Most Ford "Chop Rods" Use Chevy Drivetrains--Why?

Id be surprised if it actually had the buick v6 (vin A?) chevy used their 3.8L (229 inches) and a 3.2L! 200 inches using the 262 v8 hardware. I remember one of my grandfathers got a 'bu with the 200...it was the barest bones car chevy sold outside of the chevette that year (the chevette came -><- this close to getting the HO660 from the X-11 installed, which would have made it faster than the same year vette....)
I can assure you, it was a Buick V-6 and not the 229 Chevy. Oshawa did some weird shit back then. ;)
 
There's an easy way to tell. If I remember right, the Buick had the distributor in the front and the Chevy had it in the rear.
I can’t remember the distributor location. I do remember it wouldn’t run at 9000 ft. I made a plate out of a coffee can top to block the EGR valve so I could get home from Lake Sibrina.
 
Exactly and the Buick oil pump setup was weak so you had to look after the engine well and not abuse it!
I learned that one the hard way.:oops:
In my late teens, I put a junkyard 231 Buick v6 and TH350 transmission into a Chevette. I put a bigger cam in it along with a 4bbl intake and carb. In the process, the shitty oiling system lost it's prime so it had no oil pressure when I started it up. I immediately shut it down and took the oil pump apart and coated the gears with grease so it would prime, but damage was already done. It ran like a bitch and would shred the little 13" tires, but it started knocking after less than 1000 miles. I got pissed off and sent it to the junkyard.:rolleyes: I heard from some mechanics at the time, that if those oiling systems had enough wear, they sometimes lost prime just from draining the oil and removing the filter.:eek:
 
When Carroll Shelby got the idea for the original AC Cobra he went to GM and asked for Chevy engines.
GM declined, so he ended up using Fords. Nuff said.
 
Didn't those Ford 3.8 V6's blow head gasket's till they improved them about 1999? My 94 T Bird has one that has had the gaskets changed (before the 100K miles it has on it now) and blows oil & antifreeze if you don't warm it up before driving it on the highway! I like the 40 MPG Imperial on the highway though!
I had the 85 3.8 cougar.I don't remember any issues with the headgasket at least on mine and it had triple the miles your talking about.For an 80,s car it was actually pretty nice considering the 80,s were a pretty forgettable decade except for a select few .
 
Yup, many years ago I had an 83 Malibu 4 door that had a factory Buick 231 under the hood. It ran pretty well til the oil pump let go one day 60 miles from home. Only GM motor I've ever fried.

And my first car, a 1981 Pontiac LeMans Wagon, had a 231 Buick engine and a Metric THM 350 factory. Engine was solid and reliable, tranny did fail (lost reverse), Replacement tranny was a beast to find, little to nothing interchanged in that era. Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and Olds had some quirks then, and we still had BOP to deal with.
 
Yes. And so did the 4.2 in the F150. I don't know if or how much they ever actually improved them, though. They seemed OK as long as you kept the coolant changed and NEVER got them hot. I know the head gaskets were replaced in the '91 Thunderturd that we had before we got it. It never had problems for us, though. We never had head gasket issues in any of the 3 3.8 LTDs that we had, either.
I have a '97 T-Bird with the 3.8 V-6. It has oil in the coolant. I looked into changing head gaskets, but they say you have to machine the block and heads before you change them, or the new ones will leaks. I don't want to do that.

I think I'm going to try this....

 
I have a '97 T-Bird with the 3.8 V-6. It has oil in the coolant. I looked into changing head gaskets, but they say you have to machine the block and heads before you change them, or the new ones will leaks. I don't want to do that.

I think I'm going to try this....

You are free to do as you choose, but there's no way in Hell I'd use any of that band-aid-in-a-bottle type of crap.:no: It doesn't actually fix the problem and just makes a bigger mess when you go to fix it the right way. Especially if the head gaskets are already that bad.

If the block and heads are still true and not cracked, you don't necessarily have to have them machined just to replace the head gaskets.

I actually have a Kia Rio sitting here with a bad head gasket. The coolant and oil didn't mix, but it is putting compression into the cooling system. I have the car up for sale, but if it doesn't sell without me taking a loss on it, it will get fixed the right way, even if it is a pain. I'd just assume junk it before I'd do a half-assed fix that's not going to hold up and / or do more damage in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Well if that's the case ... Even cooler than the blown flathead I posted above was another hot rod from the old guard at the Adam's Street Donuts (Huntington Beach) Saturday morning cruise. How about a "T" pickup with an Offenhauser motor. This could be it, but it's a web grab. Then again how many could there be? Very unique sounding engine, at and just off-idle it sounds like a washing machine on the agitation cycle.

DSC09056.jpg
all of 250hp ... and BIG money to set them up with the correct stuff ...
 
Turbo it for nice power upgrade and it can take it as the 4.9 was built to take hard use. Best to use forged pistons and stronger rods if you add a lot of boost though!

Besides turbos are easy on the engine compared to super chargers or NO2.
And who told you that?
 
It’s all about monkey see.....monkey do mentality!!

My uncle back in the early sixties had a Lincoln 337 in a ‘34 three window chop top.....not chop rod !!!! There is no reason why a Ford 351 Cleveland with a Borg Warner T-10 is not in a Ford vintage custom...none at all !!! They are just as plentiful as the SB 350 and cheaper to buy and can be found in old 70’s Ford vans, station wagons, Rancheros and Torinos still being driven to day. Then the real clencher is the 351c is lighter than the 350. I put a bored 351c into ‘67 Mustangs with the aluminum cased BW T-10 tranny with the rear differential gear cluster and axle shafts from a Mercury Cougar XR-7 and no Camaro ever got close to my back bumper. That’s how I sold cars....one at a time !!!

The same with Chrysler, a bored 413 (forged crank) with 440 heads and 6-pack intake 4-speed (which is lighter than a Chevy BB and puts out more torque) can be built and put into a light Dodge Cornet (Dodge station wagon limited slip rear diff gears and shafts) and tear up any B.B. out there. The 413/440 combo can be supercharged up to 1200 hp (plus more torque output than almost any other supercharged BB, with the exception of the 427 SOHC) ..and how many people know about that ????

There’s more common knowledge shared between people for the Chevy plus the virtual decades of Chevy interchangeablity. Just like Fords 302 being put in everything....knowing what combination of 302 parts were being used for which Ford production car.....or truck.

But the real reason is because of popularity.....
 
Last edited:
Man I'm glad none of you old farts are building a hot rod for me, ugly boring motors for sure.

images.jpg cc38014aed8c21eadd1f7c292ac1d60f.jpg

 
Last edited:
It’s all about monkey see.....monkey do mentality!!

My uncle back in the early sixties had a Lincoln 337 in a ‘34 three window chop top.....not chop rod !!!! There is no reason why a Ford 351 Cleveland with a Borg Warner T-10 is not in a Ford vintage custom...none at all !!! They are just as plentiful as the SB 350 and cheaper to buy and can be found in old 70’s Ford vans, station wagons, Rancheros and Torinos still being driven to day. Then the real clencher is the 351c is lighter than the 350. I put a bored 351c into ‘67 Mustangs with the aluminum cased BW T-10 tranny with the rear differential gear cluster and axle shafts from a Mercury Cougar XR-7 and no Camaro ever got close to my back bumper. That’s how I sold cars....one at a time !!!

The same with Chrysler, a bored 413 (forged crank) with 440 heads and 6-pack intake 4-speed (which is lighter than a Chevy BB and puts out more torque) can be built and put into a light Dodge Cornet (Dodge station wagon limited slip rear diff gears and shafts) and tear up any B.B. out there. The 413/440 combo can be supercharged up to 1200 hp (plus more torque output than any other supercharged BB)...and how many people know about that ????

There’s more common knowledge shared between people for the Chevy plus the virtual decades of Chevy interchangeablity. Just like Fords 302 being put in everything....knowing what combination of 302 parts were being used for which Ford production car.....or truck.

But the real reason is because of popularity.....
I like your style. Really, it all comes down to how much air can be moved through the cylinder head. This is why the LS motors are so polular with engine builders at present - the heads can outperform BBC heads.

I love the MOPAR powerplants, specifically the wedges. I love the fact that you can swap the manifold without pulling the dist or draining the coolant. How freakin’ ingenious is that!?!
 
This is why the LS motors are so polular with engine builders at present - the heads can outperform BBC heads.
Yep, according to what I read on the Classic Olds site, they're especially popular for swaps into old Cutlii.

Breaks my heart, but you can't argue with progress.
 
I like your style. Really, it all comes down to how much air can be moved through the cylinder head. This is why the LS motors are so polular with engine builders at present - the heads can outperform BBC heads.

I love the MOPAR powerplants, specifically the wedges. I love the fact that you can swap the manifold without pulling the dist or draining the coolant. How freakin’ ingenious is that!?!

I studied flow charts and flow benches for so long that I found out that all flow benches don’t even work the same or even give the same results for the same head. It looks to me that the numbers given for flow characteristics are like advertising a product to attract customers. I do know that torque is an indication of better flow and torque is what moves mass and the mass needs to be as light as possible. I knew someone in Gilroy Ca. that built up 440’s and 426’s, I took the opportunity to learn from this guy and he and I put a 413/440 combo in a ‘65 super-stock Dodge Cornet. I use to do allot of racing at the Fremont Raceway grudge match category where you register a week prior. Then you wait for the big boys to finish and at the end of the night before closing you have the grudge matches. The only Chevy that gave me a problem was this old guy that put a 409 into a ‘65 Malibu, 409’s are a narrower, lighter high torque motor. Ford 427’s in Mercury Comets pulled away from me and what did they have on me.....more torque than I had. I was driving a unibody auto so the weight was not a problem and the weight of a BBC is the lightest B.B.....so they just had more torque. Sorry, I’m just an old rabid car builder and don’t mean anything personal....I just love cars !!!
 
Last edited:
I studied flow charts and flow benches for so long that I found out that all flow benches don’t even work the same or even give the same results for the same head. It looks to me that the numbers given for flow characteristics are like advertising a product to attract customers. I do know that torque is an indication of better flow and torque is what moves mass and the mass needs to be as light as possible. I knew someone in Gilroy Ca. that built up 440’s and 426’s, I took the opportunity to learn from this guy and he and I put a 413/440 combo in a ‘65 super-stock Dodge Cornet. I use to do allot of racing at the Fremont Raceway grudge match category where you register a week prior. Then you wait for the big boys to finish and at the end of the night before closing you have the grudge matches. The only Chevy that gave me a problem was this old guy that put a 409 into a ‘65 Malibu, 409’s are a narrower, lighter high torque motor. Ford 427’s in Mercury Comets pulled away from me and what did they have on me.....more torque than I had. I was driving a unibody auto so the weight was not a problem and the weight of a BBC is the lightest B.B.....so they just had more torque. Sorry, I’m just an old rabid car builder and don’t mean anything personal....I just love cars !!!
I'm more if an assembler than a builder. One of my best buds owns an engine building business he started in '86. I've learned all kinds of stuff from him. I've never met anyone that knows more about maximizing efficiencies up top than he. Always fun to see his creations on the dyno.

My shit is all iron. Gen IV 4-bolt block and 3964291 rectangular port heads. He spent a lot if time on the heads (I couldn't afford to upgrade to the Darts) and had a nice big hydraulic roller custom ground for it. It's borderline psycho at 6psi and full on psycho at 8psi.

I'm the electrical guy ... that's my wheelhouse. But I also do all my own wrenching.

Sounds like you have quite a history in racing. Also sounds like you may be a bit older than I - I'm 48. I can't tell you the last time I heard of a guy running a 409 in our scene. Quite a storied engine, that's for sure.
 
all of 250hp ... and BIG money to set them up with the correct stuff ...
IMHO...your wrong about the Offenhauser motor. It's main claim to fame was it's ability to accept tremendous amounts of boost. Back in the day they could make over 400hp with an old school supercharger. Modern technology could really take advantage of a motor with no head gasket. Modern pistons, computer controlled ignition, EFI, and new blower/turbo.

It bet it's good for 500 reliable horsepower. And it sounds awesome.
 
Back
Top Bottom