You can build a 1966 Mustang totally from parts for significantly less than you can restore a "decent" Cuda , Challenger, Charger, or virtually any other Mopar of the period. And Chevy falls in between somewhere. A Camero or Chevelle is easier / cheaper to rebuild than a Mopar because there are more parts available, at a significantly lower cost.
Truth be told we could all get by with three cylinder shoe boxes for basic transportation. People don't buy high performance car because they need them. ;)
I disagree with the above. With VVT, multiple intake and/or exhaust valves, dual tuned runners etc. the power band can be enhanced from idle to redline. In the OHV engines I have run to high mileage the bigest chance of parts failure has rested with the valve train. It can be a ticking lifter, bent push rod or a bum rocker arm. IMO, these components are the Achille's heals for OHV engines. They don't exist in an OHC engine and therefore con not be the cause of failures. The durability of Ford's 4.6L is legendary already and I chalk a lot of it up to the OHC design. Fewer reciprocating parts mean greater reliability and longer life, IMO.
I will give you that OHC heads are more a throw away part the their OHV counter part. That being said the infrequency of early catastrophic engine failure in today's engines (OHV and OHC) makes this a minimal issue. If today's cars are maintained well engine failures are few and far between.
I agree. But I think we also both agree that for high performance applications OHC engine have inherent advantages that OHV engines can't match. Remember the 427 SOHC engine Ford had in the 1960s? The OHC design made it one of the best engines of that era. It was the only engine that NASCAR banned because it was eating the Hemis alive. The OHC design made it too durable to run with push rod motors. This also reminds me of the only turbine car to run in the Indy 500. It bitched slapped the entire field of cars that year until its gearbox failed with two laps remaining. I wonder what we would have in today's cars if they hadn't banned the turbine and SOHC engines? At a minimum I think we would have seen OHC engines in production cars much sooner.
Was the 1967 Lincoln 462 the same engine as the 460? The 460 stroke was shorter and the bore was larger (marginally) Was the 462 a bored and stroked 430?
The 413 hit the cars in '59 I know the 1960 LCF had the 413 as the "standard" engine, so "long before" is only 12 months max. I think the C series (LCF) truck came out aboutJune or July 1959 - making "long before" closer to 10 months
Comparing to FORD OHV engines I'll give you that. The valve train on the 551M/351C was definitely inferior. As was the Bos 351 (and the Chevy 396)
They all had rocker and/or valve spring issues (but they ran insane speeds for pushrod engines)
The Chevy SBC was also legendary - and with proper oil changes could EASILY go 200,000 miles in the good years (when they didn't have "butter" camshafts)
So could 318s and even 225s.
If those engines had the advantage of today's oil technology and leadfree gasoline (with the proper valve materials) and EFI they would have run extremely stronly against today's engines as far as reliability is concerned.
The logenvity of todays engines has as much to do with those 3 items as anything else.
Leadfree fuel is the major advantage, followed by fuel injection and electronic engine controls, followed by lubrication technology (up untill about 2000). Today's oils are headed back due to emission demands reducing the EP additives etc.
And we'd probably have those flying cars that tehy promised us back in the late 50's. In general that echoes my thoughts on the OHC as well. IMHO they are just delaying the inevitable and losing mileage and durability in the mean time.
Much of what we have in the cars of today are based in racing's roots. I have no doubt that if turbines were allowed to run at Indy and the rest of the cars would have to conform and also run turbines or be perpetual loosers. Had the Indy cars gone turbine back then the fans would be open to them in production cars and actually demand them to be built. Chrysler went down that road briefly but interest never developed. Had Indy let the turbines run things would probably have turned out differently.
That could be said about most suitable power plants, early in their development stages... It may be true now, but that doesn't mean it will be later...
I'm not so sure about that. You know there was a guy on one of those cable shows a few years back who drove a turbine powered Vette. He drove it normally in traffic. And then there's the GM/Jay Leno thing. Here is an interesting article on the Chrysler turbine
...and just what do you know that makes your statement more truthful than mine? Chrysler had a turbine engine in a passenger vehicle back in the 1960s. It worked. Imagine what another 40-50 years of development might have brought. Do you realize how durable a turbine engine would be in a production car considering how long they last in airplanes? The fuel turbines burn is less expensive that gasoline. Just because the piston engine is the most common in automobiles today doesn't necessarily make it the best design.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.