford on the starter

dodge whew followed ford or chevy on there wiring and tranny's

they all rust just depends how you take care of them.

now I know a ford will run loose (knocking) a chevy won't they get loose they go.

ford and chevy should have made more motors like the "hemi"

 

The sohc 427 was one of Fords better answer to a "hemi"

 

No more OHC for me. I'll give a 351 a try and if that doesn't work out I'll try another brand. Whatever happened to new AND improved. The only thing I'm loyal to is my wallet concerning transportation.

 

Had all three in our construction business. They all held up to one extreme or another. Our Fords seemed to be the best engine wise. Best over all for our application. We had several older Dodges that seemed to have strong suspensions. Got the most miles out of the Fords & Chevys. Had two Chevys retire at approx 450,000 miles each.
It also depends on how well your employees take care of the vehicles. And, how well the vehicles hold up to abusive employees. Jake.

 

None are any good any more. They all are built from steel the thickness of Cola cans. The bumpers can't bump anything or they must be replaced. Basically they haven't built a real truck since the seventies. The style of truck that one buys now makes a difference as well too. The diesel powered ones have their own faults, Dodge Cummins are the most reliable, but the noisiest engine built. Ford's Powerstroke has good power,but their computers are their Achillies heel, as they forget that they are already running and flip on the glow plugs at highway speed, as well the fuel mileage is nothing to brag about. As for the Duramax, well I can't write how much I hate that pile of crap!! Other than awesome pulling power and a good ride from Chevy that truck has more going against it than for it, but maybe time will fix its shortcomings. Not only are these engines with fault but you must buy the "Heavy Duty" trucks to acompany them. Such trucks are mostly a heavier undercarriage and suspension-which you need for the heavier weight of the diesel. Ford is the only maker which builds a completly differently truck for their HD line. Chevy and Dodge only tack on different cosmetics. None of the gasoline powered pickups are any good either as they are mostly built for highway driving-if you want to pull or haul something buy a HD Diesel. Am I going to spend more on a truck than my house just to pull a load, or carry my toys. I own a newer truck and will stop at nothing to make it actually work for me, I am even going to slap a carb on the old girl, so I don't have to worry about fooling the EFI into making power. Technology and advancement are great when it comes to passenger safety but how about spending some of the 1/16 of a million that the comsumers pay for their trucks and make them get 40mpg pulling around 14000lbs!

 

I definately agree that some of the newer trucks (especially ch*vies aka avalanche) look pretty much like they are made of plastic. I do, however have an awesome statement for the toughness of late model ford trucks. I regret to admit that a few months ago (prom night), I hit a wet patch of country backroad and sent my 97 f150 off a 25-30 ft bluff, ripped off three mature trees at the root, jumped a creek, and rolled it thrice. Five minutes later, I tried to start the truck and it ran fine. We drove it to the body shop the next morning. It had no frame damage, but the only body panel not seriously hurt was the tailgate. It is now out of the shop with a cowl induction ram air hood, ghost flames, acetoned emblems, a roll pan, custom grill, painted piece around the back window (gray sucks) and all kinds of cool other stuff. The truck runs just as good and is just as reliable as it used to be. I don't know of many others that can claim that. BOTTOM LINE ----- FORDS RULE!!!!!!!!

 

I have never rolled a truck but I have rolled 4 different cars and had 1 airborn. The only ones that suvived was a '74 LTD - rolled & flown, and a 69 VW Beetle - rolled. The GM's & Chrysler products didn't survive the beatings. With todays vehicles being made of lighter metal and plastic I really have a hard time believing any of them would live thru the same treatment. But, since I don't drink any more I might never know.

 

You are right. Ford didn't pull it off though. If they could have mass produced this engine with lower compression and smaller cams it could have been the worlds most easily upgradeable street motor. It would have sucked on the low end with the huge intake ports but who cares? Pansies weren't buying hemi's either. The HEMI was a great engine though. Ford just did one better.

 

Fords version of the 426 Hemi was the BOSS429, equivilant displacement, same style heads, and equivilant performance.
Now I just need to get one for my pickup!

 

The Chevy 396-427-454 motors were "semi-hemi" with the staggered valve angles.

Jim

 

It is my understanding that the 396 and early 427 chevys are a different block. They didn't have cumbustion chambers in the heads but used the top of the cylinder. The heads were flat except for the valve seats. When they changed blocks to what we call BBC they continued the 427 and built the 454, they never made the 396 in this block.

 

in reply to the post regarding the toughness of trucks i do agree. the trucks today are built of weaker metal and plastic. i wouldnt do half the things i do in my truck to a new truck. i've thrown everything at mny old ford and it has hardly dented. i hit a pothole at 100 that burried the wheel i thought id rip the wheel off, it didnt even dent the rim, but i wouldnt be so sure in a newre truck. also im not a fan of leather interiors and all that in trucks. people are forgetting what trucks where used for and now there becoming more like SUVS for the city, not for work

chevy ford and dodge each have there faults. a friends old 74 dodge has no rad, no gauges, barely runs worked well past its time, the body isnot strihgt, its all dented, punched in, leaking broken and she still goes strong, but then my other firends 2000 chevy spends more time in ths hop from just driving around his g/f go figure

 

I was arguing about this one day at school,

The way it looks is that though the old vehicles were thicker makes you think they were "stronger" but the reason people dont turn into mush when they mess up lets say a 50K BMW is because the thin metal they use is a very strong metal. The metalurgy available today is way better then it was in the 70's.

I still like the old vehicles myself and I'm not saying ALL new vehicles aren't made of tin. ie; Geo Metro. But the ones that are are done so via better metals.


That is all

 

All Chevy "Big-blocks" were "porcupine" or "semi-hemi". The 1958-1964 348-409 were a completely different engine, but all 1965 and later "rat" motors had the same basic head design. The low-compression 1971-on engines may have had dished pistions.

The type of head you describe was used on the English Ford "Kent" four cylinder engine. I have never seen a Chevy with that layout.

Jim

 

Turcks used to be for work only. Now that cars are small and can't tow trailers, families use them. The leather interiors are nice and so are extra ameneties. So, your saying you would rather ride around in a bouncy, stripped down truck. As for quality, I think Fords are built just as good as they always have been. Especialy when compared to chevys. I got in a chevy truck at a car show and it looked very cheap. Very plasticy and tacky. The best part is when I went to get out and the door handle popped off.