You Opinions Please!

[factorystock]

Lets keep the thread to 67 thru 72,late model modular 5.4's and 01 Expeditions are a bore to me. My point is historically Chevys are prefered for personal light duty use, where Fords are more preferred for truck work, where top speed and handling are not as important factors.Here are some facts. Sorry my camera aint that great, but this photo shows a 327 Chevy block and a 330 Ford block. Chevy crank is level with the bottom of block, Ford extend 2.66" below crank center line. Distance between cylinders is .402" on Chevy and .759" on Ford. Exhaust valve ports are alternated on Ford to minimzie heat concentration, Chevy has exhaust ports adjacent to each other which builds heat concentration on middle of cylinder head.

[Rob H.]

I can't really speak for the rest of the country, but around here I still see alot more 67-72 Chevies earning their keep as work trucks than 67-72 Fords! Most of the Fords rusted away years ago in these years. My brother traded off a 71 F-100 last year that had came up from Texas a few years back, it was a really nice truck had a 360 and automatic. It drove and ran great but since it had been up here the lower sides of the hood were rusted through and the front fenders behind the wheels was rusting through. All the moisture we have in this part of the country has always wreaked havoc on old sheetmetal, add to that winter road salt and you get the picture.

[KMACD71]

I'd drive this one:

[basemodel67]

Ford Backwards:

Driver
Returns
On
Foot

I think they're as cool as herpes on a first date.

[GKsport67]

The only thing from FORD i like is MUSTANG's(classic to modern)!!

Never had much FORD's in my family.

[Stano]

Sorry I bore you so much factorystock.

[67chevylongbed]

I like them, but I like anything old and American. My brother has a 74 F-250 and I love it just as much as I love my C10. Just my opinion though.

[vectorit]

I don't care what Ford did to their motor's.

To me, all that "reinforcement" just added to the weight which just added to their lack luster performance. Thus giving them the common nick name "Boat anchor"...

Though not all Ford motors were pigs, just most of them.

Then again I'm biased, and you are trying to compare a Ford to Chevrolet on a Chevrolet forum.

['72customdeluxe]

Ford made a fuss over their heavy block compared to the 327, but how often are stock small block Chevies referred to as fragile instead of a workhorse or the like?

[wp silverado]

not gonna lie my uncles is pretty bad ass




with my 67

[63chevyll]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Lets keep the thread to 67 thru 72,late model modular 5.4's and 01 Expeditions are a bore to me. My point is historically Chevys are prefered for personal light duty use, where Fords are more preferred for truck work, where top speed and handling are not as important factors.Here are some facts. Sorry my camera aint that great, but this photo shows a 327 Chevy block and a 330 Ford block. Chevy crank is level with the bottom of block, Ford extend 2.66" below crank center line. Distance between cylinders is .402" on Chevy and .759" on Ford. Exhaust valve ports are alternated on Ford to minimzie heat concentration, Chevy has exhaust ports adjacent to each other which builds heat concentration on middle of cylinder head.

maybe the 75% of the world is wrong for running small block chevys in their race cars. race trucks, race boats, bla, bla, bla......you get the picture

the SB chevy the most universal dominat engine in the universe................

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Lets keep the thread to 67 thru 72,late model modular 5.4's and 01 Expeditions are a bore to me. My point is historically Chevys are prefered for personal light duty use, where Fords are more preferred for truck work, where top speed and handling are not as important factors.Here are some facts. Sorry my camera aint that great, but this photo shows a 327 Chevy block and a 330 Ford block. Chevy crank is level with the bottom of block, Ford extend 2.66" below crank center line. Distance between cylinders is .402" on Chevy and .759" on Ford. Exhaust valve ports are alternated on Ford to minimzie heat concentration, Chevy has exhaust ports adjacent to each other which builds heat concentration on middle of cylinder head.

Again, I get what you're saying, but Ford had truck specific engines because they're light duty engines would grenade in a medium duty truck. Chevy 327's and 350's (which were the same basic engines as in passenger cars and light trucks except 4 bolt mains and steel cranks were run in some) competed with purpose built truck engines in Ford's medium duty trucks. The SBCs were such a superior engine over the light duty Fords that GM didn't see the need to build several different lines of engines. The old SBC's did it all. The SBC's usually outlasted and almost always outperformed the Fords. The 330's and 361's were big, heavy, oil leaking, gas guzzling slugs. On top of that, since they were truck specific engines, the parts to overhaul them were much more expensive. The pulpwooders around here that used to joke that they could buy 3 good used 350's for the price to overhaul a 1 FT Ford, which is really true. I used work in the summer when I was young for a logger, and he had a '63 Ford 2 ton dump truck thatb we used for clean up. That think 2 miles to get up 50 miles and you prayed no one pulled out made you slow down on any kind of grade. I told my boss one that the old Ford was getting very tired, and he asked what I meant. I told him how weak it was, and he said it had a new engine put it 3 years before. He laughed and said you should have drove with the worn out engine! Despite Ford's advertising propaganda, having driven lots of medium duty gas burners over the years, I'll take a 327 powered 2 ton over a 330 Ford powered truck any day of the week.

[stevencvn72]

No way. I've given up on any Ford newer than a '60. As far as aesthetics go.

[tim21391]

those are some nice lookin chevys.....

[Bob B.]

factorystock, did you get those pictures out of one of those salesman's comparison booklets? Those were a laugh, all the manufacturers printed up those 'bad stuff about the other guys truck' booklets for their salesmen. That particular book looks like it is about medium duty trucks, as the FT 330 was never used in any pickup trucks. Ford always made a big deal about the crankcase skirts and heavy block on the FT's. Kind of doubtful the skirts were of any benefit, I never saw any SBC's bend in the middle and wipe out the main bearings! 4 bolt main caps like the 'truck' 327's had were probably more of an advantage. I am not buying the excessive heat from adjacent exhaust ports in the head jazz either. The firing order of the SBC does not have any of the center cylinders firing next to each other and the whole length of the exhaust port is water cooled, unlike an FE/FT Ford. Wonder why those Fords were always breaking exhaust manifold bolts? Now you know. In any event, since the FT Ford is a big block, why didn't they compare it to the Chevy 366? I certainly understand why Ford didn't compare that FT to any of the GMC V-6's, that would have been a total embarrassment! You think that FT's block is heavy? All kidding aside, the FT was a pretty good truck engine.

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by Bob B.

factorystock, did you get those pictures out of one of those salesman's comparison booklets? Those were a laugh, all the manufacturers printed up those 'bad stuff about the other guys truck' booklets for their salesmen. That particular book looks like it is about medium duty trucks, as the FT 330 was never used in any pickup trucks. Ford always made a big deal about the crankcase skirts and heavy block on the FT's. Kind of doubtful the skirts were of any benefit, I never saw any SBC's bend in the middle and wipe out the main bearings! 4 bolt main caps like the 'truck' 327's had were probably more of an advantage. I am not buying the excessive heat from adjacent exhaust ports in the head jazz either. The firing order of the SBC does not have any of the center cylinders firing next to each other and the whole length of the exhaust port is water cooled, unlike an FE/FT Ford. Wonder why those Fords were always breaking exhaust manifold bolts? Now you know. In any event, since the FT Ford is a big block, why didn't they compare it to the Chevy 366? I certainly understand why Ford didn't compare that FT to any of the GMC V-6's, that would have been a total embarrassment! You think that FT's block is heavy? All kidding aside, the FT was a pretty good truck engine.

The smaller FE's and FT's probably are more comparable to a SBC than a BBC, even though they are much bigger. But that's always been my gripe with Ford. They felt the need to produce the Y block (early on) windsor SB, the cleveland/modified, and the FE/FT series to compete the SBC. This meant different accessory brackets for each family, different motor mounts, different bellhousing patterns, etc, etc. - all steadily raising the cost along the way. All of these engines were apparently needed to compete with an engine that was designed to a small, economical, and easily rebuildable powerplant for taxi cabs. Its really no different today either. Ford is producing overhead cam and multi-camshaft OHC modular engines trying to keep with an antiquated overhead valve pushrod V8 - and failing miserably!

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by '72customdeluxe

Ford made a fuss over their heavy block compared to the 327, but how often are stock small block Chevies referred to as fragile instead of a workhorse or the like?

The 327 or any other SBC was never considered a heavy duty industrial V8 truck engine in the industry, recommended for light duty use only(under 2 ton). In 1966 Chevy introduced the 366 V8, this was a heavy duty industrial truck engine designed to compete with Ford and International HD truck engines.

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by 63chevyll

maybe the 75% of the world is wrong for running small block chevys in their race cars. race trucks, race boats, bla, bla, bla......you get the picture

the SB chevy the most universal dominat engine in the universe................

Racing world yes, large trucks no.

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by Bob B.

factorystock, did you get those pictures out of one of those salesman's comparison booklets? Those were a laugh, all the manufacturers printed up those 'bad stuff about the other guys truck' booklets for their salesmen. That particular book looks like it is about medium duty trucks, as the FT 330 was never used in any pickup trucks. Ford always made a big deal about the crankcase skirts and heavy block on the FT's. Kind of doubtful the skirts were of any benefit, I never saw any SBC's bend in the middle and wipe out the main bearings! 4 bolt main caps like the 'truck' 327's had were probably more of an advantage. I am not buying the excessive heat from adjacent exhaust ports in the head jazz either. The firing order of the SBC does not have any of the center cylinders firing next to each other and the whole length of the exhaust port is water cooled, unlike an FE/FT Ford. Wonder why those Fords were always breaking exhaust manifold bolts? Now you know. In any event, since the FT Ford is a big block, why didn't they compare it to the Chevy 366? I certainly understand why Ford didn't compare that FT to any of the GMC V-6's, that would have been a total embarrassment! You think that FT's block is heavy? All kidding aside, the FT was a pretty good truck engine.

Yes, I like to collect factual info on all makes of trucks. True, the photo shows 330, but same block dimensions as 360 390 etc used between 67 thru 72.The deep skirted block allowed better crankshaft support and for a larger more positive fitting bellhousing support for heavier transmissions, like the heavy Spicers.Agian, not really necessary in car use or light duty pickup use, but benifical in larger 2 ton and up use. The 330HD was considered a medium duty truck engine, the next larger family was the Super Duty engines. The larger GMC 401, 478 V6 is in the Ford Super Duty 401. 477, 534. class. No coicendence the cubes are very similiar, Ford came out with Super Duty V8's in 1958, GMC introduced the V6's in 1960. Ford did offer a 100K warranty on these engines,while GM did not offer the same warranty of V6's. The increase use of diesels led to the dissappearance of the big V6 in 1974, and the big Super Duty's in 1982. The question I ask is, Chevy had a great truck design engine in the 366, why wasn't it optional in pickups?

['72customdeluxe]

Originally Posted by factorystock

The 327 or any other SBC was never considered a heavy duty industrial V8 truck engine in the industry, recommended for light duty use only(under 2 ton). In 1966 Chevy introduced the 366 V8, this was a heavy duty industrial truck engine designed to compete with Ford and International HD truck engines.

I didn't know that add was for heavy trucks before

[Bob B.]

factorystock, you are right about a deep skirt block offering more support to mount the bell housing/transmission. Many Chevy small and big blocks in medium trucks have struts that brace the sides of the block to the bottom of the bell housing. The GMC V-6 uses a two piece bell housing with an inner piece that bolts all the way down to the skirts. Very strong, and very heavy! You are also right about the GMC V-6 being in the Super Duty's league. What I find amazing about the GMC V-6's is that there really isn't much difference between a 305 in a pickup and a 478 in a heavy truck. Aside from pistons and valves, the major differences are the 305's use a timing chain and a cast steel (not cast iron) crank while the 478's use a gear drive cam and a forged steel Tufftrided crank. Ford never offered the Super Duty V-8's in pickups, but a GMC pickup with a 305 or 351 V-6 is about the equivalent from a durability standpoint. Back in the days of gas powered heavy trucks, the Ford 534 Super Duty's had good power, probably better than the International 549's (which had a reputation for overheating). The GMC 478 V-6's would out pull both of them no problem. The Super Duty had kind of a honked up head design. GMC went over the top with the 702 gas V-12 and later 637 V-8, both based on the V-6 design. Those engines were in the same league as a Hall-Scott or Waukasha, and were seldom seen outside of fire apparatus. GMC dropped the V-6's in 1974 as you stated. Big gassers were loosing popularity and the big block Chevy truck engines were cheaper to produce, even if they were not quite as durable as the V-6's. Ford kept the Super Duty 534 around until 1982, mainly for C series fire trucks. I remember talking to a Ford engineer at a trade show after the 534 had been dropped. He said the 534 had become something of a joke because the emission controls had hurt the performance so much (I think due to those heads) that the 'truck' Lima 429's had a lot more power! As for the 366 not being used in pickups, my guess is that Chevy probably felt that the 396 was a more suitable engine for a light truck. The 366's durabilty wasn't needed in a pickup, and the 396 was a better performer.

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Yes, I like to collect factual info on all makes of trucks. True, the photo shows 330, but same block dimensions as 360 390 etc used between 67 thru 72.The deep skirted block allowed better crankshaft support and for a larger more positive fitting bellhousing support for heavier transmissions, like the heavy Spicers.Agian, not really necessary in car use or light duty pickup use, but benifical in larger 2 ton and up use. The 330HD was considered a medium duty truck engine, the next larger family was the Super Duty engines. The larger GMC 401, 478 V6 is in the Ford Super Duty 401. 477, 534. class. No coicendence the cubes are very similiar, Ford came out with Super Duty V8's in 1958, GMC introduced the V6's in 1960. Ford did offer a 100K warranty on these engines,while GM did not offer the same warranty of V6's. The increase use of diesels led to the dissappearance of the big V6 in 1974, and the big Super Duty's in 1982. The question I ask is, Chevy had a great truck design engine in the 366, why wasn't it optional in pickups?

The 366 wasn't really neccessary in a pickup. Chevy's light duty engines were more than capable, and the need for a big, heavy, purpose truck engine wasn't needed. Ford finally realized this themselves (albeit after a couple of decades) and the 351W replaced the big gaz guzzling FE and Cleveland/modified engines. I had an 84 F350 with a 351W and C6 and it was way more powerful and much better on fuel than the 352, 360 FE's ever were, not to mention those dreadful 351M400's.

[factorystock]

As in my earlier posts, my point mainly is geared to the medium and heavier end of the market. Chevy pretty much let GMC deal with the big stuff, and concentrated mainly on the lighter end of the market. My engine block comparsion is the 327 engine Chevy used in medium trucks from 1962 to 1968.350's ( similar design)were used in later medium trucks. It would have been nice to see a light duty version of the 366 engine for GM and also a light duty version of the 401 Ford, as an option in a 3/4 or 1 tons for serious commerical type buyers.A little info on Super Dutys, for those who are not familiar with truck engines of the past.

['72customdeluxe]

why would a light 366 be nice? It would cost the same to make and perform worse than the 402's and 396's that were available

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by '72customdeluxe

why would a light 366 be nice? It would cost the same to make and perform worse than the 402's and 396's that were available

That's my stance as well. You can't legally load a light truck to ever need any beefier engine that was offered. In fact, I'll go as far to say that you can't load a pickup or even a 1 ton (legal or not) heavy enough to need a medium duty engine, and still be able to stop the truck. I have hauled some over the limit loads on my ramp truck at times, and the brakes are always what gets hairy. GM put small blocks in medium duty trucks up to 24000#+ GVWR. If you load a 1 ton to weigh 24000#, the brakes are suspension have already long ago left the building.