|
LS3 vs Coyote
Found this interesting dyno comparison. Especially since these seem to be the two main motor choices for new Cobra builds in Australia at the moment.
|
The coyote is twice the size also. Not literally but it's big.
|
Well its certainly not small, but if you look at the real stats its the winner.
More power per litre (0r cubic inch), more power per kg (lbs) weight and its more efficient as far as thermal efficiency. On top of that its sounds awesome at 8500 rpm, and will make over 1000 bhp when given some boost !! AND ITS A FORD :eek::3DSMILE::eek::3DSMILE::eek::3DSMILE::eek::3D SMILE::eek::3DSMILE::eek::3DSMILE: |
Rog,
You forgot more $ per litre or hp as well, by a long shot :) |
Quote:
A replica ford windsor vs the ford coyote. :p |
Quote:
|
New generation Windsor - Just saying!!:)
|
"More power per litre (0r cubic inch), more power per kg (lbs) weight and its more efficient as far as thermal efficiency."
Rog, and all this will make a car go faster, how? I guess anything is possible, but I'm wondering how it would fit into, and under the hood, of a 90" Cobra, with boost paraphernalia necessary for 1000hp....And then, what do you do with a car like that? |
Quote:
I already hashed this out with Brent Lykins a few months back. The only dimension shared between the LS and the Windsor are the 4.4 inch cylinder bore centerlines... Nothing else; and that could be a result of coincidence just as easily as it could be a nefarious plot by GM to rip off a "superior" Ford bore centerline layout. This 4.4 inch bore centerline also happens to be the basis of the Generation I GM small block design- You know, the one that came out in 1955? Six years before the Windsor came out... :cool: There is even the popular myth that LS heads will "bolt right up" to a Windsor engine - But again, it's a MYTH (although one that seems to be really popular with the Ford guys) Now it is true that LS heads can be ADAPTED to fit to a Windsor block (due to their matching bore centerlines) , but there is machining, drilling, tapping, water-jacket mating, and gasket modification (or customization) necessary to achieve an operational engine after doing this.... It's not "Just bolt them on and go!" You can also adapt a set of LS heads to a GEN I GM small block (Again, the one that came out in 1955.. The FIRST one; and therefore the basis of ALL small block V8 designs to follow...) Another popular myth is that the LS engine was designed by Ford guys that GM "stole" - Well, neither Ron Sperry, John Juriga, Jim Hicks, Ed Koerner, Bill Compton, Brian Kaminski, Jon Lewis, Stan Turek, Don Weiderhold, nor Dave Wandel ever worked for Ford prior to their involvement on the GenIII small block project... Brian Kaminski left GM and went to Ford AFTER the LS engine had been in production for several years. Meanwhile - Let's take an inventory of every GM patent that was leveraged by Ford for use on the Coyote platform: 1) Single coil on plug? GM patent. 2) Corkscrew phenolic plastic intake manifold? GM patent (Edit: This is actually only half-correct. GM patented the corkscrew runner shape on their manifold, but the patent on the Nylon material and the injection molding process actually belongs to Dupont.) 3) Controlled compression carrier gasket sealing? GM patent Historical facts: They can be such pesky inconveniences when car-guys are trash-talking with each other, can't they?.... :cool: Fords- The best engines money can buy.... But only if you have a LOT of money... :LOL: |
Quote:
And since when do you have to work for another company to steal ideas or concepts? That's a pretty retarded argument. I still haven't figured out which side you're on. You're like one of those Republicans who plans to vote for Hillary. |
Quote:
Besides, why do you even think I care what you think about the information I post? I post facts to enable people to be well informed. If you prefer the "Trust me, I'm an engine builder" approach, then that's perfectly cool with me... The first engine I ever rebuilt (twice) was a Pontiac 400. The most recent engine I've done is a Nissan 4-liter inline six. Along the way I've built 5 Chevies (3 GenI's, One MarkIV, and one LS/GenIII), 1 Oldsmobile, 2 Toyotas, 1 Ford Windsor, and a Briggs and Stratton. Yes, the number of engines I've done must pale in comparison to the number you have done. You're a professional, I'm not. The number of computers I've built probably dwarfs the number you have built, but if I was out on some online forum spouting off about how Dells are superior to HP's, and you came in with some accurate technical information that implied that HP's were actually no worse than Dells, they're just different, then I guess I'd have a license to play the "Trust me, I'm an IT guy" card... :JEKYLHYDE Facts create knowledge, and knowledge can only strengthen trust. Quote:
Fact. Sorry for the error above. Patented designs are rarely "stolen" without litigation. If there were any design elements of the LS engine that violated any Ford patents, then there would be public records of Ford's ensuing lawsuits... {crickets chirping in the background} Quote:
I've never built a Mopar, but I sure do think that a crazy cammed 440 wedge is one mean sounding engine; Even though I am equally likely to think that the Plymouth GTX that the 440 is sitting in, is one butt-ugly car, with its snap-on hubcaps, and its 5-acre trunk sticking out the back... Shelby Cobras are supremely cool- Therefore I own a car that almost sorta resembles one. With respect to tradition, I personally believe that Cobras are best oriented with Ford engines. (I believe that, meaning my viewpoint is based in personal opinion; not based on any biased perception regarding Ford's assumed design or engineering superiority) Picking "sides" is something I haven't done since I was in high school. Back then, I was a Pontiac guy (which in hindsight, and with the benefit of several decades of wisdom earned, seems pretty silly)- You mentioned retarded- Well, the Ford versus Chevy (versus Mopar) debate is, to me, just about as retarded as the argument about whether Troy Bilt riding lawn mowers are superior to Craftsman riding lawn mowers... Deez Nuts for President. |
The fact that this is something that I do professionally should add a little clout to the argument. If it doesn't, then so be it. However, it's my job to be familiar with bore spacings, valve angles, port dimensions, port volumes, etc. I see similarities between engines and I see where some engine designs are taken from the positive aspects of others.
However, you can bolt an LS head onto a SBF block with the same ease that you can bolt a 351C head to a SBF block. If you can't see the similarities between an LS head and a Cleveland head, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. The very fact that the changes made to the SBC line of engines (that had in fact been popular since the 50's) going from Gen 1 to the LT1/LT4 and then from the LT to the LS line made them functionally more like a SBF is very hard to dispute. So, you can add all the little literary intricacies to your paragraphs that you want (crickets chirping) but as you put it, the facts are indeed the facts. Just so you know, I am a Pontiac fan too. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I never said that GM engineers broke into fords engineering building and copied all their data… I am saying that the similarities are (by far) not coincidental.
Anyone can take a look at a winning cylinder head package, figure out why it's so good and then implement those factors into a new design. |
Easy tiger. I was only pissing in Mike's pocket :)
Fwiw, Ls power plants are great! They have their place too. Normally finishing behind a ford. :p Ok ok relax, just teasing :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have a 4V Cleveland sitting on the floor not 10 feet from an LS1 and they couldn't look more different to me. The bore spacings might be the same and they are 4 bolt ber cylinder but that's about it. The real question you have to ask is "Why are people trying o bolt LS heads on Windsor blocks if the Windsor is so much superior?" You don't hear LS guys going on about their Cleveland head conversions... All this discussion about copying, again I can't see it. The motors have elements that lots of different manufacturers used. The deep skirted block of the LS motor with it's cross bolted mains... Is that a rip off of the FE motor? Umm Chrysler and plenty of European manufacturers have used that technique too. It's like saying GM made their pistons round just like Ford. They must have copied that idea :JEKYLHYDE Many elements of all these motors have been shared across a ton of other designs. Each is their own unique combination. Some combos work better than others for different reasons. I like the motors from both these manufacturers. I posted the vid because I thought it was an interesting comparison of two different ways to get the job done. Both sound great and will make more power than you know what do do with in a Cobra. You get the same arguments like: "My 2L Nissan makes more power per cubic inch than your clunky old V8 so it must be bette...r" If that makes you happy with the team you cheer for then OK, whatever floats your boat. |
Bore spacings are alike.....valve sizes.....port volumes.....intake to exhaust flow rates (exhaust ports do NOT work, most LS7 camshafts have 20-30 extra degrees of duration built into the exhaust side, which is similar to a Cleveland, where it's not uncommon to add another 8-12 degrees of exhaust duration), exhaust port spacing, etc, etc. Now obviously it's not a direct copy, because technology has advanced in the last 40 years, but the LS design is 180° out from the traditional SBC and is much closer to a Ford. Compare an LS7 head to a 4V Cleveland head some time.
Another added bonus, when you convert an LS engine to a carb/distributor setup, you use an MSD Ford 302 distributor. :) I have no clue why people are putting LS heads on Fords. Probably because LS engines can be bought for pennies on the dollar and since the heads do so well, it's a potential for an easy power adder. Plus, it's just hot rodding nature I suppose. When you have a Ford 302 that has 160 cfm intake ports on factory heads and you can bolt on something that approaches 300 cfm, I could see the attraction.... |
Yes there may be similarities but did they copy?
I understand there are theories about the ideal intake to exhaust valve size ratio. To maintain that and have the valves fit in a particular bore size there are going to be a few that come to the same conclusion. Same goes for port volumes. There will be a formula that works. As for exhaust duration many motors take advantage of the smaller exhaust valve size to leave it hanging open for as long as possible without piston to valve contact. Modern roller cams and a light weight valve train let you snap those valves open and closed amazingly fast compared to old tech. There were plenty of other GM designs they had to draw from too. As an example Dart make a Buick head for the SB chev that uses the port design and shape from the V6. A style that looks very similar to the what the LS7 uses. I believe these were the go to SBC head for a while in NASCAR in the 90's |
Again, I'm not insinuating that the GM guys snuck into the Ford engineering lab or had the Russians hack the Ford computers. :)
I'm just saying that in comparison to a traditional SBC head, the LS stuff (most especially the LS7) is pretty closely related to a Cleveland head, where no other OEM head is. The poor exhaust flow is just the inherent nature of some cylinder heads and it's not really related to bore size. Take a close look at some older Pontiac heads. The exhaust flow is almost 80% of the intake on some heads, and some of the early Poncho engines had some very small bore sizes: the 350 had a 3.875" bore....the 389 was a 4.060"....421 SD was a 4.090". I've seen some high 60% numbers on some LS7 heads, which requires a larger amount of exhaust duration to crutch it. As for port volume, it will depend on the size of the engine and the application. The 4V Cleveland head was a complete dog on a factory 351 or a 302. It takes a lot of rpm (or extra displacement) to get that big 245 cc of air moving.... Like you say, most every performance automotive engineer out there will be familiar with combinations that performed well through the years. It's hard to start with a clean slate and not take notice to things that really work or were highlights of past decades. In my mind the LS7 is a pretty sweet piece because it has enough displacement to pull on that large intake port volume and a large enough bore to take advantage of the larger valves. Both of those are Cleveland traits, but the factory Cleveland engines were really too small to really take advantage of them. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
The representations expressed are the representations and opinions of the clubcobra.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the site owners, moderators, Shelby American, any other replica manufacturer, Ford Motor Company. This website has been planned and developed by clubcobra.com and its forum members and should not be construed as being endorsed by Ford Motor Company, or Shelby American or any other manufacturer unless expressly noted by that entity. "Cobra" and the Cobra logo are registered trademarks for Ford Motor Co., Inc. clubcobra.com forum members agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is owned by you. Although we do not and cannot review the messages posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). Thank you for visiting clubcobra.com. For full policy documentation refer to the following link: