From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: <<< Mustang Powered Miata >>>
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:47:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.185802.12583@hubcap.clemson.edu> lharris@hubcap.clemson.edu (Larry Harris) writes:
>kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
[...]
>>I think one of the best things about the current engine is that it's
>>relatively easy to tinker with.  I'm concerned that the "modular"
>>won't be as easy to tinker with (Ford came out with a SOHC version 
>>of the 429 back in the 60's, and the timing chain was HUGE.  I can
>>imagine that it was a real pain to work on).  4 camshafts instead of
>>one!  That alone will make it a lot more expensive to tinker with the
>>valvetrain, and rebuilds will be a lot more expensive.
>
>I think the advance in technology will be a trade off for tinkerability.

Perhaps.  The advance in technology with respect to fuel systems seems
to have been a tie.  It's easier to deal with if you have the right
equipment, but impossible if you don't.  With the advent of the Crane
Cams "Interceptor", the fuel system should get a *lot* easier to play with,
for a medium chunk of money.

>It seems everytime technology takes another leap forward, to keep in
>touch with it, you must know more and more details about what your
>working on.  This is true with just about anything.  I think Ford
>realizes that in order to be competative, they must keep up with
>technology so they can sell more cars.  

I suppose this is true, but do they *really* need to be technologically
sophisticated mechanically in order to get high performance out of their
cars?  Hot rodders are already able to get 12-13 second quarter mile times
out of their modified Mustangs, and that's with a normally-aspirated
engine (how driveable such a modified engine is, I don't know.  That's
obviously something Ford will be concerned with).  I'm not sure I
understand why they don't simply mass-produce the GT-40 heads and put
them (and the appropriate manifolds, larger throttle-body, etc) on stock
Mustangs.  I'd think that mass-producing these pieces would keep the
prices down (maybe add about $1K to the total package price).

>It saddens me to see that for
>'91 Ford sold the least amount of Mustangs in history.  

I'm surprised.  Well, not *that* surprised, I guess.  I don't think '91
was a particularly good time for *any* auto manufacturer.

>I'm hoping this
>market is just stagnating, because people are waiting for the new one in
>addition to the fact that so many people bought '87-90 models when the
>5.0 sales really took off.  

I don't know how well-publicized the "new" one is.

>I think the '93 Cobra Mustang should boost
>sales to the whole line of Mustangs.

I've not heard a thing about the '93 Cobra, unless it's the one with the
modular V-8.  If it's not, could you describe it in more detail?

>>The only engine type in which it doesn't make sense to have a centrally
>>located camshaft is an inline engine.  For those engines, it makes much
>>more sense to use an overhead cam (preferably DOHC).  But for a V-type
>>or flat engine, a centrally-located camshaft makes a *lot* more sense,
>>and reduces complications.
>
>>I hope, too, that a good aftermarket gets built for the new modular V-8.
>>Since I haven't seen what one looks like, I can't say how easy it'll be
>>to play with them.  I just hope it's as easy as playing with the current
>>V-8.
>
>It will probably come with time.  I think the market will need about 5
>years to establish itself, though.

Which would require consistent sales of the Mustangs with that engine for
that period of time.

Hope it makes it...

>-Larry Harris-                |  '86 Mustang lx 5.0 notchback
>lharris@hubcap.clemson.edu    |  Meyer's Tow'd Dune Buggy
>lharris@clemson.bitnet        |  OS-9, a leaner meaner UNIX
>Clemson Computer Engineering  |  RUSH, YES, R.E.M, The Who


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)