Yep, the quad cam makes for a big top end - not easy to squeeze in -
just ask the guys who designed the BA.  Say what you like about
pushrods - but you do have a lot smaller heads to deal with.

I've seen a small block chev sitting in a Gemini engine bay and it
looked like it belonged there!

Cheers,
Steve
(also, finding a *manual* toyota V8 is difficult - the computer
controls both transmission and engine, so it's difficult switching from
a factory auto setup to manual - not that that would bother Noddy!)

And look at the prices :)

7 grand for a bare long engine which is little more than a standard reco
with forged pistons & some ARP bolts, and you supply your *own* means of
super/turbocharging.

Incidentally, I like the "conservative estimated power potential" quote. Do
they not know how to use a dyno? :)

*Much* smaller in physical size. The Toyota engine is *massive* by
comparison, with all it's OHC crap hanging off the top.

Look at the phsycal size differences between this:

http://www.sandrocket.com/img/pix_main/photo_gallery/Chev-406.jpg

And the bare long engine in the link you provided here:

http://www.lextreme.com/longblock.html

There's nothing that you can use in either of those photo's to directly
compare the two, but I can assure you that the old pushrod V8 engine is a
hell of a lot smaller in physical size.

Google is your friend :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Okay, before I start, I'll mention that the bank angle (the angle between
the two banks of cylinders) on all the V8s I'm going to mention is 90
degrees.  Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise...  Oh, and "deck" is
the surface of the block where the head gasket goes.

The SBC (in capacities up to 400ci from the factory, more with aftermarket
mods) is a relatively narrow engine, in part due to the fact that the face
of the head where the exhaust ports come out is vertical, not at right
angles to the deck like some others.

The Chev V8 also began life in 1955 with a quite short water pump nose,
with the "long" water pump and corresponding crank pulleys coming along in
the late '60s.  Unless the engine is one of the late styles such as where
the coolant flowed backwards, it's possible to put a short water pump onto
a later engine to make it more compact.

The only other engine that comes close to being as compact as a short
waterpump SBC is a Windsor with a Holden 6-cyl waterpump conversion.  The
original windsor water pump was very long, and a holden 6 conversion
shortens the front of a Windsor by about 2.5" IIRC.

Clevelands, Holden "plastics", Chrysler V8s, The Rover and Leyland (P76)
engines are also bulkier.  etc. are generally longer and wider.

I'll make special mention here of the 351 Windsor and P76 motors.  These
engines have a taller deck height in order to have more length of cylinder
wall for the purpose of fitting in longer strokes.  As a consequence, the
right angle isosceles triangle formed by the bore centre lines from crank
centreline to decks on either side has a longer hypotenuse than the short
deck versions, meaning that the inlet manifold has to be wider to suit...
This is where a lot of people get confused and start talking about
different bank angles.  This also means that the 351W and the P76 motors
are wider than other Windsors and Rover V8s respectively.

On a side note, the 2JZ has a taller deck height than the 1JZ.

And then there's the much bulkier OHC engines, such as the [12]UZ Toyota
motors. 4.0 or 4.7L alloy engines that are physically huge in much the same
way as the late model OHC V8 in the BA-on Falcons.  The simple fact is that
there are camshafts, pulleys, etc. hanging out above the combustion chambers
and that stuff all takes space.  More space than the rockers of a pushrod
OHV engine.

It's interesting to note that the Lotus-developed OHC engines that Chev put
in Corvettes a few years ago were made with cam drive chains instead of
rubber belts because the chainwheels could be made a smaller diameter, thus
making the engine narrow enough for the assembly line, where the engines
are assembled onto the front suspension, etc. and put up into the engine bay
from underneath.  If they had used a rubber belt system, the engine would
have been too wide to fit between the chassis rails.

HTH.  :-)

It depends in which direction. The toyota might be similar in length,
but the height incurred from overhead cams, and the fact that they go up
and outward at 45 degrees from horizontal (or 90 degrees vs each
cylinder bank) means they start to take up enginebay space big time.
Especially if there's strut towers to deal with.

------

the best or worst example is the new ford v8. It's smaller capacity, and
is f.cking massive in taking up underbonnet space to the point it's
shitful. The gm v8 has larger capacity, still a pushrod engine, smaller
overall (in certain directions). It might well make a little less power
per litre and torque per litre (though I'm not sure the exact extent)
but overall it is a better performer and returns better fuel economy.
The ford also has (imho) an issue by having a relatively moderate bore
and longish stroke, not great for higher rpms..

basically in those two cases, the ford has all the 'technology' but it's
poorly applied. It's almost like if you took an average racehorse, then
ford went and cloned pharlap, but then they cut off one of it's legs. It
had the potential to be better, but ultimately what matters is not the
size of the engine, or it's tech level, but how the whole combination
actually works _in_ the car.

Obviously, I've gone on a tangent about ford vs holden, and there is
some difference in smallblock v8s in their pros and cons, and the toyota
motor is not a heap of sh.t by any means, but it still has to be put
into context overall I guess.

I should have been more specific, but I was really only talking about psiton
engines. Rotes are unique in that they're more "niche" than anything else.

I'm *far* from a rotary expert, and I don't really ever want to be, but as
powerful as they can be (and I've seen some pretty powerful ones) they do
seem to have pretty short lives.

They are, but they'd still need quite a while to catch up I expect. To be
fair to them though, things like small block Chevs have a 40 odd year
advantage.

Windsors are probably the next most popular engine in terms of repowering
options, and 289-302's are actually a little bit physically smaller than a
SBC, but they don't have *quite* the after-market support (although it's
dramatically increased in recent years) and aren't quite as user friendly in
terms of power potential.

That's not to say they're a bad engine, just that they have their own
peculiarities that need to be overcome that Chev's don't come with.

--
Regards,
Noddy.