General LSX Automobile Discussion - Did FORD design the LS engine?

Ok guys, I have heard rumors and a bunch of hearsay from some of my ford buddies about how ford designed the head on the LS and the entire engine. He has in fact bolted a 351 Windsor head up a to a LS1. I have read some things on the mustang forums also. Maybe someone can chime in here with some real facts. Rumor is that a Ford engineer designed the LS engine and was shot down due to the fact they had already had the modular design and then he went to work for GM.

No. It was actually designed by more than one engineer. Every person incolved had a specific task to contribute. Most if not all were gm employed, do you really think ford would allow any of there former employees to give or build another competitor there research? Every ford lawyer or suit would be trying to sue gm or any involved in the design. Or doing every thing in there power to prevent it.
If anything the ls success was one of the primary reasons. Ford got off its ass and created the new gen of ohc motors. Regardless if they admit or not.

Supid ford guys say stupid stuff. Dont buy into ignorant misinformed delusional online BS.

I have heard rumors and a bunch of hearsay.

That says it all. :secret:

if they did it would have been in their car years ago. took em 10 years to make a base stang to keep up with an fobdy.

some ford fans would like to believe it.

They have no clue what they're talking about. Usually each of the engineers from Ford or GM have to sign a paper that states they cannot work for the competition for 2 years if they decide to leave. So any engineer that left couldn't work in the same field. Also the lawsuits go crazy if they do and all of a sudden you have companies suing each other and it gets public really fast.

Now to your question on who designed the engine. The answer is it's a load of GM engineers. They were Koerner, Ron Sperry (Cylinder heads), Bill Compton, Brian Kaminski (Engine Block), Jon Lewis, Stan Turek, Don Weiderhold, and half-timer Dave Wandel.

All had been with GM for many years prior to the design.

Here's two articles you can use to show your thicker than normal craniumed Ford buddies the truth:
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/chevy_350ci_small_block_review/

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_0408_chevy_ls1_ls6_engines/viewall.html


I wish I was a fly on the wall at Ford or GM to hear what they're working on but at the end of the day we should look to AMG from Mercedes Benz to show us what's going to happen in the future. The new Twin Turbo V8s with direct injection and multi injectors per piston and no need for a starter motor technologies are years ahead of everyone else.

But for an inexpensive to produce and best bang for the buck engine you can't beat the good old GM engineers.

Ok guys, I have heard rumors and a bunch of hearsay from some of my ford buddies about how ford designed the head on the LS and the entire engine. He has in fact bolted a 351 Windsor head up a to a LS1. I have read some things on the mustang forums also. Maybe someone can chime in here with some real facts. Rumor is that a Ford engineer designed the LS engine and was shot down due to the fact they had already had the modular design and then he went to work for GM.

I may no be 100% accurate as it has been a while. GM began work on what would become the LS1 back in the early 90's. Yep, during the GM's LT1 and Ford's 5.0 days. Ford probably began work on their mod motor at the same time or slightly earlier. LS1 debuted in `97, the 4.6 mod in `96?

Not to call your friend a lier BUT doesn't the LS1 share bore spacing with the classic SBC? Does a Ford Windsor share this spec as well? Do the LS1 and Windsor even share the same bolt pattern? I'd adventure not. About the only thing they share are pushrods, 8 cylinders and symetric ports; I guess to some Bubbas that's enough... I don't even need to get into patents, etc. which Ford would have if one of their engineers designed it.

This thread could get interesting.

Ford did not design nor have any handiwork in our beloved LS motors, otherwise we would all be riding bicycles back to the dealership every other day.

No

....

My LS powered cars have not left me on the side of the road nor have they been Found On Road Dead.Thats proof enough right there.

F'ed up On Rebuilt Dodge...

No....that's really stupid

FORD= Fucker Only Runs Downhill (if even)

Fix Or Repair Daily is my favourite:)

Ford only wishes they were smart enough to use one camshaft.

Fuk'd on race day......lol

The design and engineering for the ls1 began in 1991,And im pretty sure the two sperry brothers were responsible for the design of the ls1 cylinder head,both gm guys

if that was the case then why didnt ford use the design?

Found
On
Road
Dead

Sounds like your Ford buddies have a little GM envy.

an LS1 based ford motor would have been a hell of alot better than that boat anchor 2v 4.6


Sounds like your Ford buddies have a little GM envy.

an LS1 based ford motor would have been a hell of alot better than that boat anchor 2v 4.6



I concur.

So has anybody seen ls1 heads on a sbf?

an LS1 based ford motor would have been a hell of alot better than that boat anchor 2v 4.6True enough back in the day, but now we're contending with the vicious Coyote 5.0 ...

That being said, as an example of contemporary Ford engineering, the spark plugs tend to break off in the heads of the 5.4 (or whatever is in the trucks) when removal is attempted. The broken plugs can't be removed without taking off the heads. The heads can't come off without the BODY BEING TAKEN OFF THE FRAME. I had heard about this before, but saw it with my own eyes a couple of weeks ago at my buddy's shop. Some poor slob had his truck sitting there, body lifted off the frame, heads off the block, probably spending a couple of thousand bucks, JUST TO CHANGE THE SPARK PLUGS.

Something that just plain could never happen on GM trucks with LS based motors.

an LS1 based ford motor would have been a hell of alot better than that boat anchor 2v 4.6

The one that converts to diesel after 20k miles... That is one fine piece of Ford engineering.

no doubt the new 5.0 is a great motor....but its about time for us ford guys...i owned a 99 GT 35th anniversary with a built 4.6...it ran high 7's on motor in the 8th mile but it was an absolute nightmare to work on....to be honest, for the amount of work that was done to the car, it should have been alot faster

True enough back in the day, but now we're contending with the vicious Coyote 5.0 ...

That being said, as an example of contemporary Ford engineering, the spark plugs tend to break off in the heads of the 5.4 (or whatever is in the trucks) when removal is attempted. The broken plugs can't be removed without taking off the heads. The heads can't come off without the BODY BEING TAKEN OFF THE FRAME. I had heard about this before, but saw it with my own eyes a couple of weeks ago at my buddy's shop. Some poor slob had his truck sitting there, body lifted off the frame, heads off the block, probably spending a couple of thousand bucks, JUST TO CHANGE THE SPARK PLUGS.

Something that just plain could never happen on GM trucks with LS based motors.

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x461/dhouston02/ls1ford.jpg

Here is the picture he sent me of what he did. It actually didnt bolt right up but here is what he said "Ls1 head resting on 302 block screw drivers indicating head bolt locations, push rods thru heads and nearly resting on lifters"

"some ppl can't see the obvious resemblance they might not have copied Ford but its to much of a coincidence with the geometry and bolt locations"

Thatd be the besting thing fords ever done

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x461/dhouston02/ls1ford.jpg

Here is the picture he sent me of what he did. It actually didnt bolt right up but here is what he said "Ls1 head resting on 302 block screw drivers indicating head bolt locations, push rods thru heads and nearly resting on lifters"

"some ppl can't see the obvious resemblance they might not have copied Ford but its to much of a coincidence with the geometry and bolt locations"

whoopie freaking do!

it either bolts up or it doesnt

Yep, the exhaust ports look about the same. Therefore LS1=Ford designed ;)

news to me sweet baby jesus

I always though that the chambers on the LS1 heads were copied off the Ferrari Fireball chambers?

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x461/dhouston02/ls1ford.jpg

Here is the picture he sent me of what he did. It actually didnt bolt right up but here is what he said "Ls1 head resting on 302 block screw drivers indicating head bolt locations, push rods thru heads and nearly resting on lifters"

"some ppl can't see the obvious resemblance they might not have copied Ford but its to much of a coincidence with the geometry and bolt locations"

Ok, so it doesn't bolt up, a few bolt holes line up, pushrods don't allign, chambers don't align so it must be the same, LOL.

Seriously, there are only so many ways to make a pushrod V8. If they look similar, well that's the nature of the beast. It would be like someone saying Ford did a horrible job coying the LT5 or Northstar with their 4v 4.6 V8 simply because they are OHC.

Noting of the LS motor is ford, they would like to claim it is just like we GM owners can claim there 289 motor is really a blue print motor they got from GM but the truth is most of the tech that is in the LS motor we will have to thank SAAB for, but since GM own SAAB at that time that means all new tech of the LS motors before the aftermarket companies got their hands on it is GM's all the way..... that's right SAAB Thank you

Don't listen to Ford guys....like heater:jest:

Sup Heater! I know you're reading this!;)

the ford boys are just mad cuz they needed a supercharged motor to beat the ls1.

[QUOTE Ford only wishes they were smart enough to use one camshaft.[/QUOTE]

And not multiple timing chains with not timing marks

up until a few weeks ago i would have argued as well...LOL....but ive come to realize that stock ford pushrod SBF blocks are junk.....for the price of a bare SBF dart block i could build an entire LS based motor and make just as much if not more power......not brand loyalty...its just common sense :)

Don't listen to Ford guys....like heater:jest:

Sup Heater! I know you're reading this!;)

i used to make a killing doing cam and head swaps on Mod motors becuase nobody wanted to do them theirselves....i hated doing them but it waseasy money at 500 bux a pop......the timing chain setup is total garbage and each one i worked on had something different between the romeo and windsor setups.......

[QUOTE Ford only wishes they were smart enough to use one camshaft.

And not multiple timing chains with not timing marks[/QUOTE]

up until a few weeks ago i would have argued as well...LOL....but ive come to realize that stock ford pushrod SBF blocks are junk.....for the price of a bare SBF dart block i could build an entire LS based motor and make just as much if not more power......not brand loyalty...its just common sense :)

This is why most of the mustang guys that make drag cars are LSX or SBC powered :nod:

Fucken Old Rotten Dodge

thats all I gotto contribute other than I like the little lsx engine over the wide as in fill your whole engine bay and then some mod motor.

Oh and dont forget the GM v6 engineered about the same time as the LSX , series 2 3800 - quickest one of them with stock block and rotating assembly has been 8.6 @159 in a street registerred FWD car (ZZPerformance) before I got into LSX cars I was into 3800 SC cars ( still have a couple) and it was always fun picking on the v8 mustangs with my stock internals 4 door fwd little 6 banger

GM FTW mid 90's to late 2000's now ford is making some nasty engines and the mustangs are lighter than the camaros so its a real rivalry again at this point - Ford hasnt been on top of Chevy in the street wars since the original 5.0's 20 years ago and anyone with a couple tweaks on a t type or GN owned them lol so still GM FTW

I'm surprised there hasn't been any ford guys popping in with the own analogy. But coming from a guy with both mustang and Camaro, my mustang does get more attention being a 67 but isn't cost effective. I use to be a hardcore ford guy but im a sucker for a ls1 what can i say. My buddy had 5 grand in motor work and suspension and I was neck and neck is bone stock a4 Ta and smashed him in my a4 camaro

I think it all starts with the internal combustion engine. chevy +100 and ford -200

even though im looking at a 03 cobra currently :)

Buddy had a 03 gt

Never owned a mustang yet, i want to get one so i can go back and fourth. one day ford guy one day chevy guy :)

i used a sbf torque plate on my ls1 when i was machining the bores. Yes cyylinder bores did line up and most of the head bolts lined up but that was it the valve train geometry wouldnt have come close to working

my friend worked at a plant where they assembled lsx 454 and the new 5.0. he said some one bolted up a lsx head to the 5.0 on accident...lol
If it bolts up doesn't mean its going to work.

302/351w used a 4.0 bore fwiw... so in theory the bore is big enuff to run a ls head... i checked this the other day by putting a junk 853 head on a 302 and the bolt holes in the head need a 1/8in taking out of them or so and they will bolt up to a 302/351

now wheter or not the coolant passages line up thats a different story... i need a head gaske to check that

Ok, so it doesn't bolt up, a few bolt holes line up, pushrods don't allign, chambers don't align so it must be the same, LOL.




haha, this was a good laugh for the night.

Just a little fairy dust to tie up loose ends and we're good to go...




http://www.costumeshopper.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/fm67028.jpg

After reading through all the Ford bashing on this site, let alone this thread, I'm fairly positive the maturity level here matches the mentality. I started off as a Chevy guy, then kinda got addicted to mustangs and SBF's. So I've been around the block a time or 2 on the differences between the standard issue SBC and SBF that have been around forever.

Anyone that thinks the LS1 isn't designed around many features of a SBF hasn't been around very long or is just so fanatical about the manufacturer they like that they don't know much about the competition at all. As a drag racer, I like all fast cars. Chevy, Ford, Mopar, Honda are all exciting with the right amount of parts.

But looking at the old standard SBC that's been around forever, the basic differences that everyone, even the uneducated on cars, knew about were: Chevy had a rear oiling setup, rear distributor setup, a cooling system with a timing cover separate from the pump where as coolant flowed to the block 1st, then the cylinder heads. Chevy's had siamese intake and exhaust ports, and 17 head bolts in a hex pattern. That was and always will be a SBC to me.

While Ford had a front cooling system where the timing cover/water pump were integrated to each other and coolant flowed through the cylinder heads 1st then block. The oiling system was in the front along with the distributor. The cylinder heads take 10 head bolts in 2 rows of 5. The exhaust and intake ports are standalone and not siamese.

In the LS1 the oiling system, the cooling system, the intake and exhaust ports, even the amount of head bolts is directly from the old SBF. Heck the distributor is even now in the front if you went carb/distributor setup. And now the LS1 even uses a SBF HO firing order. I'm sorry, but anyone daft enough to think this isn't taken right out of the pages of the SBF that's been around forever is an inbecile or, like many, don't know anything about their competition's products because they've never built one. From someone that has done both, it's plain as day the LS1 is GM's version of a SBF.

I think it's a great motor. Many things I didn't like about the SBC they've gone away with which happened to be many of the same things I liked about the SBF. It's clearly a win for Chevy. But when the die hard Ford guys say the LS1 is designed around a SBF, sorry, but you'd have to be an utter retard to not think so as well.

but, GM did it with an all aluminum engine.

I may no be 100% accurate as it has been a while. GM began work on what would become the LS1 back in the early 90's. Yep, during the GM's LT1 and Ford's 5.0 days. Ford probably began work on their mod motor at the same time or slightly earlier. LS1 debuted in `97, the 4.6 mod in `96?

Incorrect. The 4.6 mod was debuted in 92' in the 93' model year lincoln mark 8's. 4 years beforw the ls1 popped up in the 96' (97 model year) vette

Incorrect. The 4.6 mod was debuted in 92' in the 93' model year lincoln mark 8's. 4 years beforw the ls1 popped up in the 96' (97 model year) vette

I know the point of what you said. It was out much earlier, etc. But the mod motor 4.6 actually came OEM in a 91 towncar. I believe that's the 1st model year.

But when the die hard Ford guys say the LS1 is designed around a SBF, sorry, but you'd have to be an utter retard to not think so as well.

So GM paid all those engineers to build a SBF? The pushrod v8 has been around a long time, so similarities from different years and makes of engines is going to happen, but to say the LS is designed around the SBF is quote "utterly retarded." Won't deny the similarity in the port layout and head bolt pattern, but what about the deep skirted block design with cross bolted main caps, which reminds me of the ford y-block 292? Does this mean the block was designed around an engine that started production in 1954? Hardly.

GM designed a great engine using old technology to keep down costs and keep up reliability. The greatest thing about LS engines is, like the SBC before it, most things will interchange. Not even going to start the list on what won't interchange on the mod motors. Ford has really good ideas, plenty of them work. But they can't keep from changing the design, sometimes midyear. Just makes it a pain in the ass to work on all around.

Ford did not design nor have any handiwork in our beloved LS motors, otherwise we would all be riding bicycles back to the dealership every other day.

My LS powered cars have not left me on the side of the road nor have they been Found On Road Dead.Thats proof enough right there.

No....that's really stupid

FORD= Fucker Only Runs Downhill (if even)

Fix Or Repair Daily is my favourite:)

Ford only wishes they were smart enough to use one camshaft.

Fuk'd on race day......lol

Found
On
Road
Dead

Sounds like your Ford buddies have a little GM envy.

Thatd be the besting thing fords ever done

the ford boys are just mad cuz they needed a supercharged motor to beat the ls1.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

just saying lol. not bashing GM too much i have owned an ss and i will own another ls1 for a project car after my next deployment, however some of the ford haters on this site need to take a step back and see that the fbody is not god of the street scene lol, and quit with the "found on road dead" talk before there own company is found in the same manner.

And what makes you think GM is going belly up? GM paid back all it's government loans...Ford on the other hand...not so much. At this point in time, Ford has a better chance of going under than GM.

And what makes you think GM is going belly up? GM paid back all it's government loans...Ford on the other hand...not so much. At this point in time, Ford has a better chance of going under than GM.

last i checked fords sales were outselling gm, specifically the mustang outselling the camaro. ford received 5.9 billion whereas GM got over 50 billion in bailout money. obama gave them a tax break eliminating the majority of the debt. ford isnt having an issue repaying its debt and doesnt need tax breaks to do so. so you are wrong about ford being more likely to go under than gm, its in fact the other way around as gm is headed for yet another bailout. again as stated above dont get me wrong i love gm, and will own another ls1 f body fairly soon, but gm has been heading downhill in the past few years and with the second bailout on the horizon its looking shakey. regardless ill post a link to the article if you care enough to read it, and if you have any further debate on it just pm me, no sense in getting the op thread locked for some stupid argument that is off topic. i will post a quick paragraph i read that points out how much the government has spent on gm and is losing its money invested in them.

The government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is around $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314694/bad-worse-obama-s-gm-bailout-michael-barone#

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/18/what-gm-bailout-really-cost-american-taxpayers/

I come from experience in both, I have a Camaro had a T/A, have a 67 mustang and a 83 bronco, stepdad has two 2nd Gen camaros, my buddy has had a 02 and 03 gt, now has a 2010 gt. All the cars have problems and all have perks. But besides a burnt o2 wire no problems with either f-bodies, stepdad built both of his for 7500 bucks for both and that was with the purchase of the cars, my 2 fords both are broke down, 67 is to expensive to fix and 83 has drained me dry on trying to et it going. My buddy had to replace his 02 gt motor after 100k and the 03 had over 5 grand in it and lost to my stock T/A and made look dumb against my Camaro and was always having to fix little shit. His 2010 ran good for the few weeks he had it before he wrecked it and just got it back so we shall see. As for the motors being similar... How different do you expect them to be?? They do the same thing, there are only so many ways to design the same thing, just comes down to craftsmanship.

So GM paid all those engineers to build a SBF? The pushrod v8 has been around a long time, so similarities from different years and makes of engines is going to happen, but to say the LS is designed around the SBF is quote "utterly retarded." Won't deny the similarity in the port layout and head bolt pattern, but what about the deep skirted block design with cross bolted main caps, which reminds me of the ford y-block 292? Does this mean the block was designed around an engine that started production in 1954? Hardly.

GM designed a great engine using old technology to keep down costs and keep up reliability. The greatest thing about LS engines is, like the SBC before it, most things will interchange. Not even going to start the list on what won't interchange on the mod motors. Ford has really good ideas, plenty of them work. But they can't keep from changing the design, sometimes midyear. Just makes it a pain in the ass to work on all around.

Clearly you didn't read anything I wrote. GM's new pushrod motor shares virtually nothing with the old SBC that's been around for over 50 years. But what it does share, that it never used to, is the oiling system, cooling system, head bolt pattern, intake and exhaust runner, distributor location, even the firing order lol etc., right out of the pages of the old SBF. And considering Yates even helped with the head design, I don't think it could possibly any more obvious. And cross bolted mains have been around forever on many engines including the mod motors. So I don't really see your point. I never said that the motor was an exact replica of a SBF. But it's plain as day they took the stuff that was better about a SBF compared to a SBC (read above) and based a new engine around that - aka basing it off a SBF. I imagine if the pushrod SBFs hadn't quit being made in production vehicles almost 20 years ago, there would be some radical new designs on it as well. But I doubt ford would have ever changed their entire layout that they've always based their small blocks such as GM did, especially not to a direct competitor.

There was quite a few changes between blocks etc., of older 302's to the new roller motors etc., but none of the staples that made a SBF a SBF never changed ever. This new LS1 is just like a reincarnated SBF all over again, sharing virtually nothing with it's older gen motor. I mean, car craft, hot rod, heck, all the usual center to maybe a little Chevy bias, all say the same thing. I guess they aren't blind either.

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean that the ls1 was built to replicate a sbf. Its far better designed. So they took some ideas from a old ford motor saying that ford was the first engine to ever do it that way and used it on there new motor design... Honestly how many ways do you think they can bolt down a damn head or do the intake and exhaust ports? Now if ford would have copied the intake and exhaust runners off a Chevy all the ford guys would be throwing a shit fit saying no there .0001 mm different so it's a different design. So who gives a shit what ideas they used? This thread was started on a simple question that had nothing to do with were the ideas came from and if 241's will bolt to a 302.

GM built the LS motor.
Only so many ways to run oil/water passages/bore spacing, etc. on a block
the GM LS is a clean sheet design of a motor.
Dont see why so many ford guys are hungup on what they think is a ford design.
Its not and never will be, Sperry bros. Are credited with the actual original LS cylinder head designs.
The sbf was so great, yet fomoco, decided to crank out the overgrown underpowered 2v mod motor in massive quantities.
I actually use to overhaul engines for a minute, and have much exp. With sbf and all mod motors, prolly just as much as sbc.
I will say this though, i aint gonna lie, i charge a pretty coin to work on mod motors.
Cam swaps and valve train, mucho cha-ching$. mod motor labors have paid for many a ls goodies for my junk.:D
I actually got a h/g repair/cam swap/valvetrain upgrades on a 04 slobra. Thats gonna pay off a few bills :)

Clearly you didn't read anything I wrote. GM's new pushrod motor shares virtually nothing with the old SBC that's been around for over 50 years. But what it does share, that it never used to, is the oiling system, cooling system, head bolt pattern, intake and exhaust runner, distributor location, even the firing order lol etc., right out of the pages of the old SBF.

Funny, don't recall seeing a distributor on my car. Also, how is the oil system the same as a SBF? The LS is a crank driven gerotor, while SBF is a camshaft/distributor driven gear pump. Lastly, LS water pumps contain the inlet and outlet ports to the block, as well as the thermostat which allows the intake manifold to remain dry. SBF on the other hand has a conventional cooling system with a water pump that pushes coolant into the block and exits out through the intake.

It's clear you are a brand worshiper, which is ok I guess. I'm fairly loyal to GM, but I also know they build a whole lotta crap. Every company does. Just don't see the correlation between the SBF and the LS. You would have to be pretty narrow minded to think that this engine was based, even loosely on ONE particular engine. If the engineers that birthed the LS are as smart as I believe they are, they probably looked at a whole slew of engines from the past to see what worked well and what didn't.

Funny, don't recall seeing a distributor on my car. Also, how is the oil system the same as a SBF? The LS is a crank driven gerotor, while SBF is a camshaft/distributor driven gear pump. Lastly, LS water pumps contain the inlet and outlet ports to the block, as well as the thermostat which allows the intake manifold to remain dry. SBF on the other hand has a conventional cooling system with a water pump that pushes coolant into the block and exits out through the intake.

It's clear you are a brand worshiper, which is ok I guess. I'm fairly loyal to GM, but I also know they build a whole lotta crap. Every company does. Just don't see the correlation between the SBF and the LS. You would have to be pretty narrow minded to think that this engine was based, even loosely on ONE particular engine. If the engineers that birthed the LS are as smart as I believe they are, they probably looked at a whole slew of engines from the past to see what worked well and what didn't.

Is reading and comprehension lost in the world today? Or is everyone just a complete imbecile? I clearly stated the distributor location was up front with a carb motor. Have you not been around long enough to see an LS1 carb setup and where the distributor would go? Wow.

And, please god, some of you people that fail to read and comprehend what's being said, for the last time, I never said the design was the same. I said what the design was based around - a SBF. Front oiling, Head to block cooling, 10 head bolts, front distributor (WITH A CARB - for the idiots), and standalone intake/exhaust ports.

There is no brand "worshiping". There is plain as day facts of how one push rod motor called a SBC completely changed up it's oiling, cooling, head design, head bolt displacement, from what it has been running for 50 plus years and just so happened to change it to what the SBF has been running for over 50 years. Are you people really this blind or just stupid?

Again, at least you can read the same thing from magazines, magazines such as car craft and hot rod who are generally Chevy bias. I guess they must be wrong as well?

Good god, I'm out of here lol.

The reason the distributor is up front is simple. And it obviously has nothing to do with the way Ford decided it should be...fuck, use your head.

Also, coolant does not flow into the heads first, it flows into the block, up to the heads And back down thru a small passage in the block back to the water pump. Just like the original small block Chevy.

Frontdizzy get out of here. You are posting nonsense.

Seeing that I personally know a couple of the people responsible for designing and engineering the ls engine in its beginning stages, I can tell you that this process and ENGINE-uity ;) (ingenuity) was not done at Ford, thats for sure.

I recall a somewhat lengthy exploration of the development of the LS1. It is still available.

Since it is "No use without permission" I'll simply supply a link to it.

THIS (http://www.netmotive.net/articles/hib/ls1c.html)link.

Take the time to read the entire thing. It'll be good for you.

Ford stopped using pushrod motors almost completely in the early 90's. In 97 when the LS1 came out, Fords equal was making - what 225 horse? If they designed the LS1 you bet your ass they would have kept it.

Ford stopped using pushrod motors almost completely in the early 90's. In 97 when the LS1 came out, Fords equal was making - what 225 horse? If they designed the LS1 you bet your ass they would have kept it.

wrong...

the f150's/250's and broncos got the 5.0/5.8 till 96... the f250 till 97...

the mountaineer and exploders till 99 could come with a 5.0...

just letting ya know...

also ford offered the 460 big block in 97... they also ran the 4.6 as early as 94 iirc in the mark 8's and 91 in the town cars

Ford did not design nor have any handiwork in our beloved LS motors, otherwise we would all be riding bicycles back to the dealership every other day.



:jest::jest::jest: I agree

I wish I was a fly on the wall at Ford or GM to hear what they're working on but at the end of the day we should look to AMG from Mercedes Benz to show us what's going to happen in the future. The new Twin Turbo V8s with direct injection and multi injectors per piston and no need for a starter motor technologies are years ahead of everyone else.


I attended a NAPA runability class a few years ago that was headed by a former GM engineer that told a story of a 1.0ltr 4 cylinder GM had developed back in the 80's that used technology for no need for a starter. This engine also was supposed to be a complete composite engine cooled with R-134(before it replaced R12 in AC systems),used electro magnetic coil operated valves if i remember correctly and a fuel system using an insane amount of pressure that made in the area of 300hp. I wish I could remember his name just to pick his brain a little more on this engine and to talk tuning since he is supposed to have a tuner shop in Florida. Maybe one of you Florida guys know who he is? Supposed to be a 10 bay shop if memory serves and they work on everything.

The reason the distributor is up front is simple. And it obviously has nothing to do with the way Ford decided it should be...fuck, use your head.

Also, coolant does not flow into the heads first, it flows into the block, up to the heads And back down thru a small passage in the block back to the water pump. Just like the original small block Chevy.

I was thinking the same. Try stuffing a distributor into the back of an ls1 in a 4th gen let alone the fact modifying the block would be too costly.

FrontDizzy spun his head too much and hasn't been around enough to know that the ls1 went back to traditional cooling as opposed to the lt1's reverse cooling he is hung up on.

Head bolt placement is strictly due to block distortion to an aluminum block. The old SBC layout would have played hell on the aluminum block. I guess that could be a page from ford making this layout so as not to distort their iron blocks which would lead me to believe they were using the same inferior metals to produce their blocks as they used for all those quick to rust out stang bodies for so many years.:confused:


Lets not forget those intakes the sbf used that required no coolant passages, oh wait, thats the ls engine.

In the end, the ford boys have always reached way out there to try and take credit for anything another manufacture made superior to anything they designed and they are really reaching on this issue. So be it. Guess it's a great excuse to their ford brethern as to why the ls is becoming such a popular swap into fox bodies. Wander how many sbf's are swapped into F-Bodies? I'm betting very few.

Look at Sperry(sp) and his past creations for GM heads and his accomplishments. He finally got to do what he knew needed done and it wasn't ideas from ford.

As for front oiling. It's crank driven. A system that has become common place among many manufactures and is more cost effective. Isn't ford sbf in the pan?

Keep reaching, it's all you have

LMFAO, this thread...:sack:

Is reading and comprehension lost in the world today? Or is everyone just a complete imbecile? I clearly stated the distributor location was up front with a carb motor. Have you not been around long enough to see an LS1 carb setup and where the distributor would go? Wow.

And, please god, some of you people that fail to read and comprehend what's being said, for the last time, I never said the design was the same. I said what the design was based around - a SBF. Front oiling, Head to block cooling, 10 head bolts, front distributor (WITH A CARB - for the idiots), and standalone intake/exhaust ports.

There is no brand "worshiping". There is plain as day facts of how one push rod motor called a SBC completely changed up it's oiling, cooling, head design, head bolt displacement, from what it has been running for 50 plus years and just so happened to change it to what the SBF has been running for over 50 years. Are you people really this blind or just stupid?

Again, at least you can read the same thing from magazines, magazines such as car craft and hot rod who are generally Chevy bias. I guess they must be wrong as well?

:nono:

Good god, I'm out of here lol.

Good, because those of us that are already "blind and stupid" will end up even more stupid if we follow your "facts" :lol:

All this talk about carbs and distributors.....Have you not been around long enough to realize that no LS1 ever came this way from the factory? If you want to compare original OEM designs, then why all this focus on aftermaket/non-original conversions?

You know, Cadillac and Buick were using front mount distributors many decades ago. So was Mopar. This concept is not exclusive to Ford.

I recall a somewhat lengthy exploration of the development of the LS1. It is still available.

Since it is "No use without permission" I'll simply supply a link to it.

THIS (http://www.netmotive.net/articles/hib/ls1c.html)link.

Take the time to read the entire thing. It'll be good for you.

Not to revive this thread, but that's a great read! As an engineering student (who's very close to graduatiion, thank God!) it makes it even more interesting.

Since everybody is giving their opinion; do I think that Ford designed the LS engine? No, but I think the design of the LS is very close to the design of the SBF.
I remember in the mid 90's when the SB2 first came out (Nascar), a local drag racer got his hands on one for his 1st Gen Camero race car. It had a modified Roush SBF intake on it,when asked about it he was telling people that sometimes when you have to beat someone, you have to join them :jest:

To put it as nicely as possible, you guys who think they are so much alike or that GM took cues from the SBF when designing the LS are just goofy. They are no more alike than any other small block V8 compared to it.

1. They don't have a front mounted distributor, they have a crank triggered, micro-processor controlled, distributorless ignition, period. The distributor kits that do exist for LS engines have nothing to do with what the engineers were planning for these engines. To say that because a part made to adapt an engine to run a conventional switched ignition ends up mounted on the front of the engine makes it a copy of another that was designed with the distributor in front some 40 years prior is dumb. Like said before, if this is true how do know that they weren't copying the Mopar small-block? Just dumb.

2. They don't have a similar oil pump or lubrication system. SBF's have a front pan sump mounted, distributor driven, spur-gear pump. The LS has a rear sump pick-up, front of block mounted, crank driven, gerotor pump. What's the similarity? That they both have an oil pump mounted forward of the center of the block? Who cares, what does that matter in comparison? If anything the LS is more like a Mazda Rotary, just as dumb to say even.

3. The bore spacing is very close. So? The bores are very close too, does that mean every engine with a bore at or about 4" is copying Ford's SB? That covers a lot of engines. Both companies were building a 90* V8 with 3.9-4" bores in the least amount of space. So they ended up very close. Yeah, that means they were out of ideas and started pulling 40 year old SBF's out of the junk yard to learn from because they were universally recognized as the pinnacle of engine efficiency design. NOT.

4. The head bolt pattern. Yeah I'm sure nobody ever though of just putting a head bolt in every corner before to save space and make the head smaller. Never mind that until recent advances in sealing technology the old Gen I SBC with five head bolts per cylinder was considered superior to 4 bolt designs because they held up better. So GM already had what allowed them an advantage for many years and yet now that gaskets were stronger we can admit that Ford had it right all along and just copy them. Retarded. So if the racing distributor kits are evidence of succeeding to Ford's engineering dominance in SB design then why are the GM LSX blocks and heads with extra head bolt holes not evidence that Ford never had it right? Damn man it's all about saving space and reducing costs at an acceptable quality point. Now that the gaskets are strong enough they were able to reduce the amount of fasteners while still retaining a strong seal. Now why did Ford never use the extra bolts even when the gaskets sucked? Because they didn't feel it was important enough to spend the money that's why. Oh and by the way there were V8 engines from the very beginning that used four corner head bolts, not just the SBF. How about the Studebaker V8 or Pontiac V8 just to name two. Get over it, it's not evidence of GM copying all mighty Ford by any stretch of your over active imagination.

5. Nascar V8's. Really? I bet you're watching that rubbish right now even though there's good football on aren't you. Here's a news flash: Nascar regulates so much of the engine designs that are allowed to compete that I would be willing to bet you could stick Mopar Nascar heads and a Toyota Nascar SB intake on your Ford Nascar block and have more similarity's to point out as reasons why Ford copied them than you can find comparing street SBF's and street LS V8's. And yet nobody else cares.

I only opened this forum because this post was listed on the main page last night. I wasn't going to say anything because it looked like the biggest dummy gave up but I found another has taken up this cause based on the worlds most popular spec racing series. Now I know why I don't waste time here. In the words of Davy Crockette, "You can all go to Hell. I will go (back) to Texas.", and Football, F a bunch of Nascar.

Vernon

^^^Butt hurt much :gtfo:

ahh! i love this thread!!!

ford didnt help gm...but gm helped ford with the coyote motor....gm finally said "we will send some people to help out....a lot of gm guys are wondering why there has been no competition for the last 40 years...."

lmao :chug:

^^^Butt hurt much :gtfo:

Manic Mechanic is completely correct. How does being correct make someone "butt hurt"?

Perhaps the truth is just hard to accept for some people in this thread.

The LS1 is an LS1; not a redesign of a small block Ford. If you don't want to accept that, or if disbelieving it makes you happy, then you are living in your own world of ignorance. And that's not an attack on anybody, it's just the simple truth and fact of the matter.

The end. :lock: