they don’t. ford’s pushrod motors were just as good/better 10 years ago as the sbc. Gm decided to stick with a dinosaur pushrod motor and ford decided to go another route.
I like hearing all you’re crying about n/a motors though. It reminds me of the ricers complaining about v8’s having a bigger engine than they do.
correct,but slp dont s/c or build the motoers like svt does for the cobra!
if u want to take that in in count!Tom Henry SS & the Berger SS have 485,550 & 605 HP cars,put that agaunst the ford GT for half the $$!
& buy the way theiur all N/'A!:booty:
Saleen 281E, Roush stage 3, steeda makes one 
this is def beating the dead horse
factory to factory GM>ford till 02!!!:kekegay:
05 stang >05 f-body!:bigthumb:
dead horse
so what if it’s a dead horse. it’s still a fun discussion. it’s the classic battle of the domestics that has been going on ever since ford came up with a great idea in '64 and chebby has been been trying to play catch up for the past ~40 years.
GM will always be behind ford and trying to play catchup, but they never will.
I really can’t wait for the new camaro to flop and not sell for shit.
I haven’t seen this yet…Cost, which one can make the most power and cost the least? You can go fast in anything if your pockets are deep enough.
I'm talking modifing it yourself, not buying one ready to go from the dealer.news flash
1955 was hte first year for the SBC. Ford couldn’t get there shit together until late 64? Ford had an italian sausage so far up there ass that they had to come up with something… there after what happend? they continued to change it and change it when chevy has used the same sbc for over 50 years now.
… .damn i wish i woulda looked in this thread earlier.
<stick>
<deadhorse>
I was referring to the mustang vs camaro debate, but yea, the sbc has been around forever.
the sbc is a really good motor now, but after soo many years it damn well better be. They will move to smaller displacement mod motors at some point, and they will be left way behind when that day finally comes.
wrong:love:
correct :love: :cuddle: