Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:19:29 -0700, "66 6F HCS"
<69ta_mustang@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"RT" <noyabusiness@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Just as bland as the monaro. That one is not selling here either (GTO)
>
>I actually prefer the Monaro to the GTO.
In article <Xns9722B01CEFEFCpettyfogery@207.115.63.158>, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns97227BCEF891Dpettyfogery@207.115.63.158>, Backyard
>> Mechanic wrote:
>>
>>>> The pictured engine is the one I would like, a turbo inline 6.
>>
>>> How cool would that be.. to replace the Mustang 200 Sprint engine
>>> with that one!
>>
>> I would love to put one in my maverick in place of the 250... but a
>> easier solution is supposedly on the way. A company is going to make a
>> proper high performance cylinder head for the 200/250.
>
> But how long have we heard that?
This is the first I've ever heard of anyone trying and I've been
interested in these engines for about 20 years now.
> The 7 main block is a great engine, but languished way too long due to
> the silly head/manifold design
"RT" <noyabusiness@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Just as bland as the monaro. That one is not selling here either (GTO)
>>
>>I actually prefer the Monaro to the GTO.
>
> Uh,the GTO IS a monaro....
Uh, no it's not.
And a '67 Cougar is a '67 Mustang? And a Taurus is a Sable?
If you were to pay attention, then you would notice that the Monaro is
cosmetically different than the GTO. Oh, and Mr. "noyabusiness", I know
mine.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
Should I have said, "Wishes, Rumors and rumors of Rumors"?
REad the whole thing folks...
Of course that fuel delivery setup aint exactly what I'd call
'streetable/ daily driver' but it shouldnt take a whole lot to come up
with a lower intake adapted to an existing single throttle body design.
ANd I couldnt see how they were going to deliver the goal of 'use
existing headers' unless they went back to the original Hedman design.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
66 6F HCS wrote:
> "RT" <noyabusiness@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>Just as bland as the monaro. That one is not selling here either (GTO)
>>>
>>>I actually prefer the Monaro to the GTO.
>>
>>Uh,the GTO IS a monaro....
>
>
> Uh, no it's not.
Of course it is.
>
> And a '67 Cougar is a '67 Mustang? And a Taurus is a Sable?
Correct on all counts. A Dodge Stealth is also a Mitsubishi 3000GT.
>
> If you were to pay attention, then you would notice that the Monaro is
> cosmetically different than the GTO.
A bit, yes. The steering wheel is on the wrong side too, but it's
still the same car.
> Oh, and Mr. "noyabusiness", I know
> mine.
K.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
"WindsorFox" <windsorfox@NOSPAM.cox.net> wrote
>Of course it is.
>> And a '67 Cougar is a '67 Mustang? And a Taurus is a Sable?
>
> Correct on all counts. A Dodge Stealth is also a Mitsubishi 3000GT.
Yes, yes, and a Dodge Avenger is a stretched Mitsubishi Galant with the
engine and interior of an Eclipse.
Try walking up to the proud owner of a '67 Cougar XR-7 and saying "nice
mustang."
Although they may share platforms and many parts, they are different enough
to be different cars. By yours and RT's logic we should then call the new
Mustang a Jaguar?
>> If you were to pay attention, then you would notice that the Monaro is
>> cosmetically different than the GTO.
>
> A bit, yes. The steering wheel is on the wrong side too, but it's still
> the same car.
The whole front end is different, and much better looking IMHO, which was
the whole point of my OP.
>> Oh, and Mr. "noyabusiness", I know mine.
>
> K.
K.
Maybe semantics, but they sometimes make ALL the difference.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
In article <Xns97244BEBFD787pettyfogery@207.115.63.158>, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> http://www.cquesttechnologies.com/fs...ead.asp?cat=64
>
> That's freakin' GREAT!
>
> Should I have said, "Wishes, Rumors and rumors of Rumors"?
>
> REad the whole thing folks...
>
> Of course that fuel delivery setup aint exactly what I'd call
> 'streetable/ daily driver' but it shouldnt take a whole lot to come up
> with a lower intake adapted to an existing single throttle body design.
I dunno, never did a tripple carb set up. But since they are making it
match up with the rare OZ-250-2V heads, there already exists the single carb
set from that engine. It appears the 3 carb set up will be an option.
From reading it again, the base option for the 'kit' will be an intake
for a 4V carb.
> ANd I couldnt see how they were going to deliver the goal of 'use
> existing headers' unless they went back to the original Hedman design.
Why not? It's simply a matter of retaining the stock bolt pattern for the
exhaust manifold and of course the exit passages lined up in the right
place. The openings should be more than big enough already. They state
that they kept the stock port patterns for that purpose.
> I dunno, never did a tripple carb set up. But since they are making it
> match up with the rare OZ-250-2V heads, there already exists the
> single carb set from that engine. It appears the 3 carb set up will be
> an option. From reading it again, the base option for the 'kit' will
> be an intake for a 4V carb.
I wouldnt put a carb on a pig.. let alone a 'high tech' engine.
Whats wrong with port FI?
>
>> ANd I couldnt see how they were going to deliver the goal of 'use
>> existing headers' unless they went back to the original Hedman
>> design.
>
> Why not? It's simply a matter of retaining the stock bolt pattern for
> the exhaust manifold and of course the exit passages lined up in the
> right place. The openings should be more than big enough already. They
> state that they kept the stock port patterns for that purpose.
Maybe My memeory's failing me... one big port in the head for 3 & 4 as I
recall.
And, i missed that.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:46:51 -0700, "66 6F HCS"
<69ta_mustang@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"RT" <noyabusiness@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Just as bland as the monaro. That one is not selling here either (GTO)
>>>
>>>I actually prefer the Monaro to the GTO.
>>
>> Uh,the GTO IS a monaro....
>
>Uh, no it's not.
Well, They aint foolin' me. Minor cosmetic changes don't make it
another car to me. It's not selling, just like most of the other gm
crap.
>
>And a '67 Cougar is a '67 Mustang? And a Taurus is a Sable?
it is to me.
opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one......
>
>If you were to pay attention, then you would notice that the Monaro is
>cosmetically different than the GTO. Oh, and Mr. "noyabusiness", I know
>mine.
In article <Xns9725D5C7129A5pettyfogery@207.115.17.102>, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>> I dunno, never did a tripple carb set up. But since they are making it
>> match up with the rare OZ-250-2V heads, there already exists the
>> single carb set from that engine. It appears the 3 carb set up will be
>> an option. From reading it again, the base option for the 'kit' will
>> be an intake for a 4V carb.
>
> I wouldnt put a carb on a pig.. let alone a 'high tech' engine.
>
> Whats wrong with port FI?
Nothing, and some modified ford 6s have it. But it's all home grown
stuff. There are other factors like cost and effort. An FI intake may
occur later and if you look closely at the pictures of their SEMA engine
you'll note that an FI option is there.
>>> ANd I couldnt see how they were going to deliver the goal of 'use
>>> existing headers' unless they went back to the original Hedman
>>> design.
>>
>> Why not? It's simply a matter of retaining the stock bolt pattern for
>> the exhaust manifold and of course the exit passages lined up in the
>> right place. The openings should be more than big enough already. They
>> state that they kept the stock port patterns for that purpose.
>
> Maybe My memeory's failing me... one big port in the head for 3 & 4 as I
> recall.
>
> And, i missed that.
Headers for ford small blocks sixes come with what is called a port
divider. It's a separate piece that one is to weld or epoxy into the head
between 3 and 4. This head simply won't require that piece. It's a simple
addition of material to the casting and won't interfere with existing
headers.
Linear Mode
