dfelt

Florida Company building new 1966 Ford 2+2 mustangs with GM V8s.

50 posts in this topic

This company in Florida is building FORD approved Replicas of their 1966 Mustang and are using GM V8 engines. :S


 


post-12-0-87352000-1465450991_thumb.jpg


 


WOW, they do offer a smaller FORD engine option, but the default motor is a GM V8. 


 


http://www.seattleti...-2016-upgrades/


 

So this begs the question to be asked, Why a GM V8 over Ford's own V8 options.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because the executives aren't rabid fanboys and can actually appreciate a custom built car for more than the brand stickered on it. Ford V8's aren't for everybody, GM V8's aren't for everybody either. I assume they can respect that idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it phoquing SUCKS!!!

 

Although GM's LS3 seems like the base engine choice, I think a car of this classic status needs FoMoCo engines all the way through...

Its one thing for a home hot rod builder to LS swap his personal ride. His choice for many reasons. Its another thing when a company wants to produce many examples over a certain time frame for profit.

Yes, yes...Ive said it before, different engineering problems require different engineering solutions and there is more than one way to skin a cat and a GM LS V8 is probably a solution that meets all kinds of objectives...yet, the 5.0 aluminium Coyote is the "premium" engine choice...

This company, should just nix the GM LS engine and just go all Ford...

 

I feel this way...because CCAP mentiuoned something that makes sense....that the company has engineers and execs that aren't fanatics and crazy about heritage...but...

 

They chose an iconic pony car to do a restomod...for profit...

They were fanatics enough to understand the relevance of a 1966 Mustang...

So...I don't buy into CCAP's angle...

 

They probably understand that LS swaps are everywhere so a GM LS engine seems like a safe bet...

Well, to me...that says this company has no passion, just dollar signs...

 

Singer that does Porsches...seems like a better thought out company...yeah...Id pass on this.

Edited by oldshurst442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..Or they just wanted an engine that made some low end torque..? 

 

It would be the most fitting for a classic car that isn't a race car. 

Edited by ccap41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you telling me a Coyote 5.0 does not make low end torque?

Like I said...a LS3 is a fantastic solution for most endeavors...but a Coyote 5.0 does not take a backseat to an LS3 either...especially when the Coyote is kinda the "premium" engine choice in their stable...

 

Singer, could go LS3 engine swaps in their restomodded  Porsche 911s also...but they want to cater to heritage folk...which means a smaller piece of the LS swap pie...

 

And no....a Porsche 911 does NOT have a BIGGER, LOYAL, MORE TRADITIONAL fan base than a Mustang does...at worst, I think both are equal, at BEST, I think Mustang loyalists are far more numerous...

But...if we as fans of the automobile do NOT get OUTRAGED for blasphemous profit oriented endeavours like this, we as fans of the automobile ourselves destroy the heritage of classics...

 

Remember, I home build hot rodder is NOT in the same vein as this company...

This company got permission and is LICENSED to sell a VERIFIED and PURE Ford Product!!!

Dynacorn bodies are LICENSED products from the manufactures...this company ALSO GOT a license to use the Mustand and BLUE LOGO to sell for PROFIT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Drew...an ecoboosted 2.3 would be mahvelous!

I got caught up with the Porsche angle, but I most definitely thought of ecoboosted engines...hence why I said FoMoCo engines all the way through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 1500-3000rpm..no the coyote doesn't have torque in comparison to the 6.2L LS3..

 

Also, the only thing Ford licensed is the body. Not the car as a whole. The company(Revology) is buying the bodies from a company called Dynacorn which produces licensed bodies for classic Ford and GM products. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ford licensed the car through and through...Ford themselves say its a true blue Mustang...

You think this is in your favour CCAP?

 

See my opinion again...while Ford has this car's blessing, I WILL NEVER ACCEPT a car made for profit...not for passion...unlike ffrom a home hot rod builder... with a FORD Logo on it and a Mustang prancing horse on it..with a heart that may say Corvette or CHEVY RACING on the engine covers...

Revology tells me that they are selling me a FORD MUSTANG...backed by...FORD

1. A FORD

2. A MUSTANG

 

I EXPECT a Ford Product through and through!

 

Id buy that kind of car from my cousin in Boston who restores cars, not from a legit profit oriented, more than one car production company...

 

2. A racing version of the 5.0 in a Shelby version is also offered...

Meaning a 5.0 could be tuned to make low-end torque...this company has the resources to make a 5.0 produce low-end torque...

 

3. I know what Dynacorn industries offers and what they are...I wanna do a 1969 or 1970 Olds 442 Cutlass using their licensed body....because Dynacorn also does GM A-Bodies...also...a Challenger....

Edited by oldshurst442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say anywhere they Ford is backing the product? They license the body and drive line. I can't find anything on Revology's website that suggests otherwise. 

 

If you're talking about tuning an engine for more low end tq then in comparison it is lacking.. and therefor you could do it to the 6.2 as well so it's a pretty moot point if we're going to talk about modifying the engines. Also, will Ford warranty the engine once you start customizing tunes for it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And actually... the most likely reason for using the GM V8 is Pushrods.  A GM 6.2 can fit in the space a Ford 5.0 can't because the DOHC 5.0 is so much bigger on the outside. They probably could have used any of the Hemi engines also. 

 

 

Pushrods FTW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the 5.0 is an option so I'm assuming that isn't the real reasoning.. although the decreased weight and simplicity of the pushrod motor could be. This is a car designed for the older fella who might not want something like DOHC just because he/she doesn't know enough about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you guys seeing the options? I didn't see a link beyond the article.

Might have to click a little but under "engine" it has them both listed.

 

Edit: Actually, after looking at their site under "standard equipment" the 5.0 is listed and not the 6.2. 

 

http://revologycars.com/65-66-2plus2/

 

And in their GT350 they only offer the 5.0 Coyote

 

 

Edited by ccap41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the 5.0 is an option so I'm assuming that isn't the real reasoning.. although the decreased weight and simplicity of the pushrod motor could be. This is a car designed for the older fella who might not want something like DOHC just because he/she doesn't know enough about it. 

 

 

The LS3 weights 415ish lbs

 

Coyote is 435ish lbs ( Ward's states the Voodoo weighs 13lbs less than the Coyote ) 

 

20lbs difference between the two isn't going to be noticeable.  

Edited by FordCosworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well the 5.0 is an option so I'm assuming that isn't the real reasoning.. although the decreased weight and simplicity of the pushrod motor could be. This is a car designed for the older fella who might not want something like DOHC just because he/she doesn't know enough about it. 

 

 

The LS3 weights 415ish lbs

 

Coyote is 435ish lbs ( Ward's states the Voodoo weighs 13lbs less than the Coyote ) 

 

20lbs difference between the two isn't going to be noticeable.  

 

It's more about WHERE the weight is rather than the weight itself. 

 

First, it's over the nose of the car not the floor pan under the driver's seat.

Second, it's all in the top of the motor rather than the bottom of the motor with the massive heads for the DOHC. 

 

I realize this isn't a race car but it is a car that is designed to be driven daily. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well the 5.0 is an option so I'm assuming that isn't the real reasoning.. although the decreased weight and simplicity of the pushrod motor could be. This is a car designed for the older fella who might not want something like DOHC just because he/she doesn't know enough about it. 

 

 

The LS3 weights 415ish lbs

 

Coyote is 435ish lbs ( Ward's states the Voodoo weighs 13lbs less than the Coyote ) 

 

20lbs difference between the two isn't going to be noticeable.  

 

It's more about WHERE the weight is rather than the weight itself. 

 

First, it's over the nose of the car not the floor pan under the driver's seat.

Second, it's all in the top of the motor rather than the bottom of the motor with the massive heads for the DOHC. 

 

I realize this isn't a race car but it is a car that is designed to be driven daily. 

 

 

 

Yes, this car is designed as a DD. Do you really think 20lbs is going to affect its abilities?

 

And in either engine option, both the LS3 and Coyote weigh less than either the 260/289ci Windsor that this car would have come with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20lbs is 20lbs.. I don't have any scientific data to prove one way or the other but the lower weight, lower center of gravity, and more low end tq of the 6.2 sound like a better overall combination. The only thing I like more about the 5.0 is the sound. The DOHC Ford V8s sense the modular motors have always had more of a "nasty" sound to me that I just love. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI...

 

The LS3 is a longer engine. It may weigh less, but more weight will be hanging over the front axle line. 

 

 
 
LS3
----
Displacement: 6.2 L
Dimensions: 27.5" H X 27.5" D X 30" W
 
 
 
Coyote
-------
Displacement: 5.0 L
Dimensions: 27" H X 26" D X 28" W
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like some people don't understand weight dispersement, layout, and distribution in relation to their dimensions.

Guess that's what happens when you have to keep coming up with excuses for why one motor was preferred over the other.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like some people don't understand weight dispersement, layout, and distribution in relation to their dimensions.

Guess that's what happens when you have to keep coming up with excuses for why one motor was preferred over the other.

 

 

Who's making excuses? With either engine being an option, its personal preference.

Edited by FordCosworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like some people don't understand weight dispersement, layout, and distribution in relation to their dimensions.

Guess that's what happens when you have to keep coming up with excuses for why one motor was preferred over the other.

 

 

Who's making excuses? With either engine being an option, its personal preference.

Funny how you seem to think that it was just about you. I know they are both options. Thanks for the vote though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FYI...

 

The LS3 is a longer engine. It may weigh less, but more weight will be hanging over the front axle line. 

 

 
LS3
----
Displacement: 6.2 L
Dimensions: 27.5" H X 27.5" D X 30" W
 
 
Coyote
-------
Displacement: 5.0 L
Dimensions: 27" H X 26" D X 28" W
 

 

I'm not getting into an argument over which engine is "best" because that's a relative situation. Both have their ups and both have their downs. There is no "best" engine unless given a specific requirement. 

 

I just think for a daily driver on a classic muscle car the way the power is put to the wheels of the LS3 it makes more sense. That's just my opinion. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      GM Exec calls Musk full of Crap!
      Seems Musk stating his auto's are level 5 capable of self driving is now being called full of crap by GM Exec that says without Lidar, there is no way Tesla system can be Level 5 full autonomous driving. It cannot see in the black of Night nor the difference of a snow covered road. Clearly many use cases that show Tesla to not be a Level 5 autonomous driving auto.
      Interesting read at Autoblog. https://www.autoblog.com/2017/10/16/gm-exec-calls-elon-musk-full-of-crap-autonomy-claims/
    • By William Maley
      After a month-long strike and threat earlier this week, General Motors and Unifor Local 88 have reached an tentative agreement for workers at the CAMI assembly plant. Last night, Unifor Local 88 made the announcement via email to its workers. Details of the agreement are being kept under wraps until a ratification vote is held on Monday. If the agreement is approved, workers will return to the plant starting at 11 PM Monday night.
      "We have addressed job security which will be in this deal. I think it's a fair agreement  ... and everybody is looking forward to going back to work and making vehicles their customers want, knowing there will be some sort of job security there," said Mike Van Boekel, the union's plant chair at CAMI to CBC News.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), CBC News

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      After a month-long strike and threat earlier this week, General Motors and Unifor Local 88 have reached an tentative agreement for workers at the CAMI assembly plant. Last night, Unifor Local 88 made the announcement via email to its workers. Details of the agreement are being kept under wraps until a ratification vote is held on Monday. If the agreement is approved, workers will return to the plant starting at 11 PM Monday night.
      "We have addressed job security which will be in this deal. I think it's a fair agreement  ... and everybody is looking forward to going back to work and making vehicles their customers want, knowing there will be some sort of job security there," said Mike Van Boekel, the union's plant chair at CAMI to CBC News.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), CBC News
    • By William Maley
      Last week, Ford CEO Jim Hackett unveiled his plans for the company. One key part of his plan is moving $7 billion from the development of cars to trucks. What does this entail? Car and Driver have done a bit of digging and has brought forth some answers.
      Jim Farley, Ford’s president of global markets tells the magazine the company will focus on its regional strengths for future products. For the U.S., this means developing “authentic, off-road capable” vehicles according to him. That includes the upcoming EcoSport crossover, Ranger pickup, and Bronco SUV.
      Ford is planning to focus on utility vehicles in other markets as well as they have found success with “styled, on-road performance" crossovers. Europe will begin seeing models that are “urban-utility products.” For Asia (in particular China), Ford will focus on the "C-plus" larger midsize segment and three-row SUVs.
      As for cars, Farley said Ford will be repositioning products in certain markets to "lower-volume, higher-revenue sub-segments." For example, the Fiesta and Focus will become more upmarket.
      Source: Car and Driver

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Last week, Ford CEO Jim Hackett unveiled his plans for the company. One key part of his plan is moving $7 billion from the development of cars to trucks. What does this entail? Car and Driver have done a bit of digging and has brought forth some answers.
      Jim Farley, Ford’s president of global markets tells the magazine the company will focus on its regional strengths for future products. For the U.S., this means developing “authentic, off-road capable” vehicles according to him. That includes the upcoming EcoSport crossover, Ranger pickup, and Bronco SUV.
      Ford is planning to focus on utility vehicles in other markets as well as they have found success with “styled, on-road performance" crossovers. Europe will begin seeing models that are “urban-utility products.” For Asia (in particular China), Ford will focus on the "C-plus" larger midsize segment and three-row SUVs.
      As for cars, Farley said Ford will be repositioning products in certain markets to "lower-volume, higher-revenue sub-segments." For example, the Fiesta and Focus will become more upmarket.
      Source: Car and Driver
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)