[DeTomaso] The continuing saga of...tasteful engines

gow2 at rc-tech.net gow2 at rc-tech.net
Fri Apr 20 14:25:44 EDT 2012


Detomaso built a V6......He built one...for good reason.

> How about a new Ecoboost V6?  No weight savings when you consider the
> turbos and all other stuff, but it has a ton of low end torque.
>
> Yeah, you lose the "vibration".
>
> Corey
>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Dave Londry <davel at emspace.com> wrote:
>
>> But would sound like a lawnmower convention.
>>
>> dave
>>
>>
>> On 20/04/2012 10:34 AM, Asa Jay Laughton wrote:
>>> Since we are going out on limbs here...
>>>
>>> How about a three-rotor Wankel?  You know, the rotary put into most
>>> Mazda RX models.  Add another rotor (they make kits for this).  That
>>> would be sweet.  Add a turbo to it and you'd have an engine that would
>>> rev to 10 grand easily and have enough power to push some interesting
>>> limits.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't look like much though.
>>>
>>> Asa Jay
>>>
>>> Quoting Will Kooiman<will.kooiman at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I've even considered a Ford 2.3 Turbo.
>>>>
>>>> Yep - I said it.  A 4-cylinder in a Pantera.
>>>>
>>>> The 2.3 Turbo is a really cool and simple engine.  It can do 400+ HP
>>>> without
>>>> too much effort.  It is cheap, light, reliable, and strong.
>>>>
>>>> You lose the V8 thump-thump-thump, but you gain a nice whistle.
>>>>
>>>> It's also very small, so fitting it in the Pantera should be easy.
>>>>
>>>> If I decided to go non-351, my first choice would probably be a 347
>>>> Boss.
>>>> My second would likely be a 2.3T.  I'd love a 392 Hemi or 429/514
>>>> Boss, but
>>>> that's too much work for me right now.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Corey Price [mailto:coreyjprice at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 11:58 AM
>>>> To: Will Kooiman; detomaso at list.realbig.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] The continuing saga of...tasteful engines
>>>>
>>>> 450+ hp and 400 lb-ft of torque for the Coyote...  Big improvement
>>>> over that
>>>> '98 Mustang.  People are reporting 400 rwhp in their Mustangs with
>>>> simple
>>>> bolt-ons and tuning.  Having driven a bunch of the new Mustangs, only
>>>> the
>>>> Pantera kept me away!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the coyote is ugly with all of the wiring and plastic shielding,
>>>> but it
>>>> can be made to look great. Google the SOHC-style valve covers...  My
>>>> blog
>>>> has a link to a Coyote engine in a Pantera.  Not too bad, and the guy
>>>> put
>>>> 180's on it.
>>>>
>>>> Http://pantera1998.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>> I love both the Coyote and the Cleveland, but am less of a fan of the
>>>> other
>>>> mod motors.  What would be really cool is an all aluminum version of
>>>> the 6.2
>>>> truck engine, like the Roush 777 concept... 7 liters, 700 hp @ 7k rpm.
>>>>
>>>> Corey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 2012, at 9:10 AM, "Will Kooiman"<will.kooiman at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We talk about the beauty of the Pantera.  The engine is part of the
>>>>> car.
>>>> It
>>>>> may as well look the part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought a 98 Mustang Cobra with the 32v 4.6.  It was pretty cool
>>>>> having
>>>> an
>>>>> engine that would rev to the moon.  It was smooth too.  I sold it
>>>>> because
>>>> it
>>>>> had no soul.  It felt like a Toyota.  A muscle car needs to feel like
>>>>> it
>>>> has
>>>>> muscle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought I wanted a 4.6 DOHC in a Pantera, but I’ve been afraid of
>>>>> having
>>>>> another smooth running, Toyota-esque engine.  Plus, I think the rear
>>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>>> engine is ugly.  If I did one, I’d have to do something with the
>>>>> valve
>>>>> covers to show the plugs-through-covers/hemi look.  I’d also have to
>>>>> clean
>>>>> up the sensors and such near the rear of the valley.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m probably being too hard on the looks of a 4.6.  They don’t look
>>>>> that
>>>>> bad.  I haven’t seen the rear of a Coyote 5.0, but it looks like it
>>>>> has
>>>> more
>>>>> of a packaged EFI look.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder, so what I say is ugly,
>>>>> someone
>>>> else
>>>>> might say is beauty.  I just don’t like a big complicated looking EFI
>>>>> engine.  I like simplicity + muscle.  There isn’t much that says that
>>>>> like
>>>> a
>>>>> Chrysler Hemi.  I like the look of the 429 Boss more, but it’s
>>>>> getting to
>>>>> that too-large-for-me size.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  _____
>>>>>
>>>>> From: cengles at cox.net [mailto:cengles at cox.net]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:57 AM
>>>>> To: detomaso at realbig.com; Will Kooiman; 'Thomas Tornblom'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] The continuing saga of...tasteful engines
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Will,
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh-oh. Now you've done it. You've steered the conversation into that
>>>>> subjective morass of *engine aesthetics*!! Hunker down. The opinions
>>>>> will
>>>>> fly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very (tongue in cheek) concerned, Chuck Engles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- Will Kooiman<will.kooiman at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> But it is ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would consider a Boss 302/347, a 392 Hemi or a Boss 429/514.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: detomaso-bounces at realbig.com
>>>>>> [mailto:detomaso-bounces at realbig.com]
>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Thomas Tornblom
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 1:35 AM
>>>>>> To: detomaso at realbig.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] The continuing saga of...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I would look hard at the Coyote Boss 302 crate engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With a redline of 7500, it would solve the low gearing of my GT5
>>>>>> also,
>>>>>> and 444 bhp out of a modern fuel injected production engine would be
>>>>>> good enough for me. It also seems like it would fit below the
>>>>>> screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012-04-20 06:14, ParaPantera at aol.com skrev:
>>>>>>> Personally, I think if you have the resources you should pony up to
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> those "New" MME Cleveland blocks, the list of reasons for a
>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>> block is getting long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a message dated 4/19/2012 11:47:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>>>>>> kirby.schrader at gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> my engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 4 bolt replacement cap from Will fit well and the block was line
>>>>>>> bored
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>> Everything cleaned up except the block web on both sides where the
>>>>>>> cap
>>>>>>> mates with the block.
>>>>>>> Driver's side is a little over .001".
>>>>>>> Passenger side is .004".
>>>>>>> 75% of the bearing surface is good... those areas aren't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My choices:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Run it like it is... (maybe in Granny's old Ford...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Line bore it some more, but it'd have to go a long way
>>>>>>> vertically to
>>>>>>> make up .004 laterally... I don't think this is really an option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Bore that main more and machine a spacer. (I was not aware of
>>>>>>> this,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> apparently drag racers do this all the time? Comments?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) Use my other block and start over. (Sigh...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I should know about the crankshaft condition Friday or Monday.
>>>>>>> Getting
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> crack tested and checked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New question:
>>>>>>> I had thought about this before, but dismissed it.
>>>>>>> Asked two other people and they said no way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But. I'll ask again. How about side loading with lots of belts too
>>>>>>> tight
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> one side?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have this scenario, but was wondering. Can you trash a main
>>>>>> bearing
>>>>>>> due to accessory belt load?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW,
>>>>>>> Kirby
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archive Search Engine Now Available at
>>>>>>> http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DeTomaso mailing list
>>>>>>> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
>>>>>>> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archive Search Engine Now Available at
>>>>>>> http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DeTomaso mailing list
>>>>>>> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
>>>>>>> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> !DSPAM:4f90f1252716021468!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Real life: Thomas Törnblom Email: thomas at hax.se
>>>>>> Snail mail: Banvallsvägen 14 Phone: +46 18 32 31 18
>>>>>> S - 754 40 Uppsala, Sweden Mobile: +46 76 209 8320
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>>>>
>>>>> Archive Search Engine Now Available at
>>>>> http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>>>>>
>>>>> DeTomaso mailing list
>>>>> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
>>>>> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>>>
>>>> Archive Search Engine Now Available at
>>>> http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>>>>
>>>> DeTomaso mailing list
>>>> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
>>>> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>>
>> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>>
>> DeTomaso mailing list
>> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
>> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>




More information about the DeTomaso mailing list