IMPORTANT!!! Possible new head option!

[GR8WHITE]

I have been in contact with Coates Engines about their CSRV system. It is a DOHC stlye head with rotary valves. They have no springs, lifters or rockers. This removes the spring pressure and parasitic loss parameters from the equation. The benefits are quite impressive. Coates is in the process of starting heads for different applications for the general public. They are aware of the 4.6 crowd's intrest. However, we need to let them know in force how much we can and will appreciate their help. I've been working on them for over a year now. If I can pursue this for that amount of time, I think we could all just send them an email or two. If you want aftermarket heads this is our best shot. AFR, Edlebrock and all the other companies have no intrest in the 4.6. Coates has shown intrest, they have just been busy with their industrial projects.

Below is the Email I got recently. Trust me, all they need is enough intrest to validate the expese of research. If they see how much we want better heads, we might be the next on their to do list. THAT is encouraging. :beer:



August 6, 2003


To: [email protected]

Att: Don Lemmond


Re: CSRV system for my car


Mr. Lemmond, your July 21st email reached us, and it is a pleasure to hear from you again. I believe you last contacted us on July 5, 2002, and our time and energies still remain totally committed to mating the CSRV system with a line of large industrial engines. However, management has decided on its next application which will be that of manufacturing a Coates air-cooled V twin heavy cruiser bike. Details and specifications will appear on our website shortly. I recognize that your primary interest from past communications is a 2001 Mustang GT with a SOHC engine; this is not exactly what you requested, but it does show that we are getting ready to move on to undertake another application. Thus, at present I can only reiterate what I suggested in the last email, namely, making periodic visits to our website to check the postings that will appear. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for again contacting the Coates organization.

Sincerely,


Dr. Richard Evans

Director




Justine Nardone
email: [email protected]

 

[GR8WHITE]

Someone said a picture is worth a thousand words!

 

[Tony_Montana87]

that looks nice. what is it? lol

 

[Phantom_LS2]

Originally posted by Tony_Montana87
that looks nice. what is it? lol

:shrug:

 

[Slithering_Joe]

I saw that same type of designed head in Popular Mechanics (I think that was the magazine) about 8 years ago and never heard about them again until now. It would be great to see an application for the Ford V8. I can bet if they enter the automotive aftermarket it will be for a Jap motor first.

I'd buy them provided the cost was reasonable and matched the benefits. $3500 for rockers mentioned in another thread is NOT reasonable to me.

They'd look good on a Cobra engine and a 1/4-mile timeslip too!

 

[YoungCobra]

Very cool

 

[stang99svt]

Ya I was going to say i remember seeing that quite a long time ago but never heard anything further on it.

 

[JSHTROD]

Originally posted by stang99svt
Ya I was going to say i remember seeing that quite a long time ago but never heard anything further on it.

That's because it's all vaporware.

They're not available for ANY motor.

:bored: :loser:

 

[EatonEggbeater]

They're made from unobtainium, so they're really rare.

 

[nas213]

One of the articles on their website says that pricing will start at $15,000.

 

[JSHTROD]

Originally posted by nas213
One of the articles on their website says that pricing will start at $15,000.

Well... unobtainium is very rare. What would you expect?

:lol:

 

[GR8WHITE]

Originally posted by JSHTROD
That's because it's all vaporware.

They're not available for ANY motor.

:bored: :loser:

First pull your head out of your butt and read their entire page. They've been producing these indutrial engines with this technology for over 10 years. Secondly They have a 5.0 that was used as a test mule that works with this technology. Lastly they are now going to produce the "Harley style" motorcycle with this technology.

Man if the heads bolt to the stock block, and you still have all the stock mounting placements, you'd still be able to add a blower. What aftermarket do you have for the 4.6 now? Add a blower, spray it or P&P the stock stuff? No heads, no intakes. They took a 5.0 that made 260 bhp with no accessories and installed their CSRV parts and made 470+ bhp. How much more HP could you possibly need? They also turned 14,000 rpm on the stock 5.0 bottom end. Why, because most of the limiting items of rpm capability are in the valve train. (Lifters and springs)

I just don't understand the lack of faith in a company that has been producing industrial engines with this technology for years. They have a 5.0 FI motor that has shown it's ability to produce remarkable results. They now have a Harley style motorcycle going into production.

This post isn't about how can it work. IT does already! It's about a possibility that we could bring another option to ourselves that would really open some serious potential. Think about the aftermarket for a second. Is there anyone even considering heads for us right now. NO! There is only one company that makes intakes for us, FORD.(not counting sheetmetal fab jobs) There is a ton of room for improvement, if you can't see that you should check the E7TE heads from a stock 5.0 versus any new heads they can purchase. AFR, Edlebrock, TFS, Brodix, GT-40, and I could go on for days. There is so much improvement it isn't funny. If we got anyone to make a better head for us, the competition would have to join in. If Coates does do this they'd be the only choice for "aftermarket" head. You really think all the other companies could afford to ignore us then?

 

[GR8WHITE]

Originally posted by Slithering_Joe
I saw that same type of designed head in Popular Mechanics (I think that was the magazine) about 8 years ago and never heard about them again until now. It would be great to see an application for the Ford V8. I can bet if they enter the automotive aftermarket it will be for a Jap motor first.

I'd buy them provided the cost was reasonable and matched the benefits. $3500 for rockers mentioned in another thread is NOT reasonable to me.

They'd look good on a Cobra engine and a 1/4-mile timeslip too!

Harley got them first actually. Coates is building their own "Harley style" motorcycle. I agree about the rockers being too high. But the point about that was that Comp may get involved if there is enough interest. That will lower the cost significantly. Also that there could be some help for the 4.6 aftermarket if we can show enough interest in them.

 

[GR8WHITE]

1167 views and only 24 votes?? That shows why we have so little aftermarket for the 4.6 So many people "want more", but fail to become involved enough to bring about the change they claim they want. Second Street Speed, Richardt Racing and a few others have tried. They took a bold step that none of the big money companies would. Most of the comments I see about them aren't supportive at all. Atleast they are trying. What has Ford, Edlebrock, AFR, TFS, Brodix, Holley and countless others given us??

 

[JSHTROD]

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
First pull your head out of your butt and read their entire page

:rollseyes

So... exactly where can I place my order? Where can I talk to somebody who has personally purchased ANY set?

Maybe you're slow... so I'll explain some things to you.

First off, this company isn't new. In fact, the exact same heads/pics/website has been around for YEARS. For a while it generated quite a buzz. People even tried to order some.

But guess what?

UNAVAILABLE!

It was unavailble for the SBC crowd. It was unavailable for the 302 crowd. It was unavailable for the LS1 crowd. And for the ford crowd? Well since you ARE slow... I'll let you think... for... just... a.... second..... UNAVAILABLE!

Show me just ONE... ONE! working example of these heads, on any consumer application... and I'll eat crow.

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
This post isn't about how can it work. IT does already!

So what? I know nuclear fission works... although don't expect my mustang to be powered by it anytime soon.

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
They also turned 14,000 rpm on the stock 5.0 bottom end.

:BS: right there. NO WAY a stock set of pistons, rods and crank will withstand 14000 rpm. It's little details like this that makes all this stink like the neighbor girl's panties after the football team visits her house the night of the big game.

:kaboom:

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
I just don't understand the lack of faith in a company that has been producing industrial engines with this technology for years.

Do you work for this company or something? Private investor? What's so hard to believe about doubting a company without any product? :loser:

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
Is there anyone even considering heads for us right now. NO! There is only one company that makes intakes for us, FORD.(not counting sheetmetal fab jobs) There is a ton of room for improvement

Okay... now you're starting to show some ignorance.

YES. Many influential aftermarket companies have CONSIDERED heads/intake for the 4.6's. All the plans were scrapped. Why? The stock pieces are VERY VERY good. AND, very complicated to reproduce. Sending production/tooling costs thru the roof. Will anybody buy a pair of AFR 4.6 heads for 10k, that gains them 50rwhp? Nope. But Vortech will sell a lot of superchargers for LESS THAN HALF that with DOUBLE the gain.

:dw:

Wakeup dude. The 5.0 motor is very very very different than the 4.6. What's happened in the past, to the aftermarket AND 5.0 phenomonon does not apply to the 4.6.

:coolman:

 

[JSHTROD]

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
1167 views and only 24 votes??

Edited for sheer stupidity.

 

[GR8WHITE]

Originally posted by JSHTROD
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GR8WHITE
First pull your head out of your butt and read their entire page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





So... exactly where can I place my order? Where can I talk to somebody who has personally purchased ANY set?

Read the above statement. The Heavy cruiser is for sale now. It uses this technology. Contact Coates for pricing and dealer locations. They are on the road.

Maybe you're slow... so I'll explain some things to you.

First off, this company isn't new. In fact, the exact same heads/pics/website has been around for YEARS. For a while it generated quite a buzz. People even tried to order some.

But guess what?

UNAVAILABLE!

It was unavailble for the SBC crowd. It was unavailable for the 302 crowd. It was unavailable for the LS1 crowd. And for the ford crowd? Well since you ARE slow... I'll let you think... for... just... a.... second..... UNAVAILABLE!

Show me just ONE... ONE! working example of these heads, on any consumer application... and I'll eat crow.

Once again I'll refer you to the above statement. Just for clarification, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet. I am however, aware of that fact. Some of the rest of us could use that reality call. I'd think the slow person is the one who couldn't understand the fact that if NOONE shows intrest in a product it isn't cost effective to produce it. A few people aren't goint to make a company go out on a limb. It will take thousands. C'mon you're the smart one here, you should know that.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GR8WHITE
This post isn't about how can it work. IT does already!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what? I know nuclear fission works... although don't expect my mustang to be powered by it anytime soon.

You at first claimed it was "vaporware" and "pipe dreams". Once again it is clearly not that. Maybe we will see it, maybe we won't. I'm just trying to bring some aftermarket availability to the 4.6 Just to clarify the other aftermarket companies. NONE have ever had any plans to produce heads or intakes for the 4.6 none.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GR8WHITE
They also turned 14,000 rpm on the stock 5.0 bottom end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:BS: right there. NO WAY a stock set of pistons, rods and crank will withstand 14000 rpm. It's little details like this that makes all this stink like the neighbor girl's panties after the football team visits her house the night of the big game.

Look Mom, No Camshaft!
Revolutionary Spherical Rotary Valve Reinvents the Engine?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ray T. Bohacz
POPULAR HOT RODDING
October 1999

For an engine to produce power, it needs to breathe, plain and simple. The more air that it can pump with the proper amount of fuel, the greater the specific output will be. The quest for airflow is not a singular pursuit by the performance industry though: Detroit shares the same goal. This has been represented by four-valve cylinder heads, forced induction, and variable-runner intake manifolds in OEM applications. It's common with most things when you set out to improve them, a gain in one area is usually offset by a restriction in another. A efficient cylinder head can be diminished to poor flowing status by the installation of a low-capacity intake manifold, whereas an intake that is too large will not work with a restrictive cylinder head.

It has been universally accepted that the current valve design is the largest offender in the quest for airflow in an engine. Identified as a poppet valve, this tulip shaped devise has been used in some form from the first engine up to the latest marvels from the Motor City. Earning its name from the reciprocating motion it travels in, it has been the standard bearer of airflow until now. Like many others before him, engineer George Coates recognized that the efficiency of an engine would always be limited if the mindset of valve designed is not expanded. The idea of using a rotating motion to operate a reciprocating valve adds complexity, cost, and friction to an engine. The ideal arrangement would have the valves share the same motion as the crankshaft, eliminating all of the downfalls of the poppet valve.

Over the years, this technology never developed due to a problem that until recently could not be solved: How to seal the valve when it was closed. Coates is the brainchild of a spinning valve, and he is the father of sealing one and making it work, a four-year labor of love. Using a spherical assembly that rotated in a timed sequence to expose the intake and exhaust ports, his design allows for an approximate 18-percent gain in fuel efficiency along with a corresponding increase in power, while eliminating the camshaft and its ancillary mechanisms.

Inherent Deficiencies

Before the benefits of the Coates Spherical Rotary Valve (CSRV) can be established, the deficiencies of the poppet valve need to be represented. By nature of its design, the necessary use of a camshaft to open and close a poppet valve requires that the clearance between the cam, tappet, and valve must be taken up slowly, and the valve lifted slowly at first, to avoid unacceptable levels of noise and wear. Additionally, the valve can not be closed abruptly or it will bounce on its seat. Another concern is the shrouding of the poppet valve at low lifts and the undesirable effect it imparts to the port's flow capabilities. Valve of this design, even with aggressive cam profiles, spend more time traversing their lift ranges than dwelling at full lift. Herein lies the importance of examining low-lift flow numbers for a cylinder head. The slow response time when measured in degrees of the crankshaft's arc of rotation creates pumping losses, since the intake valve is not open far enough to take full advantage of the low pressure created in the bore as the piston sweeps downward toward bottom dead center. To compensate for this, it is customary to open the intake valve prior to the piston reaching TDC and the beginning of the intake stroke. Exhaust port concerns are aided by the high pressure in relation to the exhaust manifold during blow down, share the same obstacles, and require early opening and late closing along with a period of overlap, when both valves are open. During this time, it is critical to have a defined amount of overlap to exhaust the bore while not overscavening and pulling any fresh charge out of the tailpipe. If there were a means of exposing the intake and exhaust ports quicker to full flow, the efficiency of the engine would be increased. The poppet valve is a greater liability to the engine beyond its flow limitations. The energy that is used to expand against the piston and turn the crankshaft is wasted during overlap and the prerequisite time that is required to open the valves prematurely and delay their closing. With the CSRV, this energy loss is eliminated.

If opening the poppet valve is a problem, closing it is an even greater concern. Keeping the lifter in contact with the camshaft lobe mandates the use of valvesprings to close the valve and ensure the lifter stays on the lobe, especially when it rides over the nose of the cam and lifter changes direction. This is known as the inflection point. The pressure requires energy to overcome and is identified as a frictional loss to the engine. The power consumed internally by the engine accounts for frictional losses, and the poppet valvetrain is a major offender. Additional internal friction is created by the water and oil pumps along with the crankshaft traveling through the oil pan. Friction is usually established by a motoring dyno test, where the engine is run by a large electric motor without any combustion, measuring the power required to turn it. In a test performed by Coates Engineering, an early Ford Escort engine consumed over 20 lb.-ft of torque just to operate its valvetrain. Imagine the losses in a small-block Chevy with a solid-roller cam and high valvespring pressures! Pumping losses can be defined as the difference in the value of the work delivered to the piston during the compression and power strokes only; when subtracted from the total work delivered to the engine over the entire four strokes. The first internal combustion engine was approximately 20-percent thermally efficient, with the best designs today approaching only 24 percent. This means that 76 percent of the energy from the fuel consumed is going either out the tailpipe or into the cooling system and is being wasted.

Poppet valves also dictate the design of the combustion chamber by virtue of their placement in relation to the bore. Moving only up and down means that the valve heads themselves are sources of retained heat and the stem needs to be lubricates as it slides through the guide in the head. This poses a distinct problem. The retained heat creates a propensity for detonation, limiting the compression ratio of the engine. The first and second laws of thermodynamics dictate that any increase in compression ratio will yield a disproportionate gain in fuel efficiency over power generation. Raising the compression ratio from 8:0:1 to 11:0:1 will add just over 5 percent to the engine's power but decrease fuel consumption by 20 percent, if all other factors of the engine remain constant. This is the reason the cars of the mid-'70 were so fuel thirsty, the mind set then was to lower the compression ratio to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions.

The oil that is required to lubricate the valvetrain, even with the latest in valve seal design, allows some losses into the combustion event. When oil is introduced into combustion, the likelihood for detonation is increased. NOx is always present in all forms of combustion and requires pressure, heat, and exposure time to be produced. When the engine detonates, or the leading edge flame front temperatures reach 2,500 degrees F or greater, NOx production goes sky high. The poppet valve's retained head and necessary lubrication contributes to this and requires other areas of engine design to be compromised. What is often overlooked is the heat transfer from the poppet valve to the intake port and the heating of the incoming charge. A law of physics states the for every 10 degrees F the air-charge temperature is raised, a corresponding drop in engine power of one percent is experienced. Inefficient exhaust ports designed for poppet valves transfer exhaust heat into the water jacket of the cylinder head, lowering engine efficiency and reducing the effectiveness of blow down. In summation, the poppet valve has been the bane of the internal combustion engine, but the lack of a suitable replacement meant that it was deemed a necessary evil to be worked around.

The Coates Advantage

Not limited to working within the confines of a poppet valve, the CSRV design required a complete rethinking of the cylinder head and port designs. Coming from a long line of inventors, George Coates' years of experience as an engineer for Rolls Royce, General Motors, Ford, and Mercedes-Benz afforded him the skills to develop this new valve system. A conceptual mock-up of this design was first handmade by Coates in 1961 and was attached to a European Ford four-cylinder engine. It took nearly fifteen more years for the first running prototype to power a vehicle, and another five years to fully develop the sealing mechanism.

When PHR arrived at the New Jersey based engineering and manufacturing facility, the ease of adaptability of the CSRV system was quite apparent, with myriad of engines up and running with this technology. We witnessed four-cylinder helicopter engines, Harley-Davidson, Ford, Mercedes Benz along with a number of industrial engines, all functional. The elimination of the camshaft and its companion valvetrain components not only drastically reduce the manufacturing costs, but would allow for an application-specific engine block to be designed, eliminating the space required to house the camshaft. This would allow for less total engine height and lower hood lines for better visibility and aerodynamics.

This system is very simple, consisting of the Coates' cylinder head and intake and exhaust spherical rotary valves for each bore. The valves are attached to a machined shaft that is supported on each end by a sealed roller bearing and utilize patented Coates' ceramic graphite bearings as center supports. The use of this material in conjunction with the end roller bearings allows for the elimination of any oil in the top of the head.

The only moving parts are the two shafts with the spherical rotary valves attached to them. The floating ceramic-carbon seals are two-piece units that respond to cylinder pressure to form a leak-free fit, containing the combustion gases. The shaft is driving from the crankshaft and counter rotates at the same ratio as a camshaft would, being one-half the crankshaft speed. As the shaft turns, the appropriate rotary valve will expose the intake port, allowing the cylinder to fill with charge. For the compression stroke, the valve that is constantly turning will be rotated, closing off the combustion chamber to the intake port. During the exhaust stroke, the spent gases will travel through the passage in the rotary valve and exit the cylinder head. With this technology; the incoming charge assumes a tumbling motion that creates a quicker burn and increased octane tolerance while limiting heat transfer to the charge and the need for excessive spark lead.

Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent.

The design of the CSRV, which at first glance resembles an OHC cylinder head, allows for the central placement of the spark plug in the bore. By varying the spark plug location when referenced to the bore centerline, the most desirable position is in the center. This will allow the cylinder pressure build in the minimum amount of crank rotational degrees past TDC.

Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm! Though the CSRV removes the valvetrain rpm limitations, the need to have a rotating assembly that can withstand the engine speed becomes the essential element. Another benefit of this design is the extended oil change intervals, with the lubricating system not being exposed to the rigors and pollution from the poppet valve.

The End Result

The CSRV represents a technological breakthrough that has the potential to impact the internal combustion engine in a manner not seen since its discovery. All of the engines we witnessed offered exceptionally smooth performance with low levels of noise, vibration, and harshness. This was an extraordinary accomplishment since all of the test engines were based about production poppet valve designs; one can only wonder the level of refinement that the CSRV will offer when integrated with a block that is designed for it. To date, Coates offers complete engines based on a block of your choice for racing, street/strip, and industrial applications. The pricing starts at $ 15,000, and by the time you read this, retrofit kits should be available for the popular Ford and Chevy V-8. So far, Detroit has shown the least interest in further developing the CSRV technology, and disappointingly, Coates feels that the first engines to use this will most likely be from foreign companies.

© Popular Hot Rodding: October 1999

Since you obviously don't believe anything. Here it is in a nut shell from Popular Hot Rodding. This was back in 1999! All the bugs, all the gains and all the facts. Now call me slow if you want. The only one lacking intellect is the one who won't face reality.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GR8WHITE
I just don't understand the lack of faith in a company that has been producing industrial engines with this technology for years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you work for this company or something? Private investor? What's so hard to believe about doubting a company without any product?

I do NOT work for Coates. I have no affiliation at all. I am not vested in them. I am only trying to bring something to the 4.6 crowd in the shape of aftermarket options. There was no stink made over the Second Street Speed rockers and lifters I posted about. Why is that? They only have the test mules they started work on. I guess the same old same old is what some people want.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GR8WHITE
Is there anyone even considering heads for us right now. NO! There is only one company that makes intakes for us, FORD.(not counting sheetmetal fab jobs) There is a ton of room for improvement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay... now you're starting to show some ignorance.

YES. Many influential aftermarket companies have CONSIDERED heads/intake for the 4.6's. All the plans were scrapped. Why? The stock pieces are VERY VERY good. AND, very complicated to reproduce. Sending production/tooling costs thru the roof. Will anybody buy a pair of AFR 4.6 heads for 10k, that gains them 50rwhp? Nope. But Vortech will sell a lot of superchargers for LESS THAN HALF that with DOUBLE the gain.

AFR,Edlebrock,TFS, and Brodix all say at no point were any plans made to produce 4.6 parts. A consideration is useless. Actual comitment is what it takes. Coates has made no commitment either, This is just me tryingto open an opportunity to some of us that will try it.
The stock pieces are very very good?? Yep, and I'm the ignorant one here. A CNC'd set of PI heads is only flowing around 250 cfm on the intake and less than 200 on exhaust. LS1 heads flow more than that stock. The stock cams and springs are not well suited for higher RPM operation. A small displacement motor has to turn HIGH RPM to create HP. Yet the stock 4.6 SOHC is flat at about 5000. In contrast the 4V heads flow over 250 untouched. Much like the LS1 heads, they create a wider powerband. The stock SOHC heads DO NOT flow well past 500 lift, even CNC'd there is not really flow past 500. Again LS1 heads are capable of flowing up to around 600. I'm no GM fan, but the obvious advantage of the LS1 over the 4.6 is better heads. Yes displacement helps, but it still has to breathe.

Wakeup dude. The 5.0 motor is very very very different than the 4.6. What's happened in the past, to the aftermarket AND 5.0 phenomonon does not apply to the 4.6.

I'm plenty awake to the fact that the only aftermarket we have will be the one WE create. If we sit around waiting for FORD or anyone else to help us we will be waiting a long time. Maybe since you have a 2003 Cobra you could care less about the rest of the 4.6 crowd. If that's the case quit worrying about this little stupid post and go drive your car. As for me, I'll keep trying to bring aftermarket companies to the 4.6 crowd, even if you may benefit from them.

 

[trplblacksnake]

If all that is true and I understood it all correctly I can honestly say I would pay in upwards of 5000 for a set of heads like that espicially if it kept all of the stock mounting positions for the intake and the exhaust. Polt a nice little kenny bell on thos heads and have a little bit of fun

 

[PowerCobra98]

Originally posted by GR8WHITE
1167 views and only 24 votes?? That shows why we have so little aftermarket for the 4.6 So many people "want more", but fail to become involved enough to bring about the change they claim they want. Second Street Speed, Richardt Racing and a few others have tried. They took a bold step that none of the big money companies would. Most of the comments I see about them aren't supportive at all. Atleast they are trying. What has Ford, Edlebrock, AFR, TFS, Brodix, Holley and countless others given us??

I'm VERY interested. All I can say is that a lot a people that own our type of cars are CHEAP. They don't realize that it takes money, and lots of it, to modify. Sure you can "modify" cheaply...but that's what you have then, a cheap a$$ looking modified car. Count me in, I'm on board.

 

[GR8WHITE]

LOL well put.