[DeTomaso] Pictures

[Richard Greenblum]

Casarini told me the engines were NOT standard US "bog" units, but were massaged. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 18:56, MikeLDrew at aol.com wrote:
> 
> 
> In a message dated 10/12/15 14 19 3, cmccann1972 at gmail.com writes:
> 
> 
>> I recall reading the last few cars received 5.0 engines. 
>> 
>> (snip)
> 
> Only the Pantera Si came with the 5.0 motor.  BTW, I recently learned that 'Si' stands for 'Scintilla incendiare', which means 'spark ignition'.
> 
> 
>> >I suppose that motor might be a 351W lighting
>> motor?
> 
> >>>No, it's a 5.0 engine.
> 
> 
>> > I just thought I read they were all either Clevelands or the last
>> few were 5.0's. Hard to tell but that certainly looks like a 302/5.0 motor
>> with the lower deck height. For what its worth, Ive had a 5.0 mustang with
>> that same intake, healthy cam and heads make over 400 horse and put me in
>> the mid-low 12's in the quarter. They can be very healthy if done right and
>> arguably lighter. But they do seems tiny in that engine bay.
> 
> >>>My understanding is that the Si Panteras received bog-standard 5.0 Mustang engines with nothing special about them.  I know absolutely nothing about those engines so would have to defer to you when you identify performance parts there; I suppose it's always possible that De Tomaso was buying over-the-counter crate performance engines from Ford, which may have differed from the standard production Mustang engines.  You'd have to consult a late 80s SVO catalog to be sure.
> 
>> >Did any factory equipped pantera ever receive a 351Windsor engine? Didn't
>> think so.
> 
> >>>Oh yes, quite a few late Panteras were 351W equipped, when the supply of Australian 351Cs dried up.  They were weak as a kitten--bog-standard truck engines sourced from the USA.  Colin Bradshaw (who is a lurker here) bought his '89 Pantera new from the factory, and paid extra to have a hotted-up version.  When it finally blew up many years later and he took it apart, he discovered that De Tomaso had taken his money but delivered a standard engine--DOH!  Real Steel outside London then built him a kick-ass aluminum head 351W and that car is now all that it should have been to begin with.
>> 
>> >I have never seen an SI up close. Do all of them have the tubular rear
>> subframes like that? Unexpected. Looks more like an individual modification.
> 
> >>>It's not.  The Si chassis shares absolutely nothing with the earlier Panteras--it's a clean-sheet design, with completely different construction techniques
>> 
>> >Transaxle looks different too. Is it a different generation of ZF?
> 
> >>>The last cars got Getrag six-speed gearboxes (sourced from an Audi application, I believe).
>> 
>> >Interesting!!!!!
> 
> >>>Yes, for sure!
> 
> Mike
-------------- next part --------------
   Casarini told me the engines were NOT standard US "bog" units, but were
   massaged.
   Sent from my iPhone

   On Oct 15, 2015, at 18:56, [1]MikeLDrew at aol.com wrote:

   In a message dated 10/12/15 14 19 3, [2]cmccann1972 at gmail.com writes:

     I recall reading the last few cars received 5.0 engines.
     (snip)

   Only the Pantera Si came with the 5.0 motor.  BTW, I recently learned
   that 'Si' stands for 'Scintilla incendiare', which means 'spark
   ignition'.

     >I suppose that motor might be a 351W lighting
     motor?

   >>>No, it's a 5.0 engine.

     > I just thought I read they were all either Clevelands or the last
     few were 5.0's. Hard to tell but that certainly looks like a 302/5.0
     motor
     with the lower deck height. For what its worth, Ive had a 5.0
     mustang with
     that same intake, healthy cam and heads make over 400 horse and put
     me in
     the mid-low 12's in the quarter. They can be very healthy if done
     right and
     arguably lighter. But they do seems tiny in that engine bay.

   >>>My understanding is that the Si Panteras received bog-standard 5.0
   Mustang engines with nothing special about them.  I know absolutely
   nothing about those engines so would have to defer to you when you
   identify performance parts there; I suppose it's always possible that
   De Tomaso was buying over-the-counter crate performance engines from
   Ford, which may have differed from the standard production Mustang
   engines.  You'd have to consult a late 80s SVO catalog to be sure.

     >Did any factory equipped pantera ever receive a 351Windsor engine?
     Didn't
     think so.

   >>>Oh yes, quite a few late Panteras were 351W equipped, when the
   supply of Australian 351Cs dried up.  They were weak as a
   kitten--bog-standard truck engines sourced from the USA.  Colin
   Bradshaw (who is a lurker here) bought his '89 Pantera new from the
   factory, and paid extra to have a hotted-up version.  When it finally
   blew up many years later and he took it apart, he discovered that De
   Tomaso had taken his money but delivered a standard engine--DOH!  Real
   Steel outside London then built him a kick-ass aluminum head 351W and
   that car is now all that it should have been to begin with.

     >I have never seen an SI up close. Do all of them have the tubular
     rear
     subframes like that? Unexpected. Looks more like an individual
     modification.

   >>>It's not.  The Si chassis shares absolutely nothing with the earlier
   Panteras--it's a clean-sheet design, with completely different
   construction techniques

     >Transaxle looks different too. Is it a different generation of ZF?

   >>>The last cars got Getrag six-speed gearboxes (sourced from an Audi
   application, I believe).

     >Interesting!!!!!

   >>>Yes, for sure!
   Mike

References

   1. mailto:MikeLDrew at aol.com
   2. mailto:cmccann1972 at gmail.com