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

Terry Appleby taappleby at bigpond.com
Fri Apr 20 23:37:39 EDT 2012 

What about an LS9?

-----Original Message-----
From: detomaso-bounces at realbig.com
[mailto:detomaso-bounces at realbig.com]On Behalf Of Corey Price
Sent: 2012-04-21 04:06
To: detomaso at realbig.com
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] The continuing saga of...tasteful engines


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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4947 - Release Date: 04/19/12

More information about the DeTomaso mailing list