Vintage Mustang Forums banner

Coyote swapped cars for sale

9494 Views 96 Replies 31 Participants Last post by  Boss5Oh
Thought I would start a thread on this since they are showing up more and more on BaT. This one appears to be really well done. They left the interior alone.


Tire Wheel Car Vehicle Automotive parking light
21 - 40 of 97 Posts

· Registered
1970 Mach 1
Joined
·
1,996 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·

· Registered
1966 289 3-speed
Joined
·
2,763 Posts

· Registered
1969 Mach 1 Restomod
Joined
·
680 Posts
WOW, just, wow. I feel so bad for that car, it was probably a nice 390 car to start with. The suspension is a mess, whats with that stance if you're NOT going to add four wheel drive ? The hood doesn't close ? The trunk lid is crooked ? I would have to think the builder is embarrassed. If they aren't, they should be. when I looked, the bids were 49K something. Icertainly wouldn't pay you anything CLOSE to that for such a poor job. And whats the fascination with Coyote power ? A Cleveland, and FE, and a Lima can ALL make as much power or more, and they all fit an early Stang a heckuva lot easier ! Expalin Coyote fever, please. LSG
Besides not having the ultra modern, cutting edge 1960 Falcon design suspension, coveted by nearly every auto maker, what is wrong with the suspension on this car?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
Angry, I'm just not feeling it on the Coyote. I'm looking at head flow as an easy illustration. 351C-4V- 295~300, do some quick bowl blending and you're at 325. Coyote is 285, alttle porting and you've got 315 cfm. Power potential is roughly 2.2 times cfm for a V8. So.....LOTS of painful surgery to install an engine with LESS power potential than I already have ?? why ?! And thats with old, iron cylinderheads designed in 1968. Some of the newer aluminum heads, like CHI in Australia, flow EVEN MORE. AND they almost drop right into the chassis as it is now. A TKO is also an easy fit. A C, an FE, or a Lima can all be built to spin 7500. Been there, done that. I just don't see the need. A well built early V8, with a lower rpm limit in mind, like 6500 or so, will easily yield a much more driver friendly experience. At least, they do for me. Before I retired, I got to get my hands dirty on all knids of stuff. But we didn't do alot of 4.6 build - ups. Folks just weren't interested. There were a couple, but the only one with close to the power of the early ones was a guy with a supercharger. I'll stick to the mid to late sixties designs, thanks. BUT if I see any cheap coyotes for sale, I'll tell y'all. But I will also try to talk you out of it ! LSG
I am a staunch die-hard lover of classic pushrod muscle. The huge majority of cars I've owned and the absolute majority I work on now are pushrod, carbureted, raw fuel swilling, classic engines with all of the unique character and excitement that so many of us love. But there is simply no denying the improvements that have been made in technology in the 50-60+ years since most of these old engines were designed. Comparing port flows does not begin to tell the story, of all the differences between a classic pushrod engine and a modern engine like a Coyote. You cannot begin to get the same level of refinement out of a carbureted 385 series or especially an FE as you can something modern Coyote. Effortless daily drivability and reliability in all conditions and temperatures, butter smooth and whisper quiet idle if that's what you're looking for, superior fuel mileage, and true daily drivable power levels that far exceed what you can do with any of these beloved old engines. No, they are NOT the same. Some people simply do not want that for their classic cars, and I understand that completely. I usually agree. But there is simply no denying that modern engine swaps like these provide a level of refinement and drivability that is simply not possible with a classic pushrod engine.

They aren't for everyone, nor are they for every car. I would never replace a 428CJ with a Coyote, for example. But I absolutely might replace a mundane 302 with a Coyote, if that's the direction I or the customer wanted to go with the car. They're two completely different directions for two completely different purposes. That's why I own a bunch of vehicles. No two of them are the same. I have newer cars, and I have older cars, and some way older cars. I have one older car with a complete modern chassis and drivetrain swapped in. It's not necessarily "better" than I could have built it had I kept the stock chassis and drivetrain, but it's very different, and the direction I wanted to go with it instead. It's a truly daily drivable car that I would not hesitate to take cross country and it can keep up with any modern traffic easily and comfortably. I don't think there's very many people here who would say the same about their mostly stock Mustangs, and even fewer who actually do it. So that's the difference. Most people who do modern drivetrain swaps are used to the ease and daily drivability of their modern cars, and want some of that for their classic car as well, while keeping the classic look and some of the classic character of their old car.

But it is quite false indeed to make comparisons between what you can do with a classic pushrod engine and a modern high tech engine with modern engine management, and what you can do with them.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Pretty cool Pantera.

 

· Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·

· Registered
1966 289 3-speed
Joined
·
2,763 Posts

· Premium Member
1966 GT 4spd
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
The engines worth more than the car. That's just silly.
I dig that car a lot. The only thing I would add to that car, is 79 doors. I absolutely loved having the door handles on the bottom. It was just natural to me. And I like the horn button on the stalk too! This was my ‘79

Wheel Tire Car Land vehicle Vehicle


Chris
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anangryford

· Premium Member
1966 GT 4spd
Joined
·
2,263 Posts

· Registered
1965 Coupe C-Code
Joined
·
3,303 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
I am a staunch die-hard lover of classic pushrod muscle. The huge majority of cars I've owned and the absolute majority I work on now are pushrod, carbureted, raw fuel swilling, classic engines with all of the unique character and excitement that so many of us love. But there is simply no denying the improvements that have been made in technology in the 50-60+ years since most of these old engines were designed. Comparing port flows does not begin to tell the story, of all the differences between a classic pushrod engine and a modern engine like a Coyote. You cannot begin to get the same level of refinement out of a carbureted 385 series or especially an FE as you can something modern Coyote. Effortless daily drivability and reliability in all conditions and temperatures, butter smooth and whisper quiet idle if that's what you're looking for, superior fuel mileage, and true daily drivable power levels that far exceed what you can do with any of these beloved old engines. No, they are NOT the same. Some people simply do not want that for their classic cars, and I understand that completely. I usually agree. But there is simply no denying that modern engine swaps like these provide a level of refinement and drivability that is simply not possible with a classic pushrod engine.

They aren't for everyone, nor are they for every car. I would never replace a 428CJ with a Coyote, for example. But I absolutely might replace a mundane 302 with a Coyote, if that's the direction I or the customer wanted to go with the car. They're two completely different directions for two completely different purposes. That's why I own a bunch of vehicles. No two of them are the same. I have newer cars, and I have older cars, and some way older cars. I have one older car with a complete modern chassis and drivetrain swapped in. It's not necessarily "better" than I could have built it had I kept the stock chassis and drivetrain, but it's very different, and the direction I wanted to go with it instead. It's a truly daily drivable car that I would not hesitate to take cross country and it can keep up with any modern traffic easily and comfortably. I don't think there's very many people here who would say the same about their mostly stock Mustangs, and even fewer who actually do it. So that's the difference. Most people who do modern drivetrain swaps are used to the ease and daily drivability of their modern cars, and want some of that for their classic car as well, while keeping the classic look and some of the classic character of their old car.

But it is quite false indeed to make comparisons between what you can do with a classic pushrod engine and a modern high tech engine with modern engine management, and what you can do with them.
In factory form, a 'Yote is just flat out a better engine than a factory FE or Windsor in just about every regard except size. More power. It's true.

But if you know what you're doing, and use decent parts to build an engine, with the development put into those '60s engines, it is absolutely possible to make something that can shame a Coyote in power and probably even economy. I'd be willing to bet it could be done with less money than you'd spend on a Coyote all by itself, much less the "I carved out my whole front end and redid it with less suspension travel" conversion.

It doesn't mean I'm holding up 60s tech as some pinnacle of greatness. The cheap stamped parts were as much to save money for Ford as they were to work well, and we all know it! But all that said, they did a good job on the basics, and it can sure be made good. Their "garbage 60s suspension" has the added advantage of transmitting kinetic energy to the body at multiple points - which makes sense given the relatively flimsy unibody structure on these cars.

My take is that someone with the smarts to do it can build a hot little 302, rework his suspension a bit, and come out the door a lot cheaper than a Coyote, while giving away NOTHING in terms of performance or economy.

The Coyote may be the spiritual successor to the 427 'Cammer in some regards, but its size and complexity don't add much value when you hold it up against a Windsor with good heads and a smart build, as far as I'm concerned. Still, I do get why so many millennials love 'em.
 
21 - 40 of 97 Posts
Top