Ford Flathead vs small block chevy debate!

I think it was Bruce Lancaster that said that Chevrolet had V8 Fords in mind when they designed the sbc. Why else would a 6 cylinder company build such a short v8 engine. I know for sure that Chevy was going after the youth market that was held by Ford at the time. Do you think that GM made a concious decision to package their engine close to the Flathead profile as to become the engine replacement choice and steal Ford's V8 heritage? Guess what.....I do! I think there is evidence to support this theory. That's why I hate any brand x,y, or z into early Ford. My wife even said one time "did'nt Chevrolet make any nice cars in which to put their own engines" Lol! I think that kinda says it all.

The cycle continues with the new gen LS Gm engine. That thing looks like a Ford engine..... all of a sudden it is very chic to have 10 headbolts with 4 evenly spaced around each cylinder. Generous cam diameter and high up in the block to lessen valvetrain weight. The heads are "rolled" over like the latest racing small block Ford heads and the ign and oil pump are UP FRONT! Crossbolt mains and a center thrust bearing oh yeah and the evenly spaced int/ext ports. All very Fordlike and suddenly cool. The hot rod ragazines used to ***** about some of these same characteristics when they were brought out by Ford, now that Chevrolet has embraced them it's the greatest thing. Gee I wonder if there is any bias in automotive journalism. Hell I remember the magazines calling the FE engines heavy boat anchors. Those things won at LeMans, Daytona, Sebring, Darlington and Pomona in open competition. Not some smalltime local event where the rulesmakers have the fix in place to keep the cheap sbc competitive. Harumpphh!
 
We are comparing motors from two different time periods. The flathead ford motor was the best motor made during its time. The 283, 327 chevy motors are better motors because of newer tech. But the chevy motor belongs in a 57 chev, not a ford.
 
P3140673.jpg

tr4-6.jpgHi Ford Lovers,

I am new to the club. In San Francisco, 1971, I bought my 1st car, a red/black 1966 Volvo Amazon 122S. The owner was a foxy, hippie brunette. She had great legs inside tight jeans, long curls of hair and deep violet eyes. I liked the Amazon because of it's simple body style.

My next car was a black/red 1962 MGA convertible. Me and the boys rode 3 inside. I liked the body lines and the sound of the muffler. It sounded better than a motorcycle.

My 3rd car was a 1957 Ford Fairlane, 2-door hardtop, 272 Motor, 3 speed Hurst on the floor. It was a big car, difficult to park but I loved the taillights at night, 2 big owl eyes beaming thru the fog. I loved the bench seats, the smell of octane and the way it rumbled softly when idling.

4th car was a gray 1956 Ford Mainline Business Coupe. It carried me everywhere and on the last ride, it even brought me and the boys home from Mexico until the rear end finally gave out.

My Dad was always a Ford man. He owned a 1952 Ford Crestline, 1959 Galaxie and 1967 Chevy Malibu. He was happiest with his Ford cars. The Chevy ran well but it didn't have any magic or romance to it. He would always wash and wax his Fords but I never did see him wash the Chevy.

Older Ford cars have that simple look to them. Sure, they have their rust issues like the rest of them old cars. When I was a kid, I'd look under the hood and frame of all the cars and I could tell that the Fords were made heavier duty. Fords were built better because they were designed for common folks, they were built to give regular people the best for their money.

Currently, I own a 1965 Triumph TR4 and a 1952 Ford Sunliner. It has been difficult for me deciding which car to keep because I only have time and money to keep one.

The gals like the little Triumph because they think it's cute. They think the Ford is an old man's car. But who cares what the gals think. When the chicks are gone, I want the car that will still be idling and purring outside, waiting for me...

Let me know your thoughts!

Gino in Denver
 
Last edited:
The SBC was designed by a team of engineers from Pontiac, chey and corporate. The Chevy management wanted an engine that cost no more tham 143 dollars to produce, thus the stamped rockers and integral intake and the fact that only 9 cores were necessary to cast the block. In other words a very inexpensive engine (Cheep) The fact that it became the mainstay of street rodding was because of it's size and availability, However they didn't become competive untill their displacement was inlarged. The 302 and 327 were hard to beet, You can thank Zora for that.
 
stagepony said:
View attachment 41312

View attachment 41313Hi Ford Lovers,

I am new to the club. In San Francisco, 1971, I bought my 1st car, a red/black 1966 Volvo Amazon 122S. The owner was a foxy, hippie brunette. She had great legs inside tight jeans, long curls of hair and deep violet eyes. I liked the Amazon because of it's simple body style.

My next car was a black/red 1962 MGA convertible. Me and the boys rode 3 inside. I liked the body lines and the sound of the muffler. It sounded better than a motorcycle.

My 3rd car was a 1957 Ford Fairlane, 2-door hardtop, 272 Motor, 3 speed Hurst on the floor. It was a big car, difficult to park but I loved the taillights at night, 2 big owl eyes beaming thru the fog. I loved the bench seats, the smell of octane and the way it rumbled softly when idling.

4th car was a gray 1956 Ford Mainline Business Coupe. It carried me everywhere and on the last ride, it even brought me and the boys home from Mexico until the rear end finally gave out.

My Dad was always a Ford man. He owned a 1952 Ford Crestline, 1959 Galaxie and 1967 Chevy Malibu. He was happiest with his Ford cars. The Chevy ran well but it didn't have any magic or romance to it. He would always wash and wax his Fords but I never did see him wash the Chevy.

Older Ford cars have that simple look to them. Sure, they have their rust issues like the rest of them old cars. When I was a kid, I'd look under the hood and frame of all the cars and I could tell that the Fords were made heavier duty. Fords were built better because they were designed for common folks, they were built to give regular people the best for their money.

Currently, I own a 1965 Triumph TR4 and a 1952 Ford Sunliner. It has been difficult for me deciding which car to keep because I only have time and money to keep one.

The gals like the little Triumph because they think it's cute. They think the Ford is an old man's car. But who cares what the gals think. When the chicks are gone, I want the car that will still be idling and purring outside, waiting for me...

Let me know your thoughts!

Gino in Denver
Click to expand...
I had a '66 TR4 A with IRS when it was new. I bought a '53 Ford Crestline Sunliner in '73 for $125.00. I still have the '53...:D Vic
 
stagepony said:
View attachment 41312

View attachment 41313Hi Ford Lovers,

I am new to the club. In San Francisco, 1971, I bought my 1st car, a red/black 1966 Volvo Amazon 122S. The owner was a foxy, hippie brunette. She had great legs inside tight jeans, long curls of hair and deep violet eyes. I liked the Amazon because of it's simple body style.

My next car was a black/red 1962 MGA convertible. Me and the boys rode 3 inside. I liked the body lines and the sound of the muffler. It sounded better than a motorcycle.

My 3rd car was a 1957 Ford Fairlane, 2-door hardtop, 272 Motor, 3 speed Hurst on the floor. It was a big car, difficult to park but I loved the taillights at night, 2 big owl eyes beaming thru the fog. I loved the bench seats, the smell of octane and the way it rumbled softly when idling.

4th car was a gray 1956 Ford Mainline Business Coupe. It carried me everywhere and on the last ride, it even brought me and the boys home from Mexico until the rear end finally gave out.

My Dad was always a Ford man. He owned a 1952 Ford Crestline, 1959 Galaxie and 1967 Chevy Malibu. He was happiest with his Ford cars. The Chevy ran well but it didn't have any magic or romance to it. He would always wash and wax his Fords but I never did see him wash the Chevy.

Older Ford cars have that simple look to them. Sure, they have their rust issues like the rest of them old cars. When I was a kid, I'd look under the hood and frame of all the cars and I could tell that the Fords were made heavier duty. Fords were built better because they were designed for common folks, they were built to give regular people the best for their money.

Currently, I own a 1965 Triumph TR4 and a 1952 Ford Sunliner. It has been difficult for me deciding which car to keep because I only have time and money to keep one.

The gals like the little Triumph because they think it's cute. They think the Ford is an old man's car. But who cares what the gals think. When the chicks are gone, I want the car that will still be idling and purring outside, waiting for me...

Let me know your thoughts!

Gino in Denver
Click to expand...
I think you bought that Volvo because of the brunette's body style!
 
One of the main reasons is the small block chevy engine has a rear sump oil pan that does not get in the way of the cross member.the small block fords have front sump oil pans which cause troubles. many adapters were manufactured to utilize stock ford trannies in the late 50's making it a clean swap without having to hack the car to pieces. I run a flathead in my 37 and always will,but have nothing against someone running sbc. I would rather see a neat old ford driving down the road with a misfit motor than not driving at all!
 
actually rodders started replacing flatheads with pushrod engines in the 50`s because flatheads were boring,slow and unreliable but not cheaper. let me get this right. its a sin to replace an unreliable flathead with a chevy v-8 in your hot rod but butchering up an old ford to replace an unreliable trans with an S -10 is recommended by the mentors on this site. hmmm rodders have been installing chevys since 1955 but i guess we will never learn.
 
barryfromvictoria said:
actually rodders started replacing flatheads with pushrod engines in the 50`s because flatheads were boring,slow and unreliable but not cheaper. let me get this right. its a sin to replace an unreliable flathead with a chevy v-8 in your hot rod but butchering up an old ford to replace an unreliable trans with an S -10 is recommended by the mentors on this site. hmmm rodders have been installing chevys since 1955 but i guess we will never learn.
Click to expand...

Unreliable???:confused: I respectfully submit that if you think Ford Flatheads and Transmissions are unreliable, you don’t have much experience with them. We have seven Flathead Ford products including a ’39 Zephyr V-12 and a ’49 Cosmo 337. I’ve put 140,000+ miles on our ’47 59A in the last 14 years. I think that the notion of Flatheads being unreliable has been perpetuated by people that don’t know or understand the care and feeding of Flatheads. I have nothing against 350 GM motors or people that put them Flathead era Fords but I don’t like most of the excuses used to justify the swap.:eek: Just my opinion.
 
Often times when I read some people extolling the virtues of a flathead Ford engine versus a small block Chevrolet engine, I get very confused when I see the many pictures of flathead engines on this forum. If these people are so much in favor of the flathead engine, why do I frequently see pictures of these engines with aftermarket heads, intake manifolds, ignition systems, and headers added to their special engines? Is it because deep down inside they really aren’t happy with the way the engine was originally built?
 
Bruce Rossiter said:
Often times when I read some people extolling the virtues of a flathead Ford engine versus a small block Chevrolet engine, I get very confused when I see the many pictures of flathead engines on this forum. If these people are so much in favor of the flathead engine, why do I frequently see pictures of these engines with aftermarket heads, intake manifolds, ignition systems, and headers added to their special engines? Is it because deep down inside they really aren’t happy with the way the engine was originally built?
Click to expand...

Have you never seen a Chevy 350 with aftermarket valve covers, intake manifolds, headers, etc.? I've even seen some that look like Flathead heads to try and disguise the 350... Most of the things you mentioned are eye candy, not necessarily performance related, and I doubt that you'll find many on this forum that don't like a fully dressed Flathead. I may be going out on a limb but I don't think the majority of us here on the forum are interested in setting land speed records with our Flatheads; most of us enjoy them for the nostalgia:)
 
What's all this talk about SBC's??? By the way, what does "SBC" stand for?.... Sorry Bunch of Crap???:p
 
Henry Floored said:
I think it was Bruce Lancaster that said that Chevrolet had V8 Fords in mind when they designed the sbc. Why else would a 6 cylinder company build such a short v8 engine. I know for sure that Chevy was going after the youth market that was held by Ford at the time. Do you think that GM made a concious decision to package their engine close to the Flathead profile as to become the engine replacement choice and steal Ford's V8 heritage? Guess what.....I do! I think there is evidence to support this theory. That's why I hate any brand x,y, or z into early Ford. My wife even said one time "did'nt Chevrolet make any nice cars in which to put their own engines" Lol! I think that kinda says it all.

The cycle continues with the new gen LS Gm engine. That thing looks like a Ford engine..... all of a sudden it is very chic to have 10 headbolts with 4 evenly spaced around each cylinder. Generous cam diameter and high up in the block to lessen valvetrain weight. The heads are "rolled" over like the latest racing small block Ford heads and the ign and oil pump are UP FRONT! Crossbolt mains and a center thrust bearing oh yeah and the evenly spaced int/ext ports. All very Fordlike and suddenly cool. The hot rod ragazines used to ***** about some of these same characteristics when they were brought out by Ford, now that Chevrolet has embraced them it's the greatest thing. Gee I wonder if there is any bias in automotive journalism. Hell I remember the magazines calling the FE engines heavy boat anchors. Those things won at LeMans, Daytona, Sebring, Darlington and Pomona in open competition. Not some smalltime local event where the rulesmakers have the fix in place to keep the cheap sbc competitive. Harumpphh!
Click to expand...
It's interesting Ford doesn't even build a pushrod motor anymore because it's common knowledge that an overhead cam is more effecient.GM would have went that route but didn't have as deep of pockets.Ford is getting more power with less cubes.The mod motors are shorter(wider),but for some reason the industry is embracing the LS motors.You mentioned that the FE motors were boat anchors to some people,but are only 50 lbs.heavier than a small block and capable of a lot more cubes.
 
barryfromvictoria said:
actually rodders started replacing flatheads with pushrod engines in the 50`s because flatheads were boring,slow and unreliable but not cheaper. let me get this right. its a sin to replace an unreliable flathead with a chevy v-8 in your hot rod but butchering up an old ford to replace an unreliable trans with an S -10 is recommended by the mentors on this site. hmmm rodders have been installing chevys since 1955 but i guess we will never learn.
Click to expand...


OK let's straighten this out. The Borg- Warner T-5 whether it came in a Mustang, Jeep or S10 has origins in the Ford "Toploader" design. The S10 version is often preferred for it's forward shifter location.

My gosh this age old argument is such a joke! How about this...... picture a huge number of `50's- `60's GM or Chrysler musclecars getting converted to the newest and most powerful and efficient Ford V8's like the new 5.0. Do ya think enthusiasts of the GM and Mopar persuasion would raise an eyebrow? Heck! those guys squirm if a number or decal is out of place. I cannot understand why in the hell the leap is almost always to the GM parts bins when updating an old Ford. Ford by virtue of Lincoln has been producing OHV V8's since 1952. Don't give me that you can't find one or make it work. It's better to bastardize it with crosstown junk?
 
You don't believe that Chevy had it's sights set on getting in on the Ford action? Dig this memo from 1953 by Zora Arkus Duntov to GM (Chevy) management.....

button_previous.gif​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana] [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]“THOUGHTS PERTAINING TO YOUTH, HOT RODDERS, AND CHEVROLET”[/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]The Hot Rod movement and interest in things connected with hop-up and speed is still growing. As an indication: the publications devoted to hot rodding and hop-upping, of which some half dozen have a very large circulation and are distributed nationally, did not exist some six years ago.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]From cover to cover, they are full of Fords. This is not surprising that the majority of hot rodders are eating, sleeping, and dreaming modified Fords. They know Ford parts from stern to stern better than Ford people themselves.[/FONT]​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]A young man buying a magazine for the first time immediatly becomes introduced to Ford. It is reasonable to assume that when hot rodders or hot rod-influenced persons buy transportation, they buy Fords. As they progress in age and income, they graduate from jalopies to second-hand Fords, then to new Fords.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]Should we consider that it would be desirable to make these youths Chevrolet-minded? I think that we are in a position to carry out a successful attempt. However, there are many factors againt us:[/FONT]
​


  1. [FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]
    [*]Loyalty and experience with Ford.
    [*]Hop-up industry is geared with Ford.
    [*]Law of number-thousands are and will be working on Fords for active competition.
    [*]Appearance of Ford’s overhead V8, now one year ahead of us.     [/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]When a superior line of GM V8’s appeared, there where remarkably few attempts to develop these, and none too successful. Also, the appearance of the V8’s Chrysler was met with reluctance even though the success of Ardun-Fords conditioned them to the acceptance of Firepower.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]This year is the first one in which isolated Chrysler development met with succsess. The Bonneville records are divided between Ardun-Fords and Chryslers.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]Like all people, hot rodders are attracted by novelty. However, bitter experience has taught them that new development is costly and long, and therefore they are extremely conservative. From my observation, it takes an advanced hot rodder some three years to stumble toward the successful development of a new design. Overhead Fords will be in this stable between 1956 and 1957.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]The slide rule potential of our RPO V8 engine is extremely high, but to let things run their natural course will put us one year behind-and then not too many hot rodders will pick Chevrolet for development. One factor which can largely overcome this handicap would be the availability of ready-enginered parts for higher output:[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]If the use of the Chevrolet engine would be made easy and the very first attempts would be crowned with succsess, the appeal of the new RPO V8 engine will take hold and not have the stigma of expensiveness like the Cadillac or Chrysler, and a swing to Chevrolet may be anticipated.This means the development of a range of special parts-camshafts, valves, springs, manifolds, pistons, and such-should be made available to the public.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]To make good in this field, the RPO parts must pertain not only to the engine but to the chassis coponents as well. In fact, the use of light alloys and brake development, such as composite drums and discs, are already on the agenda of the Research and Development group.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]These thoughts are offered for what they are worth-one man’s thinking aloud on the subject.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]Signed: Z. Arkus-Duntov [/FONT]
​
[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]dated: 12/16/53[/FONT]














[FONT=sans-serif, arial, verdana]I have no problem with Chevy doing their thing if they built their own heritage, and I am certainly not knocking their products. My problem lies in the strong suspicion that they deliberately wormed their way into the V8 Ford genre to get the desired effect the quick, cheap and easy way.[/FONT]

​
 
Bruce Rossiter said:
Often times when I read some people extolling the virtues of a flathead Ford engine versus a small block Chevrolet engine, I get very confused when I see the many pictures of flathead engines on this forum. If these people are so much in favor of the flathead engine, why do I frequently see pictures of these engines with aftermarket heads, intake manifolds, ignition systems, and headers added to their special engines? Is it because deep down inside they really aren’t happy with the way the engine was originally built?
Click to expand...



Nonsense! You are walking on thin ice if you are trying to make the point that Chevy engines are used stock as they come from the factory. As a matter of fact I think the Chevy V8 is the engine most in need of the aftermarket to keep pace. The hot rod magazines would never have made it without all the advertisers buying space to peddle their sbc parts over the years. The "magazine writers" had a huge financial stake in promoting the sbc and the sheeple bought it as the only way to go. The mindset still exists today. A lot of good Fords got ruined this way.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top