benefits of distributor-less ignition
12-18-2014, 06:08 AM
#33
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lagrange ky
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i feel like its just a matter of time before somebody (me) throws a foxbody ecm on a bbc with a ls firing order. ( in fords its 13726548, draw it out on paper compared to chevy cylinder numbering. its the same.) go ahead and compare an ls to smallblock ford on paper. you will realize gm took the sbf and dropped a few mil to come up with the ls. take an ls header and a 302/351, chopoff the flange and tell me which is which? sure the ports of the head are more efficient but millions of dollars will do that.
im glad chevy has decided to continue on with pushrods. but i feel like pushrod tech has reached its limits for our life time with oem and they will be moving to ohc within 10 years.
they are already direct injecting. which we will never see as long as we have bbc in our boats.
im glad chevy has decided to continue on with pushrods. but i feel like pushrod tech has reached its limits for our life time with oem and they will be moving to ohc within 10 years.
they are already direct injecting. which we will never see as long as we have bbc in our boats.
12-18-2014, 06:30 AM
#34
Registered
iTrader: (2)
i feel like its just a matter of time before somebody (me) throws a foxbody ecm on a bbc with a ls firing order. ( in fords its 13726548, draw it out on paper compared to chevy cylinder numbering. its the same.) go ahead and compare an ls to smallblock ford on paper. you will realize gm took the sbf and dropped a few mil to come up with the ls. take an ls header and a 302/351, chopoff the flange and tell me which is which? sure the ports of the head are more efficient but millions of dollars will do that.
im glad chevy has decided to continue on with pushrods. but i feel like pushrod tech has reached its limits for our life time with oem and they will be moving to ohc within 10 years.
they are already direct injecting. which we will never see as long as we have bbc in our boats.
im glad chevy has decided to continue on with pushrods. but i feel like pushrod tech has reached its limits for our life time with oem and they will be moving to ohc within 10 years.
they are already direct injecting. which we will never see as long as we have bbc in our boats.
As far as pushrod motors they should have been payed to rest years ago. Yes Ford started coming of age with there over head cam stuff but the Japs were doing it long b4 them on a production level and the technology for the OHC has been there since the 60's. My gripe with Ford and Chrysler is why the follower after the cam? Why not the cam on the valve like it should be?
12-18-2014, 07:13 AM
#35
Ford engines in some of the Jags are the same as in a Ford for the most part but use cam on valve. Only issue was the guy genious that did the initial stackups didnt realy know how to stack up a valve train. Didt scew with the engine but caused a lot of heads to be scrapped before they could be installed because they were out of speck. Of course he never built an engine or did a valve job on a old Jag.
Reason behind not using bucket tappes is space. Think it was like 1.5 inches taller height over cam followers. I find it amusing that the first engines were either over head cam or valves in block (flat heads). Most think over head cams are new stuff. Most dont realize that it took some 35 40 years to develop a push rod motor. The pushrod motor was a breakthrough as they were cheeper to build, manufacture, rebuild, smaller easier to package, lighter, produced better low end power. Look at a 302 ford motor fully assembled next to a 4.6 Modular motor with the heads removed they are the same size. pUT THE HEADS ON THE MOD MOTOR and its bigger than a big block.
The roller folower design I found amusing as it didnt realy to me ever get rid of the pushrod. Sure looks like a pushrod comming out of the lifter to me its short part of the lifter but a pushrod.
Another thing is the ability to advance and retard the cams in newer motors but anyone ever heard of Cam-A-GoGo? It was a cam gear with a spring that could advance and retard a cam in a pushrod motor. Ford at first could advance a cam but not retard it I mentioned this set up to them think they are now using a somthiing similar now.
My thoughts leaned towards get rid of the cam completely Renault has had sucess with it.
Split port heads were allso a big improvement in pushrod motors such as the 3.8. Heads were done for most all ford pushrod motors and out did the OHC engines.
Reason behind not using bucket tappes is space. Think it was like 1.5 inches taller height over cam followers. I find it amusing that the first engines were either over head cam or valves in block (flat heads). Most think over head cams are new stuff. Most dont realize that it took some 35 40 years to develop a push rod motor. The pushrod motor was a breakthrough as they were cheeper to build, manufacture, rebuild, smaller easier to package, lighter, produced better low end power. Look at a 302 ford motor fully assembled next to a 4.6 Modular motor with the heads removed they are the same size. pUT THE HEADS ON THE MOD MOTOR and its bigger than a big block.
The roller folower design I found amusing as it didnt realy to me ever get rid of the pushrod. Sure looks like a pushrod comming out of the lifter to me its short part of the lifter but a pushrod.
Another thing is the ability to advance and retard the cams in newer motors but anyone ever heard of Cam-A-GoGo? It was a cam gear with a spring that could advance and retard a cam in a pushrod motor. Ford at first could advance a cam but not retard it I mentioned this set up to them think they are now using a somthiing similar now.
My thoughts leaned towards get rid of the cam completely Renault has had sucess with it.
Split port heads were allso a big improvement in pushrod motors such as the 3.8. Heads were done for most all ford pushrod motors and out did the OHC engines.
12-18-2014, 07:42 AM
#36
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lagrange ky
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course getting rid of the cam completly would be the way to go. with a solenoid opoening the valve. one could literally go from the smallest of "cams" to the largest of "cams" within the time it takes for an engine to rev up from 500 to 8,000 rpm and be efficient everywhere inbetween because of the programming of the solenoid.
12-18-2014, 07:44 AM
#37
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lagrange ky
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A buddy of mine has been doing those kinds of ecm swaps as long as I've known him and it's been awhile. He's on old farm boy that can barely read and the stuff if seen him build with no money is unbelievable. If it cost him more than $100 to put a direct fire ignition on something he'd be crying. The parts are there just takes a little bit of time and determination to make it work.
As far as pushrod motors they should have been payed to rest years ago. Yes Ford started coming of age with there over head cam stuff but the Japs were doing it long b4 them on a production level and the technology for the OHC has been there since the 60's. My gripe with Ford and Chrysler is why the follower after the cam? Why not the cam on the valve like it should be?
As far as pushrod motors they should have been payed to rest years ago. Yes Ford started coming of age with there over head cam stuff but the Japs were doing it long b4 them on a production level and the technology for the OHC has been there since the 60's. My gripe with Ford and Chrysler is why the follower after the cam? Why not the cam on the valve like it should be?
12-18-2014, 08:00 AM
#38
Registered
Here is what I came up with for mounting my GM LS3 truck coils. I used my manifold bolts and made 8 little brackets and spacer tubes. It worked out very well and the factory coil harnesses were long enough to accommodate this modified spacing. They are down semi-hidden beneath the manifolds and I am able to use standard GM truck ignition wires. I tried to use readily available replacement parts where ever I could to reduce any boating season delays waiting for exotic crap to come in when something breaks. I do like the way it turned out. Motor is very clean on top.
12-18-2014, 08:04 AM
#40
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Here is what I came up with for mounting my GM LS3 truck coils. I used my manifold bolts and made 8 little brackets and spacer tubes. It worked out very well and the factory coil harnesses were long enough to accommodate this modified spacing. They are down semi-hidden beneath the manifolds and I am able to use standard GM truck ignition wires. I tried to use readily available replacement parts where ever I could to reduce any boating season delays waiting for exotic crap to come in when something breaks. I do like the way it turned out. Motor is very clean on top.
