Windsor vs Cleveland vs Boss

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Or this BOSS:

Mmmm the REAL BOSS!!
The most powerful small block engine ever made!

[xwboss]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

sorry, the first clevelands were cast in 69, BOSS 302 was 1970. Wheezor 3" mains crippled them, the SVO/Dart block uses clevo specs.
By aftermarket i assume you mean CLEVELAND.....

So what did a 69 Boss 302 Mustang use for an engine?

[sleekism]

Just a question to the V8aphiles.

I've heard that the 302 Windsor was a good motor while the 351 Windsor was crap and that the 302 Cleveland was a crap motor but the 351 Cleveland was brilliant.

My vote goes to the Windsor motor simply because I grew up around it with my dads 68 Fairmont with 302. It was interesting that the 68 Fairmont actually used less fuel than the XE with 250 crossflow we got later and had a hell of a lot of grunt.

Also you can't beat the lineage of the Windsor I think they had a story on it in Blueprint magazine.

Also for those who have driven both what is better the Falcon T3 TS50 or the BA XR8 I think some pretty impressive numbers have come from the Windsor.

[fou_bleu]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Or this BOSS:

Or that BOSS!

[Whitey-AMG]

I guess what makes the current FPV Boss such a great kit is how much extra HP can be extracted without "opening" it.

The current crop of HiPo Boss Motors are pumping out @ 280 - 290 RWKW naturally aspirated.

A Clevo doing this would idle like a PIG, drink over 30L per 100 , PING on any fuel aside from OCTANE Boosted Mobil SYNERGY and break down every second day if driven in peak hour traffic every day.

BTW.........I still voted Cleveland........... :

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by ESP

280 - 290 RWKW naturally aspirated.

A Clevo doing this would idle like a PIG, drink over 30L per 100 , PING on any fuel aside from OCTANE Boosted Mobil SYNERGY and break down every second day if driven in peak hour traffic every day.

BTW.........I still voted Cleveland........... :

All i can say is maybe ten years ago, but with the modern aftermarket heads it's all to easy. The cam that my XY has is a very mild idle, it runs fine on any fuel you like (it'll take 40 ish degrees of advance on Vpower) and the old girl was perfectly reliable. Consumption was probably around 20l/100.

[toyxr8]

It amazes me the arguments that are being had over this issue!
IMO,there is pro's n con's for the three different examples.

[Barry_v]

wheres the flathead option.. clearly a flathead with 3 single carbs is better than any queer boss motor.

[xwboss]

Heres some comparisons to help decisions

XR 289W 168kw (225HP)
XT 302W 172kw (230HP)
XW 351W 216kw (290HP)
XW 351W HO 224kw (300HP)
XW - XY 351C 224kw (300HP)
XW - XY 351C HO 290kw (390HP)
XA - XB 351C 224kw (300HP)
XC 351C 162kw
XD - XE 351C 149kw
EB 5.0w 165kw
EB 5.0w GT 200kw
ED 5.0w 195kw
EF 5.0w 170kw
EL 5.0w 185kw
EL 5.0w GT 200kw
AU 5.0w 200kw
AU II 5.0w 220kw
AU III 5.6w 250kw (335HP)

As can be seen Windsors have got progressively more powerful and
Clevelands got progressively less powerful, Im not Knocking Clevelands but they seemed to be at their peek in production form when first released.

[4VCLEVO]

another vote for the clevo

[ratter]

Originally Posted by xwboss

Heres some comparisons to help decisions

XR 289W 168kw (225HP)
XT 302W 172kw (230HP)
XW 351W 216kw (290HP)
XW 351W HO 224kw (300HP)
XW - XY 351C 224kw (300HP)
XW - XY 351C HO 290kw (390HP)
XA - XB 351C 224kw (300HP)
XC 351C 162kw
XD - XE 351C 149kw
EB 5.0w 165kw
EB 5.0w GT 200kw
ED 5.0w 195kw
EF 5.0w 170kw
EL 5.0w 185kw
EL 5.0w GT 200kw
AU 5.0w 200kw
AU II 5.0w 220kw
AU III 5.6w 250kw (335HP)

As can be seen Windsors have got progressively more powerful and
Clevelands got progressively less powerful, Im not Knocking Clevelands but they seemed to be at their peek in production form when first released.

And the Boss 5.4 started at 260 kw and then 290 kw





:

[sleekism]

Is it possible to increase the capacity of the BOSS beyond 5.4L?

Having a look at Wikipedia the GEN3 family stretched from 4.8L to 6.0L and the GEN4 family stretches from 6.0L to 7.0L.

Why is the Ford Modular engine only stretching from 4.6L to 5.4L???

Personally I think FPV is doing awesome just keeping up with the HSV offerings considering how much of tight asses Ford North America is in investing in new engines.

The Modular V8 family has been around since the early 90's and realistically is Fords ONLY V8 family and has to satisfy everything from SUV's, Pickups, Pony Cars , Sedans and Supercars.

GM on the other hand has brang out a number of completely new V8's during the lifetime of the Modular and has currently 4 major v8 families in production the Gen3, Gen4, Northstar OHC and the Big Block Family.

It must be a testament to the original design that the GT is only 17kw downstreasm of the new GTS but realistically Ford should have two V8 families one for cars and one for trucks at the least they could have kept the Windsor in producation and probably should have built a new compact OHV V8 have a look at the new HEMI that would have been perfect much better than the GEN4.

[Chris]

I think they are all tough................

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Is it possible to increase the capacity of the BOSS beyond 5.4L?

Having a look at Wikipedia the GEN3 family stretched from 4.8L to 6.0L and the GEN4 family stretches from 6.0L to 7.0L.

Why is the Ford Modular engine only stretching from 4.6L to 5.4L???


.

Because the 7.0L LS7 has a stroke of 4.00" compared to the 5.4L Mod which has a stroke of 4.17". The longer the stroke, the higher the pistons speeds and the less that you can rev the engine before something will break. With the Mod motors bore spacing, enlarging the bore diameter isn't an attractive option and the stroke has already been lengthened a very long way.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Because the 7.0L LS7 has a stroke of 4.00" compared to the 5.4L Mod which has a stroke of 4.17". The longer the stroke, the higher the pistons speeds and the less that you can rev the engine before something will break. With the Mod motors bore spacing, enlarging the bore diameter isn't an attractive option and the stroke has already been lengthened a very long way.

It can be done (Boring it), but it is huge amount of work and not really worth the effort, better off building it as a 5.4 with some boost or give it some internals for 7,000Rpm.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

It can be done (Boring it), but it is huge amount of work and not really worth the effort, better off building it as a 5.4 with some boost or give it some internals for 7,000Rpm.

The 4.6L and 5.4L mod motors have a 3.937" bore spacing, compared to the LS motors which have a 4.4" bore spacing. That's why the LS motors can fit a bigger bore. The mod motor bore diameter could be increased, but not by all that much.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

The 4.6L and 5.4L mod motors have a 3.937" bore spacing, compared to the LS motors which have a 4.4" bore spacing. That's why the LS motors can fit a bigger bore. The mod motor bore diameter could be increased, but not by all that much.

Yeah, XRQTOR posted some shots in another thread, it's a huge amound of work, he didn't evan know if any company in australia would be set up to do the job.

[sleekism]

Well if the BOSS already has a long stroke why do car mags complain that it lacks low down torque as I am under the assumption that a long stroke equals ample mid range torque.

Is the torque hole due to bad breathing or bad valve timing?

Would VVT fix the torque hole?

My Fairmont is tuned to provide torque and response at low rpm but once it reaches about 3500rpm the valve timing changes to provide maximum horsepower.

I remember reading an article about the design process for the BOSS where they said initially they were making 300+ kw but the torque levels were unimpressive so perhaps the fitment of VVT could fix this problem?

Could VVT be fitted to the BOSS and still allow it to fit under the bonnet.
If not perhaps the 3 valve could be used does anybody know the state of tune for the 3 valve and if more aggressive valve timing could result in greater power gains?

Is it funny how Ford Oz engineers have to do a lot of work to squeeze horsepower out of the Modular truck engine while all the Holden engineers have to do is pick from a GM catalogue

[XCSEDAN]

Boss 429 for me
nothing beats them!!!
except maybe a cammer!!!

[toyxr8]

Originally Posted by XCSEDAN

Boss 429 for me
nothing beats them!!!
except maybe a cammer!!!

Any thing can beat anything.
Within reason....
$$$$$$ talks!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Well if the BOSS already has a long stroke why do car mags complain that it lacks low down torque as I am under the assumption that a long stroke equals ample mid range torque.

Is the torque hole due to bad breathing or bad valve timing?

Would VVT fix the torque hole?

My Fairmont is tuned to provide torque and response at low rpm but once it reaches about 3500rpm the valve timing changes to provide maximum horsepower.

I remember reading an article about the design process for the BOSS where they said initially they were making 300+ kw but the torque levels were unimpressive so perhaps the fitment of VVT could fix this problem?

Could VVT be fitted to the BOSS and still allow it to fit under the bonnet.
If not perhaps the 3 valve could be used does anybody know the state of tune for the 3 valve and if more aggressive valve timing could result in greater power gains?

Is it funny how Ford Oz engineers have to do a lot of work to squeeze horsepower out of the Modular truck engine while all the Holden engineers have to do is pick from a GM catalogue

The long stroke = lots of torque is a bit of a myth. There is a far better relationship between torque and capacity, which is another one of the advantages that the LS motors have over the mod motors. For instance a 6L LS motor has 11% more capacity than a 5.4L Mod motor and that percentage is pretty close to the torque difference between the motors.

VVT could possible be added, but it would take more space and add more weight, and the mod motors are already on the porky side.

Holden were lucky that GM already had a suitable engine, but I suspect there has been more local input than most of us suspect, whereas poor Ford had to go to through the Ford parts bin to create a suitable engine.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

The long stroke = lots of torque is a bit of a myth. There is a far better relationship between torque and capacity, which is another one of the advantages that the LS motors have over the mod motors. For instance a 6L LS motor has 11% more capacity than a 5.4L Mod motor and that percentage is pretty close to the torque difference between the motors.

VVT could possible be added, but it would take more space and add more weight, and the mod motors are already on the porky side.

Holden were lucky that GM already had a suitable engine, but I suspect there has been more local input than most of us suspect, whereas poor Ford had to go to through the Ford parts bin to create a suitable engine.

Yes in fact if you look at Killowatts of power produced per litre of engine displacement the BOSS 5.4 is more efficient too..
In theory a 6L BOSS in the same state of tune would make 322KW.


6L 307 LS2 = 51.16 KW/L
BOSS 290 = 53.7 KW/L

[sleekism]

Interesting information and just proves my theory that the Holden V8 can only get more powerful by increasing capacity.

Does anybody here think it would be valid if Ford supercharged the BOSS, I mean would the market accepts this?

Also shouldn't the Modular be a LOT more powerful considering it's OHC or is this another myth.

I mean if you compare a 250 Crossflow to a modern Barra 190 there is a substantial power difference but maybe this is due to higher compression and better engine management?

It's interesting that GM also has a OHC small block similar to the Modular and I've also heard they have developed a Pushrod V8 with VVT in the block very interesting indeed.

Ford doesn't seem to invest as much in V8's as their rivals it was lucky they developed the Modular in the first place otherwise they probably would have persevered with the Windsor though that could have also been a good thing I've heard that the 5.6L stroker in the TS50 has a better torque curve than the BOSS?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Interesting information and just proves my theory that the Holden V8 can only get more powerful by increasing capacity.

Does anybody here think it would be valid if Ford supercharged the BOSS, I mean would the market accepts this?

Also shouldn't the Modular be a LOT more powerful considering it's OHC or is this another myth.

I mean if you compare a 250 Crossflow to a modern Barra 190 there is a substantial power difference but maybe this is due to higher compression and better engine management?

It's interesting that GM also has a OHC small block similar to the Modular and I've also heard they have developed a Pushrod V8 with VVT in the block very interesting indeed.

Ford doesn't seem to invest as much in V8's as their rivals it was lucky they developed the Modular in the first place otherwise they probably would have persevered with the Windsor though that could have also been a good thing I've heard that the 5.6L stroker in the TS50 has a better torque curve than the BOSS?

My understanding is the BOSS 290's engine management system limits its power delievery (especially at low rpm) to maintain driveline life, the driveline is built to a price, to make it stronger means allot more money.. You only have to see what edited cars are capable of to know the 290 is deliberately crippled by the engine management system..
The 5.6l stroker was flat out making 44.64 KW/L.. that wouldnt cut it in todays vehicles.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Interesting information and just proves my theory that the Holden V8 can only get more powerful by increasing capacity.

Does anybody here think it would be valid if Ford supercharged the BOSS, I mean would the market accepts this?

Also shouldn't the Modular be a LOT more powerful considering it's OHC or is this another myth.

I mean if you compare a 250 Crossflow to a modern Barra 190 there is a substantial power difference but maybe this is due to higher compression and better engine management?

It's interesting that GM also has a OHC small block similar to the Modular and I've also heard they have developed a Pushrod V8 with VVT in the block very interesting indeed.

Ford doesn't seem to invest as much in V8's as their rivals it was lucky they developed the Modular in the first place otherwise they probably would have persevered with the Windsor though that could have also been a good thing I've heard that the 5.6L stroker in the TS50 has a better torque curve than the BOSS?

Don't you mean the Chevrolet V8? The Holden V8 hasn't been produced for a few years now.

I don't agree that the only way that GM can increase the output of their LS motors is to increase the capacity, but atleast that option is open to them. Like the mod motors, LS motors also respond to editing and induction/exhaust flow improvements.

Supercharged Mod motors are sold in the USA so I guess there is no reason why that couldn't also be sold here in Australia. The incresed weight may be an issue.

If you want to understand the benefits of OHC versus OHV, have a look at Bill Sherwood's webpage on the subject. That being said, the Modular motor has a few problems. It's small bore/long stroke means that it's not a revver, and the ability to rev highly is one of the benefits of having a OHC engine. Also the small bore doesn't allow very big valves to be fitted, which provides a real constraint on head flow and therefore power. This is readily apparent if one looks at the 2V modular head flow, as it can best be desribed as pathetic. The 4V heads have a far better flow, but they are still severely constrained by the small bore and valve diameters.

Yes GM has OHC motors, but they knew that they are more expensive to build are heavier, bulkier, more complex and are overkill for their huge truck/suv market.

It may have been better if Ford had relied on the Windsor for a bit longer and designed a V8 for rear wheel drive cars, instead of designing it for front wheel drives. The requirement to fit it in front wheel drive cars meant that the motor had to be made short and this was done by giving it a small bore spacing. Having such a small bore spacing is why the motor can't be enlarged further, why it has such a long stroke, tall deck height, is overweight oversized etc.

[webby_191189]

Definatly the clevo

[sleekism]

I'm learning heaps of new crap lol

I was under the impression that the Modular was designed with a long stroke so as to serve in SUV's and F series where space is not an issue and low down torque is desired.

It's a shame really that the Modular is not a better motor but I'm sure Ford engineers have some more tricks up their sleeve maybe a 4.6L V8 DOHC QIVCT 5 Valve would produce tangible results though if I was heading Ford I would either push to get the Hurricane V8 project finished as I'm pretty sure it has a large bore short stroke layout so would fit under the hood of the Falcon or produce something entirely new like the New Hemi which is a brilliant motor and is presently giving GM a run for it's money.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by sleekism

I'm learning heaps of new crap lol

I was under the impression that the Modular was designed with a long stroke so as to serve in SUV's and F series where space is not an issue and low down torque is desired.

It's a shame really that the Modular is not a better motor but I'm sure Ford engineers have some more tricks up their sleeve maybe a 4.6L V8 DOHC QIVCT 5 Valve would produce tangible results though if I was heading Ford I would either push to get the Hurricane V8 project finished as I'm pretty sure it has a large bore short stroke layout so would fit under the hood of the Falcon or produce something entirely new like the New Hemi which is a brilliant motor and is presently giving GM a run for it's money.

Hopefully Fords next V8 (Hurricane) will be better. 5 valves is actually worse than 4 valves. That too is explained on Bill Sherwood's webpage.

[xwboss]

If you want to understand the benefits of OHC versus OHV, have a look at Bill Sherwood's webpage on the subject. That being said, the Modular motor has a few problems. It's small bore/long stroke means that it's not a revver, and the ability to rev highly is one of the benefits of having a OHC engine. Also the small bore doesn't allow very big valves to be fitted, which provides a real constraint on head flow and therefore power. This is readily apparent if one looks at the 2V modular head flow, as it can best be desribed as pathetic. The 4V heads have a far better flow, but they are still severely constrained by the small bore and valve diameters.

You mentioned here how the modular engine has some breathing problems, is it a coincidence that it is built in Windsor.
Maybe they should have built the Modular engine in Cleveland, no breathing problems in Clevelands.
Seems like the Windsor cylinder head designers are apposed to good breathing engines.

[bronzewineZD]

gotta be windsor, got a 'not far from stock' 302 in the ZD and the powerskids are unreal! it revs like crazy and smokes into 3rd, mind you the tyres would have to be 10 years old at the least.