Jay's transparent valve covers and an internal water leak fiasco....(LONG)

[unclewill]

@wconley  True, a heavy crank will spin to high rpms, but the supporting mechanisms will need to be heavier which increases the weight of the whole package and on and on.  I had a large centrifuge years ago which spun to 24,000 rpm, but it took a long time to get there and a long time to stop.

@FElony  8200 rpm is nice on a road course especially when "Ford says the Voodoo delivers 90 percent of peak torque between 3,450 and 7,000 rpm."  That's a lot of flexibility!  You can spin a 302 to 9000 but you will sacrifice low end torque.  The Voodoo's 1.67hp/cu in is also quite amazing - a 427 would make 713hp with that specific output.  The value proposition you bring up is very relevant.  You'd have to be a real piece of fruit to pay dealer markup on these cars as every dealer in my area has at least one of these cars languishing in the showroom right now, but, even at sticker price, you are looking at a $20k premium over a 5.0 Mustang.  That's a lot of scratch.  I still want one though!

What I find most interesting and relevant about this discussion is the reminder that ALL ENGINES ARE LIMITED BY TUNING FOR THE WEAKEST CYLINDER.  A strong case for absolute equalization of all variables between cylinders when building an FE.  Intake air volumes and velocities, exhaust air volumes and velocities, fuel mixtures, dynamic compression, component temperatures, ignition, valve lift and timing - it's kinda blowing my mind to think of all the variables which must be equalized!

Now I need to go tongue kiss my Miata...
 

[Drew Pojedinec]

Will,
Because I am the worst about driving a post further into the weeds.... cylinder equality is kinda one of my weird pet peeves at work.  I spend countless hours trying to get engines to run the same load on all 16 cylinders.

Many years ago, I showed up to a boat where the engine was all sortsa out of tune.  The Captain was complaining that the engine would only come up to 1550rpms at full power and would shake like mad.  So with my feeler gauges and infrared gun I set about getting the cylinders equal.  This engine a 2stroke Detroit was a 16v149 and should have run 1800rpms at load, and 1875 or so at no load.  I spent a few days changing injectors, adjusting valves and setting the rack for each cylinder so I could get a certain temp... these settings weren't by the book, I kinda just made them up as needed to get the desired result.
Once finished, it was obvious that at some point the previous engine had turned up the max speed on the governor in order to get more engine rpms..... I found that after my tuning we were running 2050rpms at full load!  To the Captain's dismay I turned it down before it hurt someone   Then I painted everything because I'm a freak.
Video of that max load run:
http://vid68.photobucket.com/albums/i6/DeepRootsNursery/Detroit149.mp4

[unclewill]

@Drew
Nice!  My yacht had a Perkins 4-107 which is as deep as I've gotten into marine diesels - Oh to have so much space to work around the engine!  My wife once had to help pull me out of the engine compartment by my feet!  But balancing 16 cylinders...  This is for sure the difference between me (hobbyist engine builder) and real professionals (engine builder/tuner) and why I have mad respect for the gang on this forum.

[FElony]

@FElony  8200 rpm is nice on a road course especially when "Ford says the Voodoo delivers 90 percent of peak torque between 3,450 and 7,000 rpm."  That's a lot of flexibility!  You can spin a 302 to 9000 but you will sacrifice low end torque.

Let's look at real the real world. OHC Modulars have no low end torque compared to pushrod engines. Every video review and owner feedback on the Coyote remarks that the car is a slug under 4 grand, which endorses the factory claiming peak torque at 4250. The reason these cars do OK out of the hole is not torque from the engine, it's torque to the wheels from the 4.17 1st gear of the 6R80 or the 3.66 1st in the MT82. Curb weight of a '17 GT is 3705 lbs, so they had to play the ratios to get it to move.

The Voodoo's 1.67hp/cu in is also quite amazing - a 427 would make 713hp with that specific output.  The value proposition you bring up is very relevant.  You'd have to be a real piece of fruit to pay dealer markup on these cars as every dealer in my area has at least one of these cars languishing in the showroom right now, but, even at sticker price, you are looking at a $20k premium over a 5.0 Mustang.  That's a lot of scratch.  I still want one though!

Shelby Tax is like Apple Tax; you're always going to pay more for the name. In a perfect world, Ford would give us a new Torino with a modernized 427W (for which they have most or all of the parts). Better odds of Un bombing Los Angeles. However, to me, it's not always about horsepower. Feelses and soundses that catapult your memory back several decades have more allure. Watch this 289 in this car and know what I mean:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5jckqmGH30 

Now I need to go tongue kiss my Miata...
 

Please, no video. We are all getting older and cannot survive such an assault on our senses.

[My427stang]

FElony, I love them all, but I sure don't remember any 289 that made big power having any low end torque either. Luckily they were in very light cars with stiff gears. 

That being said, I think Coyotes are cool, but they are just too big for me.  That size packing 500 cubes with all the same advances, that'd be cool, but too much cutting on an old car to fit something wide and tall with little cubes.

Also, driving something every day, I like silence and a cup holder, but let me hit the weekend, that Shelby sound will do better than my AM coffee!

[FElony]

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah. Please viciously insult me if this has been covered previously, but what is going to be used to coat the inside? Repeated heat cycles is going to dry successive film layers until they are not transparent any more. Looking at the video, one can imagine vertical tiger striping. In the 70's, a local guy with a Chevelle had a clear hood and clear valve covers. He had to relegate the clear covers to "show day only" because they would be turn opaque after a couple days of running around. Maybe something like http://www.hydrobead.com/

Also to be ignored because it comes from FElony is the potential market for clear and translucent distributor caps. They were around back in the day, so they make for retro nostalgia. The rotor is fun to watch, like rocker arms. They can pair up visually with clear valve covers. A standard Ford size will fit more than just the FE, and will outsell valve covers at least 1000 to one, both initially and as replacements for worn units. These exist for Chevys so vendors could be queried about sales. Feel free to berate me again for thinking. Thank you.

[FElony]

FElony, I love them all, but I sure don't remember any 289 that made big power having any low end torque either. Luckily they were in very light cars with stiff gears. 

Right. 289's with autos sucked hugely. As mentioned, I had 4.11's and a 2.78 TL. My first clobberator was a Holley 6619 600 cfm. From a low rpm traffic start response was "not bad". The carb was finished at 6-6500. After I killed the stock-spec clutch, I was advised by R.A.C.E. (the local SBF shop) to accompany the new McLeod unit with a flywheel they made that was FE-sized with SB bolt pattern at a whopping 40 lbs. I was told this would "solve" any low torque issues and they were right. Sounds contrary to modern thinking, but that flywheel allowed me to dial in clutch engagement (slippage) according to the street surface I was racing on as well as rpm out of the gate. The extra mass spinning during shifts kept the 289 up there, welcome with a wide ratio box.

I ousted the 600 in favor of a 4779 750 DP. Again, unconventional thinking. Max rpms went over 8000 with mo power in the process. The mechanical secondaries eliminated any semblance of throttle response under 4000, though. Cunningly, armed with needle-nose pliers, I would remove the cotter pin for the secondaries for the weekday surface-street commute to college. Operating on half a carb, acceleration off idle was brutal (in context). The car fell off at 5000 rpm like it hit a wall, but driveability was much improved so I didn't care. Friday afternoon I clipped the secondaries back into service and once again became an outlaw, a pariah, a rancid reminder that humanity can sink no lower. Just like today.

That being said, I think Coyotes are cool, but they are just too big for me.  That size packing 500 cubes with all the same advances, that'd be cool, but too much cutting on an old car to fit something wide and tall with little cubes.

Also, driving something every day, I like silence and a cup holder, but let me hit the weekend, that Shelby sound will do better than my AM coffee!

Yes, new cars are cushy. For sure. Longevity is a factor, too. For me, I don't drive more than 6k or so a year, so there is no allure in something that can last 200k. I'd rather beat the tar out of a cantankerous engine that maybe makes it 10k. More smiles to the gallon.

Anyway, budget aside, I think this new new kit would be a great home for either engine. I have to think if the Coyote will fit, so could an FE.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNZA8KrQmkQ

[turbohunter]

"I have to think if the Coyote will fit, so could an FE."
Scares me that I agree with you so much FElony but, amen again. Guess that makes me/us old farts.
And I remember also trying to get my mustang to move with a C4 and no money.
As for all this thinking....it's over rated. I think.