No I'm no expert I only repair restore flatheads for a living....so I know nothing about them or their drivability if you don't know me don't give your opinion about me
170 H.P for three thousand dollars? No thanks! Let me rephrase that. If I had a bunch of other cars already, I'd do it. and I plan to do it with one of my flattys in the garage. But I need something fast, traditional and cheap first.
i cant believe iv read all this and im confused. laughs.. for the guy who has the hate from down under.. i can only think he is getting his cam info from the 305 thread.. where the topic talks about chevy using a different heat treating method for its cams ( its the only place i can ever remember reading about problems with sbc cams as iv never personally experience problems from any mouse iv owned.. only engine i ever had issues with was from a ford pinto and it was a POS.. nothing to do with ford.. laughs).. from what i understand this was only done on the 305.. now im not loyal to any engine brand.. but i can say iv never ever experience anything like this guy from down under and i too want his weed. for the guys who say chevys are boring.. now this really confuses me. how is a engine boring? you can only dress them up so many different ways.. finned or not finned valve covers.. multiple carbs etc.. the flathead looks diffrent. so dose a hemi. so we have our options for looks. blown or not blown, turbo charged, etc. you look at a engine long enough you will get bored of it too even if its a hemi, or a flathead.. so, i can only guess we are talking about how the engine performs.. since thats what gets my heart pumping.. not looking at a valve cover.. and there are way to many variables.. and im sure you can build each brand to perform similar. we have engine sound. and engines sound diffrent.. so we come down to what i think makes a engine its cubic inchs.. dun matter who casts the block.. big cubes good in my book. the more i think about "sbc engines are boring".. just trips me out, since i have never got excited by looking at a engine.. mashing the go pedal yes.. now i gave my stupid opnion.. i would like you ford guys to give me a webpage telling the diffrence between a 1970 351C and a 351W.. i have a 351C from a racnhero 500 ( or sumtin id have to look at the name plates in day light ) . and trying to figure out why people prefer the W's from what iv been reading on here.. thank you.. i hope my post dose not come off as drugged up ramblings of none sense.. which im sure it will and i should probably try to sleep. ( also i cant help but think some of these die hard flathead guys, sell parts.. to make some of the crazy tails iv read on here.. which seems to contradict them selfs in there own threads ) and i think flathead sond and look cool and would like to own one for my tbucket project.. but i doubt ill ever will.. but. i just like real input, and its seem pretty well documentsed what a flathead can and cant do.. and what its pros and cons are.. they you get some crazy tall tails thrown in and just makes me think hyping up a product to sell more over priced stuff.. i would like to apologize in advance for even responding to such a bait and hook topic.. i should know better, but everyone else is giving there opinion figure id give one from a noobs perspective. chris.
My personal experience with SBC cam failures is from my mechanic friends during the 70's. A lot of Chevy V-8's in the early 70's lost cam lobes.So many that a cam and lifter kits at the parts stores got quite inexpensive.Chevy put the blame on the company that heat treats the camshafts. During this same time period Pontiac V-8's were tossing timing chains,Guys were pulling pans on Ford 351's to replace oil pumps seized by pieces of valve guide seal,and even Honda Civic engines fried up in 50,000 miles. Is a row of billet SBC's boring? yes... Is a row of inline GM engines boring,yes as is a row of Flattie V-8's
Why don't you tell that to the millions of owners who bought small blocks in brand new vehicles from ~1978 thru the late 80's. Almost Every small block built for 10 years straight wore the cam lobes off within 25,00 to 60,000 miles. My best friend Brian bought a new 81 blazer with a 350, at just over 20,000 miles the cam lobes wore off. He took it back to the dealer and they soaked him for a rebuild. The warranty was only 12,000 miles/ one year and neither the dealership nor GM would admit that it was a GM problem. My Father bougth a new Jimmy in 82. The 305 chewed the cam lobes off at around 50,000 miles, the auto transmission burned up at 75,000, another new engine at 124,00 followed by another rebuilt tranny. The 3rd engine went in at around 180,000. He got an average of 60,000 miles out of 3 engines and 3 transmissions and it all started and ended at Shaw GMC. Another high school friend, John Dambetus bought his Blazer in 83. The first engine lost it's cam lobes right around the 50,000 mark. John had already spent a ton of money on custom paint and air brush work on the truck so he had the dealership put another engine in. Like all 350's, it would start with a puff of smoke almost from new. Lyle Johnson, he got his mechanics apprentice ship thru Ben Hoggofstraten and the local Texaco. Lyles 79 Pickup had the same cam failure that every other GM product failed from for some 10+++ straight years. Even today there are posts on the forums of small block GM's that have yet again lost the cam lobes. That's GM, you'd think that they'd know how to build engines -And they do because millions of owners have been bilked by the dealership/GM for a complete new engines/rebuilds while GM raked in the profits. -The GM system is working just like it should, they are putting their hands in your wallet as often as they can get away with it and the sheeple think that is normal. ..And over and above the sucker punch to the nuts cam lobe ordeal, GM engines are poorly designed with the distributor sitting directly behind the carburetor. At the slightest hint of a gas leak the distributor handily lights the engine compartment on fire and the result is that GM gets to sell you a new truck/car. That was the fate of my Brother Phil's 75,000 mile Scottsdale pick up. For the last 30 years he has carried a fire extinguisher in his vehicles including his 92 chev extended cab in which the engine self destructed at 85,000 miles. The badge on the grille was a "bowtie" and the engine was still the same poorly designed oil burning cab lobe eating sbc. (btw, he put a new engine in it only to have the tranny go out within another year). That just represents a couple of my friends, my Father and my brother and the total amount of worn out cam lobed rebuilds that they were bilked for was more than a dozen. While my family and friends were buying new trucks in the 70's/80's, I bought an new 1979 F150 with a Ford small block and the original engine sits in my garage today with just under 435,000 miles on it. No cam lobes wearing off and the original 3+1 overdrive tranny is now in my '70 Ranger. So your saying that GM can't build an engine right? I totally agree. My 41 Business coupe was pulled from the bush in 1996. The original Flathead was still in the car and the speedometer showed 89,000 miles. Dave Martens, The former owner told me that they had parked the old Ford in 1963 but they had started it in the early 70's. Dave told me that with a little work the Flathead might run. Several weeks later: $20 for Stromberg carb rebuild kit $10 for fuel pump rebuild kit $4 for generator brushes $7 for starter brushes and end plate bushings $12 for Autolite plugs $67 for a new battery and the car was running. An additional $12 went into a new fan belt which allowed me to cruise the highways at 70 miles per hour. I sold the car to Roger Marion out on the west coast. I had put an additional 700 miles on the old Ford Flathead and it was running strong when I sold it. My 31 Model A rumbleseat coupe still has it's 4 banger. From 1928 thru 1954, GM outsold Ford in every single year by an average of 2 to 1 Yet when you go to a car show you only see hundreds of A's, T's, 32's, 40's 49 Ford's and 50 Mercs while you almost NEVER see a 31, 32, 40 or 49 GM car and if you do the original engine has long since expired. So even though GM out produced and out sold Ford by 180% from 1927 thru 1954, the only cars that survived were FORDS. And of all the Fords that survived, many unlearned people are putting oil burning, cam lob eating poorly designed nickel and dime sbc engines into them even though the original Flathead may or may not have been started and run. Tell me, If GM engines and cars were so great then how come that EVEN THOUGH GM OUTSOLD FORD BY ALMOST 2 to ONE, NONE OF THEM SURVIVED?? Where are the 1914 chev's? scrapped Where are the '27 chev's? junked Were are all the 1932 chevs? junked Were are all the '40 chevs? scrapped Where are all the 49 or 50 chevs? -the engines/transmission expired at an early date and all were junked unlike the 100,000 1914 Model T's that are still registered and drivable today. ------------------ Ford wanted to build a reliable car that needed little maintenance and would last indefinitely, and he did. GM Fully Invented the idea of Planned Obsolescence in 1924 (Alfred Sloan, CEO General Motors) and Sloan fully implemented a death date into every part of every GM car by 1927. General Motors founded the idea of causing their products to die on cue so that you the consumer would come back for either more new parts or for another new car. GM has a 90 year history of building things that break in your hands in order that the company share holders can fill their pockets while legally putting their hands in your wallets.. hmmmm, more than 100 years ago Henry Ford wanted to build reliable cars, He was successful, His cars with engines attached are still running around today. While GM invented and fully implemented Planned Obsolescence in order to sell you more cars and more parts while making you think they are the greatest company in the world. Their cars, even though they out sold Ford by almost 2 to 1 are all but gone and the engines and transmissions that they came with are rarer then hens teeth. They are BOTH SUCCESSFUL but I wouldn't buy anything form a company who's only track record is and has always been to build the most chrome plated plastic in order to attract people that have no clue as to what's under the skin or of the history/track record of the company that built their name on their CEO's grand scheme of putting their hands in your wallet as often as they could by fully inventing the idea of designing things to break. That's GM, That's Planned Obsolescence And That term, that idea was GM's, Alfred Sloan's, Not Ford's. ------------------------------------ Yet -still, there is nobody here that wants to face the facts and tell me why?, Why are there so many 30, 50, 70, 80, and 100+ year old Fords still running around even though GM out produced Ford by 1.8 to 1 For Each and Every Year from 1927 to ?????? I'll tell you why, Planned Obsolescence, 1924, Alfred Prichard Sloan CEO General Motors. And although fully implemented in 1927, General Motors has Never stopped building things to break in your hands in order that you scrap the old one and buy a new one from them. -------------------------------------- The sad fact is that because everything that GM has ever built was junk and died an early death with their bodies being sent for scrap, Now, The so called "traditional crowd" Must pick on the old Fords who drove themselves into the field behind the barn. - They survived the war and maybe even a depression or 2 only to have unlearned people yank the original (ran when parked) engines out of them and put a oil burning cam lobe eating torchmiester "Alfred Prichard Sloan" designed sbc engines into them. What a disgrace, not to the Ford cars, trucks, bangers and/or V8's that lived well above and beyond the competition, but to the people who don't have a chev Body to put their Alfred Sloan designed sbc into. .
....And no one needs to remind us of all the "Barn Find" threads on the hamb of which 90% are old Fords (and/or maybe even a few off brands) but seldom do you ever see a "I found another 32, 34 or 40 chev barn find" thread. Why? -Planned Obsolescence is and has been working like clock work for General Motors since 1927, That includes oil burning, low nickel content, cam lob eating sbc of which even GM would not warranty at 24,000 miles but they would sell you a complete rebuild at your cost. .
You don't even have to ask someone who's never owned 'one' what their opinion is on 'one', Because they are always too willing to tell you using their expert opinion on how bad they are. .
Why not compare apples to apples? Why don't you go out and find a 1935 chev with the terribly unreliable 6 cylinder engine and rebuild it? That 35 chev engine would never make 170hp even with $10,000 thrown at it and if it did it would self destruct within a few thousand miles just like they did when new with ~60 hp. In fact, I don't think you could find any gm built engine that was sold new across the street from the local Flathead Ford dealer that can or could stand up then, and in today's age it would still cost you the same amount (of more) to rebuild that GM 6 cylinder as it does to rebuild a reliable long lasting Ford Flathead. If you could find a '35 GM engine, the resulting rebuild would still be an engine that would chew up and throw it's camshaft into the engine compartment just like all GM 6 cylinders did from 1935 until the late 50's when that 6 was replaced. -And Before General Motors introduced the 1935 (to late 50's) 6 cylinders, it was the 1920's copper clad 4 cylinder engines that were the natural disaster called a GM power plant. From GM's very inception in the early 1900's and all the way up to today, GM has built nothing but cam and bearing eating low nickel oil burning disasters Thier legacy still stands today, and that legacy is today's cam lob eating GM built oil burners called the sbc. .
I think "Ford" is the word that I've most seen since I joined the forum, this word appears a few times in a page and I have formed the idea that most are fans of Ford's or all members of Hamb are.
. Are the sbc fans scared of comparing a sbc to a sbf? It would seem so because all involved want to compare a modern engine with a 80 year old V8/design that is and was the basis for all of hotrodding and racing. Before the Flathead V8, it was the Model T and Model A 4 bangers that were winning 98% of all races. -That would have been back when GM was going thru the copper clad engine fiasco of the 20's. Even up to ~1960, Flathead Ford's were still competitve on the circle tracks as the speed equipment and the hotrodders tricks were plentiful and time proven. -It took a few years for the sbc to gain speed as new intakes and cams were not widely available until the Aftermarket caught up and was ready to get behind the sbc, Until then, Flatheads were still winning races. -------------------------- This thread seems to be more about comparing a recent engine/technology with the original first ever cast in one piece (en-bloc) hotrod engine design in the late 20's and built in droves thru the 40's and 50's. The truth is that the sbc fans don't have an engine, a heritage or even any cars to speak of prior to 1955 that can or could compare to the legendary Flathead Ford. (all the gm cars went for scrap leaving just the 'ran when parked' Model T, A and V8 Fords to be featured in all the 'barn find' thread on the HAMB (not to mention every car show and cruise night). Come on sbc guys, why don't you compare the sbc to the sbf on any other forum that features non tradition late model V8's?. -Forums where they feature non traditional late model cars/engines. It is sad that people have to compare a late model V8 to the original early design of the first en bloc V8 engine designed and mass produced by Ford. (sad but not unexpected). .
buenos dias and greetings from the far north, Just as it was back in the 20's, 30's 40's etc, Ford was racing, was racing history and was winning almost all races. Ford is and always has been traditional in everything they do, and that includes a long history of building quality long lasting durable engines. Chev never won anything other than your hard earned dollars by forcing you to buy more parts and more cars because the old ones died an early death. Chev history is all about keeping the past quiet so that the new car buyer has never heard about their reputation for building engines that self destruct. sad but true, this is American Automotive History.
Hello from the south! That's Chev 4 & 6 straight engines from the beginning to the 1936 had a "splash" lubrication for the rod bearings and pressurized lubrication to the three main bearings. That´s make those engines not during so long, is this a case of a Planned Obsolescence? Or a poor knowledgeable from the GM
I think it sucks and is very unusual that your friends have had bad luck with the same Chevrolet products that millions(literally)have used for decades with minimal issues. I don't and have never worked for Chevrolet or any other automaker, I have just enjoyed using their products for many years, as have many, many of my good friends and family. That said, I think flatheads are as cool as shit. I have three out back, I have even tried doing TECH threads fooling around with these ancient treasures. I WILL have one running one of these days; until then, I'll be happy with Chevies and Buick Nailheads. Check out my scrambling around in the garage if you think I hate flat motors, I just don't have 'em figured out yet: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510805&highlight=flathead
An old friend of mine tell me about those engines and asked himself why those engines didn't had a forced lubrication system...
Nice stuff man!! Recently the other day I purchase my first flatie a 59 ab, I'm so exciting... In my country the GM created excellents cars for the Argentinian market in the 60 and 70, very durables...
Mmm Love!! Why some use a GM engines on your old Ford's? I don't want to be a close mind, but for my, the things in your place... A Ford with a Ford...
Hey Mo... Agree with some of your points but Im perplexed about one of them. "And over and above the sucker punch to the nuts cam lobe ordeal, GM engines are poorly designed with the distributor sitting directly behind the carburetor. At the slightest hint of a gas leak the distributor handily lights the engine compartment on fire and the result is that GM gets to sell you a new truck/car " HUH???? Been driving SBM and SBC with distributors on the rear for years - tell me how a distributor alone lights up an engine bay? More to the point, are you suggesting a 4BBL: carb cant leak fuel from the front of the carb on to the dissy at the front of a SBF? And if it can tell us how the car would catch fire ? I fail to see (and have NEVER SEEN) a distributor burn down an eng bay/car because the carb leaked a little fuel. Ford put the generator right in front of Strombergs back then and dual carb intakes made it worse but we're talking about a generator not a distributor. And what about all the small block Mopars, early Hemis and others with dist just in front of or just behind the carb....are the disasters too? I dont understand the rationale. Can you enlighten us? Rat
I'm not retyping shit. George Jones just came on, I'm more thinking about pussy than 80 year old engines. I also have a Y Block. Will that get me laid? That's why we build cars anyway, right?
Any and all gas leaks are pushed backward by both the fan and by air moving thru the rad. That is to say that any fuel leak would be hard pressed to move forward, more or less into the wind. Even at idle, the draft from the fan pushes gas/fumes toward the firewall and that is right where GM places their distributor. Up until ~1975 every vehicle ran points, Designing a block with the distributor at the back of the engine just made it tougher for people to service things like points/condenser/dwell etc. But the real problem happens when air movement pushes leaked fuels directly into the line of fire that is the distributor. Chrysler also places the distributor to the rear of the block on certain engines. . . .
I'm building a flat motor for my roadster and it is expensive. I would pull the flathead, slip in a cheap small block. When things get better financially, rebuild the flat motor. At least you will be able to drive your hot rod while you get around to your flathead, isn't that what its all about? At the end of the day you only have to please yourself...and sometimes your wife.
Moefuzz I have read most of the threads you have posted on this suject AND say bullshit to most of it. I have been in the auto repair business well over 40 years.. I have 30 plus cars including a stock 39 Ford standard and a stock 37 Chevy coupe. The Chevy will run off and leave the Ford in the dust. That is why the 39 Ford is getting a 283 I can walk faster than it will go. I have replaced all the flathead cars I have with sbc and am damn glad I did. Flatheads are good looking engines but way to slow for me.
In the early days almost all engines were non pressure, they didn't have an oil pump -as per say. The Model T 4 banger was changed very little from the early 1900's thru to it's last days in 1927. The 1928 Model A's engine is really just a Model T engine with a few upgrades. Like most other manufacturers, the Ford engines had no real oil pressure and no real oil pump yet the design of the entire engine (as a package) allowed for oil to move throughout the engine with just enough reaching into all areas that needed it. Other parts of the engine were designed to give long lasting performance based on that very same non pressurized system. The non pressurized system worked and worked well for it's time and even today, many Model T and A owners will tell you that it still works. Yes, non pressurized engines can be made to last a long time, all it takes is a little ingenuity and decent (not great) engineering and a desire to give the customer a decent product. The moral of That story is that if you design the non pressurized system as a package, it can be made reliable and long lasting. On the other hand, In the early days when the competition had non pressurized systems just like yours, it would also be just as easy to design an engine that is lacking in other areas that could be considered detrimental to the engines life. -It is and was easy to build non pressurized engines just like the competition but you didn't have to build the entire 'package' to aid in the support of the non pressurized system. -Some manufacturers thought that they could give the consumer a basic engine but refused to give them an engine that would need to last for more than a handful of years until catastrophic failure ended the car and/or the engines life. At that point, the consumer would come back and either buy a new engine or buy a new car. Just the fact that the consumer was back at the dealership looking for parts put them within arms length of the New Car Sales Team. That Is A Perfect Example of Planned Obsolescence. -forcing you to come back to the dealership (for whatever reason) where they could at least sell you parts, or maybe even a whole new car. But that is just one single aspect of Planned Obsolescence, one of the many aspects of a system that sees you re-purchase from the same company over and over again. . I recall reading an early statement or interview (1930's) in which Ford talked about GM's idea of designing things to break. -Designing a system that sees you come back again and again in order to make the stock holders and company owners wealthy. Ford did not approve of the system. I don't recall if it was in one of his 'biographies' or if it was in regards to the early V8/Sales but ???? ? .
Who ever said you have to rebuild a flathead when you can find them in farmers fields?. I don't build Flatheads, I buy $500 ~60 year old Farm Trucks and put the engines in Model A's and early Fords. -Finding a $500 Farm truck is 1/3 the cost of rebuilding a sbc. And there are a lot of farm trucks out there that 'ran when parked' Contrary to popular belief, They are still out there but if you don't go looking, you won't find anything. .
The Jalopy Journal
