Engines...how loyal are you? |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |
occupant
Senior Member Joined: 23-October-2006 Location: Lawton, OK Status: Offline Points: 1973 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 20-November-2014 at 2:52PM |
The basis for this poll is some activity on some of the Facebook groups I'm a member of, specifically, people complaining about LS swaps in Ford products.
I'm of the opinion that if I'm able to get my hands on another 74-76 Gran Torino sedan or wagon, that I will not be interested in going through all the trouble of installing a 302/351 engine, adding fuel injection, finding an AOD that isn't shot, fabricating all the things to mount it, linkage up to it, and rewire everything, just to have an engine that is slightly better than what the car had stock. Ford dropped the ball in my opinion with the Modular engines. They're too wide to fit anything worth putting them into. They're not pushrod engines. They aren't nearly as efficient as some other engines. I would be much more likely to install an EFI 318 Chrysler engine and 44RE automatic. Or more likely than that, the 4.8 or 5.3 liter Chevy LS engine and a 4L60E automatic. I've been quite impressed by the driving qualities of my Suburban (and my wife's Durango we had before it). Those engines in a lighter, lower, longer vehicle would provide better performance, better economy, and be easier to find parts for. I'm not saying I don't like Ford engines. I was happy with the 351C in place of the 351M in my '76 sedan. I even liked the 351M for what it was, just not for its voracious fuel and oil appetite. The Cleveland sounded great, pulled good, and once I dealt with the starter and distributor issues, easy to start and run. I also like the EFI 302 and 351W engines for the same reasons, but also know they would be on the same level of difficulty swapping them as swapping in anything else. |
|
gpd294
Senior Member Joined: 18-September-2008 Location: Dallas, Texas Status: Offline Points: 2181 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
In my humble opinion, theres nothing worse than looking under a hood of a FORD and not seeing FORD blue'
|
|
Carlos....1975 Gran Torino Squire Station Wagon restored to look like a 1973 Torino Station
Wagon my Dad bought new from McAnary Ford on June 6, 1973 in Gary,Indiana |
|
72 RS 351
Senior Member Joined: 04-September-2014 Location: Knoxville TN Status: Offline Points: 2767 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
To swap any engine into an older Ford that isn't bone stock, or plug and play, that will require similar amounts of wiring modifications, plus various amounts of non stock accessories and brackets, transmission issues etc.
So it should really come down to the potential of the engine/trans, and how true to a Ford or manufacturer you are. I don't consider any non Ford engine worthy for any Ford of mine, period. The Cleveland engine design is the best ever made by anyone, to this day(except for variable cam timing technology). All NASCAR engines have Cleveland based heads, including the POS Toyotas which don't even sell a pushrod engine V8. The latest modular Fords are finally competitive after 20+ years of redesigns and development. They finally make decent HP/liter for an OHC engine. If I had to pick a fully modern latest super efficient engine, it would be those new Ford engines. But I think that level of wiring and to include the needed sensors and components, it's too much for me to put in an older car. Thus even if I would consider the LS, it too would beg to have the latest versions, with the same new wiring etc, no thanks. But I do love the Cleveland heads, and given the right match of head/intake/cam etc, they can be very sweet. I will build a 302 based Clevor stroker, using CHI 185 or 215 3V heads, using a stock 96-98 Explorer operating system, PCM/wiring/trans, and the front accessories. Those parts are still readily available, and not expensive at all. Modifying the wiring to adapt to the old Ford will not be plug and play, but it will not be a big deal to alter the engine bay harness etc, or replace it completely(modified of course) with one from an Explorer. With EFI and 352 CI, I expect 500hp at under 6500rpm. Other people will choose to build 408-427's for less money(stock Windsor block), and end up with closer to 600hp. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a big monster 460/512+ engine and carb, and have to deal with that weight, fuel mileage and the carb driveability. I'm sold on EFI, it's worth it when you get it done and right. Regards, Edited by 72 RS 351 - 20-November-2014 at 3:31PM |
|
Don
73 Ranchero "Sport 72 front end", floor shift/console, planning EFI 7000+ rpm 351-4V &4R70W 73 Ranchero GT 351C-4V &4R70W for sale later. 92 Lincoln Mark VII SE GTC, OBDII 347/4R70W |
|
GTW
Senior Member Joined: 21-January-2012 Location: SC Status: Offline Points: 5784 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I voted anything in anything, but I've been holding out for a 302 in the wagon. Got plenty of GM engines laying around we could toss in, though. If I didn't feel like cutting the shock towers out of the Maverick I wouldn't mind slapping something else in there too. The 2JZ Maverick is pure greatness.
|
|
Griffin
1973 Gran Torino station wagon 1972 Gran Torino 4 Door 1971 Maverick 2 Door |
|
Regul8r
Admin Group Moderator Joined: 26-December-2007 Location: Sarasota FL Status: Offline Points: 6624 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
FORD PERIOD!
Pop the hood on your Ford and I see a Chebby... I have NO DESIRE to even look at that car again! At the Street Rod Nationals I see all the old Ford T-Buckets, Model A's etc... Then I see those damn side by side 2 center header pipes... no need to look at or investigate that sh*t any more, walk on by! I'll actually tune out a guy who while talking says he has a Chebby in his Ford... Convo DONE, peace out, later!!! I like a couple chebbys but NO CROSSBREEDING!!! I don't even like Fords in Chebby! As for putting an LS because it is better or easier... NOT! same issues with an LS as upping to EFI. Wiring, mounts, driveshafts, headers, exhaust etc... The money and time you spend trying to put an LS/Tranny in a Ford, I could build a ford motor and everything bolts right up! just my opinion, but hey, do whatever floats your boat!
|
|
Carl Corey (Moderator/Event Coordinator) Contact ANYTIME!
1976 Ford Elite "Lola Mae" 97 Suzuki Intruder 1400 US Army Retired |
|
GTW
Senior Member Joined: 21-January-2012 Location: SC Status: Offline Points: 5784 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll go ahead and say that I'm also on the "LS all the things" boat.
Who knows, I might have the first LS powered Gran Torino Edited by GTW - 20-November-2014 at 3:46PM |
|
Griffin
1973 Gran Torino station wagon 1972 Gran Torino 4 Door 1971 Maverick 2 Door |
|
kychevyguy
Senior Member Joined: 16-December-2013 Location: Lexington KY Status: Offline Points: 1996 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
As some of you know me well enough to know that I am not a hater of any one specific brand. (Well, maybe Nissan due to a past issue with a lemon and how corp handled the situation.) I like all brands and each have their place. The LS series of engines from GM is a great engine to transplant into almost anything that General Motors makes. I think the engine mfr should match the car mfr though. I have never liked seeing a small block chevy in between the fenders of a FoMoCo product. This includes the iconic 32 Ford roadster. I am fully aware that the aftermarket had 5 times the parts available for the small block chevy versus ford. But I feel that a Ford vehicle should still have a Ford running gear (whether a newer version with AOD and FI, or an old flathead.) Keep a Ford in a Ford. Keep a Chevy in a Chevy. Keep a Mopar in a Mopar.
I'm saying this to my Ford buddies, just as I say it to my Chevy buddies; life is too short to be hatin on any one group of car. There are Ford haters, just as there are Chevy haters.
|
|
JT, USAF Ret./Architect
1971 Ford F100 "Lizzy" 1971 Cougar XR7 "Kitty" 1984 Chevy Silverado "Sylvia" 2009 Smart Fortwo Cabrio "Lil Dude" 2015 Volvo XC60 R-Design "Sven" |
|
unlovedford
Senior Member Joined: 17-December-2010 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 10142 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ah, the conundrum of it all.
As some on here know, I have had dismal luck with almost every Chevrolet I have ever owned. From my first car (a 1977 Vega) to the asinine '65 Malibu SS sitting under my carport. The only Chevrolet I've had good service out of was Stranger (my 1989 S10 with the Ranger Splash bed). I loved that truck and C and I were visibly upset when it drove away. That being said, I have had issues with my classic Fords of late. Some from sitting idle, some from poor parts, some from just poor Ford engineering. I am not alone, as every meet we've had, someone has had issues with their car. I understand that we are dealing with 70's technology, but come on - none are original cars with all original parts. That points to an engineering or design issue. I am also not a fan of Big Block engines - too heavy, too thirsty, generate too much heat. A properly built small block with a power adder will suck the pistons out of a big block for the same coin. Argue if you want, but give me a budget of $4k to build either, install in identical vehicles and the small block will win. I, too, won't look at an older Ford or Mopar with a 1st or 2nd gen Chevrolet engine. It is basically a travesty in my eyes. I do appreciate an old Olds, Buick, or Cadillac stuffed between the fenders of an old rod. Different and cool. I am also a fan of the Mopar engines (with the exception of the 4.7),and have owned many - from the 2.2's all the way to the 440's. A 318 (5.2 liter) and the Jeep 4.0 are as bulletproof and receptive to mods as any engine ever made. 400K miles on a Jeep 4.0 is not uncommon - that speaks for itself. That engine was initially designed by AMC, but vastly improved by Mopar. The Modular Fords. I've seen them with 300K running well and 30K grenaded. Upkeep is key, but these earlier engines had horrific design flaws. Plug threads in heads not sufficient to hold a plug in? WTF? Head gasket issues? Really? Intake manifolds eating themselves? Ridiculous. I have an '03 CVPI (4.6) and an '01 F150 (5.4) - both over 200K, but maintained extremely well...and lucky, too. Did I mention their width? I know why Ford designed them this way, but their thinking was flawed. Coyote engines have great promise, but I'll wait to see one with 200K. Haven't yet. Ford AOD transmission? If it is stock, it is poorly designed and a ticking bomb. Modified and rebuilt, it is awesome. The LS engines. Yes, a Chevrolet engine, but undeniably better designed than it's counterparts. The GM AOD's? Vastly better than Ford. From the initial 700R all the way to the current versions. You can buy a boneyard 5.3, clean it up, slap on a turbo or supercharger and watch 500+ horsepower on the dyno. Day in, day out and 20 mpg. Compactly designed, beautifully packaged, and cheap. Recipe for success and popularity. Now, what are my preferences? Varied. My 4 speed will always have a Cleveland between it's fenders. My '76 will always have a Windsor between it's fenders. The red wagon..., well, I have the opportunity to cross-breed it with an LS drivetrain. Will I do it? I have not decided, but I will say that one of the wagons will have an LS drivetrain in it and the other will have a built 5.0 and a 5 speed. Put your emotions aside for a moment and hear me out: The brown wagon has it's 429 and C6. Over half a ton of heat generating, emission-strangled, poorly-designed, inefficiently accessorized cast iron lard. Barely over 200 horsepower pulling a 2.5 ton automobile with a power-gobbling 3 speed automatic and a 4:10 rear end. If you looked at the specs on a sheet of paper, you'd think it was designed in a 3rd world country. Yank all that dead weight out, get a drivetrain that weighs two-thirds that amount with 400 horsepower, highly efficient overdrive transmission, better accessories and stupendously better reliability and economy. Paint it Blue, install fake valve covers over the coil packs and voila! Something you'll want to drive every day BECAUSE YOU CAN. Still the same Ford wagon with the ill-fitting panels, no-support seats, and cushy ride, but now 2X as powerful, better handling, unleaded/E85 fuel friendly, and 20 mpg+. Hit the loud pedal and you can torch the tires for far less than a build on that old 429. If it bothers you so much, just don't open the hood. In fact, you probably won't need to unless it is ready for an oil change. Perhaps I am getting older. Perhaps I am getting smarter. I don't know. However, what I do know is that I love driving my old cars. Repeat, I love driving my old cars. I don't love seeing them sit in the driveway with a tow rope dangling beneath them. I don't love standing beside them on a highway in the heat or cold waiting on a ride. I don't love driving away from them sitting on that road - all alone and vulnerable. I don't love spending hours tracing down the reason why they only run when I'm alone and then take a big sh!t when I'm surrounded by people. If I can circumvent that by simply doing an drivetrain swap once and then enjoy that car for years and years without the mad scramble before a trip and piling tools/parts/fluids in the rear, I'm gonna do it. Sorry to be so long, but heck, guys. Would we drive our Ford engines to a meet powering a box van? Nope. We drive our Torinos, Galaxies, Falcons, F100's, Mavericks, Pintos, Montegos, etc to shows and meets. It's the cars, boys, the cars. **Let me clarify my opinion by stating that my wagons are not valuable vehicles - therefore originality is not a concern. However, on a collector car or a "required numbers-matching" vehicle to maintain it's monetary value, by all means, stay with the original type drivetrain ** Edited by unlovedford - 21-November-2014 at 9:14AM |
|
Joe
1972 Mom's Squire Wagon 1972 Torino Wagon 1976 Torino 1968 Cougar XR7-First batch 1972 Torino 460 1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous Popeye and Brutus (Rams) |
|
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Here here Joe!
|
|
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
|
Psquare75
Admin Group Member of the Stroker Club Joined: 26-November-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4591 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
No love for Coyotes?
|
|
Paul
77 XR7 460/C6/3.00:1 *SOLD* 78 XR7 523/C6/3.5:1 79 F100 460/TKO500/3.25:1 'I also have some left over potatoes-I understand you can generate electricity from them'- Foote500 |
|
unlovedford
Senior Member Joined: 17-December-2010 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 10142 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I love the Coyotes. Just not sure of the durability. Installing a Coyote drivetrain in a Torino-based car would be horrifically expensive, though.
|
|
Joe
1972 Mom's Squire Wagon 1972 Torino Wagon 1976 Torino 1968 Cougar XR7-First batch 1972 Torino 460 1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous Popeye and Brutus (Rams) |
|
lynchster
Senior Member Joined: 07-January-2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 2150 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I've driven a lot of cars and like a little something about all of them.Not enough to cross swap manufacturers though. For me it's an identity issue.
I'll always prefer Fords but my daily driver right now is a supercharged Buick. Far better than the old escort wagon I was using. Heated seats in the winter are too damned awesome.
|
|
Chuck
72 Gran Torino Sport 13 Taurus SHO "Mr Pig" |
|
n2fordwagons
Senior Member Joined: 20-July-2013 Location: GA Status: Offline Points: 2252 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I love most all American car makers, especially classic and muscle cars. I like imports too. But, I can't stand to see a non-matching drivetrain. It just don't seem right.
|
|
Jeff
71 Torino Brougham 72 Gran Torino Squire |
|
GTW
Senior Member Joined: 21-January-2012 Location: SC Status: Offline Points: 5784 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
3800? I wouldn't ever be worried about one breaking.
|
|
Griffin
1973 Gran Torino station wagon 1972 Gran Torino 4 Door 1971 Maverick 2 Door |
|
Big Bird
Senior Member Joined: 25-August-2013 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 4194 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Swapped a lot of engines, usually fords in fords, mopars in mopars, and GM in GM (alls fair in GM swaps, Buicks in chevys, caddys in buicks, pontiacs etc) but really, how is swapping a 302 into a Volvo any worse than pulling the Isuzu 4 out of a Chevette to put in an Iron Duke, or a G.M. 2.8?(or a small-block, a big-block,)
Once you decide to swap out the engine for something that wasn't offered (and doesn't fit anyway) then the car isn't original, If you will have to fabricate parts either way...what's the difference.. I will admit I'm bored with small-block chevys, but I saw a T-bucket with a slant 6, that was neat! Sometimes weird is fun! In the end, it's your car, and YOU have to live with it. Do what makes YOU happy.
|
|
"What we do in full frontal view, is more honest than your cleaned-up mind."
Randy 1979 T-Bird 2005 F-150 STX RCSB 4.6, 3.55 LSD How the Heck does a REGULAR CAB SHORTBED weigh over 5200 pounds? |
|
californiajohnny
Moderator Group Joined: 05-October-2013 Location: winlock, wa Status: Offline Points: 14609 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
oh boy! this could turn into a hundred page thread! i own and like many different cars. i've probably worked on most of them and drove most of them some i like some i don't. i'll drive old cars till the day i die! love em, more style easy to work on simple (fix one on the side of the road and get going) these new cars with all this electronic sh*t??? try fixing that on the side of the road! hell it'll take you three days just to find the engine under all that crap!
i'll agree with joe on the sb vs bb |
|
JOHN
74 GRAN TORINO S&H CLONE 74 VETTE CUSTOM 90 S10 BLAZER 4X4 LIFTED 77 CELICA CUSTOM 75 V8 MONZA SUPERCHARGED 79 COURIER VERT. SLAMMED 75 VEGA V6 5 SPD 70 CHEV C10 P/U 68 MUSTANG FB CONVERSION |
|
72 RS 351
Senior Member Joined: 04-September-2014 Location: Knoxville TN Status: Offline Points: 2767 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I don't know about the reliability of them, they are new though. But I can point you to a place that very likely could provide the engine and all supporting pieces. I'm trying to find the time to drive back to the place near Madisonville, as they have the 99-04 Mustang wiring that I need to convert my Lincoln to OBDII. I've seen them with super low mileage wrecked Mustangs, and finished to nearly finished one and two year old Mustangs, plus Lightning drivetrains stuck in a corner etc. I have no doubt they can get the drivetrain of choice for a late Ford. Pricing would be as expected for that kind of almost new hot engine etc, figure $6k and up. The LS stuff is becoming cheaper for the same reason all Fox Mustang parts blew away all comparable Chevy parts back in those days. The newest Ford stuff is still new enough and rare, such that it will take a few years to bring the prices down. Chevy invested tons of millions of dollars into saving their pushrod engines, titanium rods and aluminum blocks being stock parts in some, that mass production is what brought the prices down. Ford could have done that, and given how huge they made the modular engines versus the displacement, I would rather have kept the pushrods. The engines should be smaller outside, not bigger, and with more size potential. |
|
Don
73 Ranchero "Sport 72 front end", floor shift/console, planning EFI 7000+ rpm 351-4V &4R70W 73 Ranchero GT 351C-4V &4R70W for sale later. 92 Lincoln Mark VII SE GTC, OBDII 347/4R70W |
|
Big Bird
Senior Member Joined: 25-August-2013 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 4194 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Chrysler 4.7 with the overhead cams is a LOT smaller than the ford 4.6, so it's not just the overhead cams. The mod motors are just large, godawful overcomplicated, and too much bother to swap into the torino chassis, for a motor that makes about the same HP as a 302, but has nowhere near the low RPM torque.
|
|
"What we do in full frontal view, is more honest than your cleaned-up mind."
Randy 1979 T-Bird 2005 F-150 STX RCSB 4.6, 3.55 LSD How the Heck does a REGULAR CAB SHORTBED weigh over 5200 pounds? |
|
occupant
Senior Member Joined: 23-October-2006 Location: Lawton, OK Status: Offline Points: 1973 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
There are some Ford engine swaps I want to try.
I want to put a 2.3 Duratec and a T-5 manual into a Falcon/Fairlane sized car. I want to put a 3.0 Vulcan V6 and A4LD into a 68-69 Ranchero. I want to put a 5.0 Explorer V8 and 4R70W into a 74-76 Gran Torino wagon. But if I'm going to build another 74-76 Gran Torino sedan, it's probably getting a 4.8 or 5.3 LS engine, 4L60E automatic, 3.00 or 3.08 gearing, and I can get a tailshaft to use a regular speedometer cable and not do custom gauges, yet still keep the VSS signal to keep the computer happy. The only custom wiring I'll need will be things like the temperature gauge and the fuel gauge, and then making the ignition switch work with the GM setup. A couple hundred bucks for a tuner and I can get the LS's computer reflashed to remove the security system, set rev and speed limits, move shift points to match the Torino's tire size, et cetera. Heck, I may be able to do most of it with the cable set I have now. However, I'll probably do an LS swap into another GM vehicle first. Missed a chance to get a free '78 Caprice wagon so I'm looking for something similar. Would actually love an Olds 98 or Buick Park Avenue coupe from the early 80s to do it, but wouldn't turn down any B-body, 77-89. The knowledge and experience I gain from that should make doing it in a Ford product that much simpler. Joe has the right idea. If you don't like it, don't open the hood and look. Besides, there are ways to make an LS motor look like anything else.
Anyway, the stock LS valve covers are just as generic as the modular motors. Powdercoat them whatever shade of Ford blue you want, there are two styles and both are easy enough to shave smooth and recolor: |
|
Billy C
Senior Member Joined: 10-February-2010 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Status: Offline Points: 948 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I was one of the people who voted "anything in anything" because there are some sweet builds out there with extremely knowledgeable owners who have perfectly legit reasons to mix it up a bit. To write off those builds purely because of the crossbreed setup would be ignorant. I'd be much quicker to loose interest in a build that has an owner who doesn't know the intricacies of the wiring harness, cam specs, gear ratios, or chassis setup. The muscle car world seems much less accepting of the manufacture mix-ups compared to the other genres of car enthusiasts. The driving factor of this seems to be the same thing that drives die-hard sports fans. I respect this kind of manufacturer competition and recognize that it has birthed things like the GT500, GT40, Hellcat, Viper, Z06, and Z28. I proudly take part in the Mustang vs. Camaro debate among my friends fueled by a nights supply of cold beers. I'm also proud to say those same debates usually evolve into radical build concepts involving crazy drive-train swaps between manufactures. I can't imagine how many of the same exciting conversations between the engineers at "company A" about "company B" led to the development of a new idea evolved from some of "company B's" technology. All internal engine concepts are just products of steady evolution from generation to generation between all manufactures. Because of my appreciation for this progression in technology I would never call myself a "Ford" or "Honda" guy, just simply a "car" guy.
|
|
-Billy Conturo
|
|
72 RS 351
Senior Member Joined: 04-September-2014 Location: Knoxville TN Status: Offline Points: 2767 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Avoid the A4LD transmission, it's very weak. That was a 4cyl trans for mid 80's T'birds, converted with electronics to work in a 4500lbs SUV, ending up going off-roading or towing no less.
The 2.3 turbo Ford is kind of forgotten, and that was a Mustang SVO and Turbo Coupe which was quicker than the 302 Mustang of the same models. Those pre 90's cars are early technology and old wiring is not good to begin with, but the concepts were good. |
|
Don
73 Ranchero "Sport 72 front end", floor shift/console, planning EFI 7000+ rpm 351-4V &4R70W 73 Ranchero GT 351C-4V &4R70W for sale later. 92 Lincoln Mark VII SE GTC, OBDII 347/4R70W |
|
californiajohnny
Moderator Group Joined: 05-October-2013 Location: winlock, wa Status: Offline Points: 14609 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
^^^ yeah bryan!! what he said!!!! |
|
JOHN
74 GRAN TORINO S&H CLONE 74 VETTE CUSTOM 90 S10 BLAZER 4X4 LIFTED 77 CELICA CUSTOM 75 V8 MONZA SUPERCHARGED 79 COURIER VERT. SLAMMED 75 VEGA V6 5 SPD 70 CHEV C10 P/U 68 MUSTANG FB CONVERSION |
|
occupant
Senior Member Joined: 23-October-2006 Location: Lawton, OK Status: Offline Points: 1973 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A 1968-1969 Ranchero with a V8 weighs only about 100lbs more than a mid-80s Thunderbird with the 3.8L V6. I don't see a problem there. The 3.0L engine will probably be 100lbs lighter than a Ford V8 if not even more so. I had an A4LD in an Aerostar, it was the first thing I fixed on it when it puked its guts out on I-35 south of Waco. They can be rebuilt decently. If you could mount an AOD to a Vulcan V6 I'd do it. The later 4R55 and 5R55 transmissions are the same design and depending on the year of Vulcan engine I'd use, it might have one of those instead. I think the last year for the Vulcan in the Ranger was 2008 and the updated #R## transmissions started around 1995 or so. Actually as far as the 2.3 engines go, I meant a 2.3 Duratec engine, used in Ford Rangers and Mazda B2300 pickups from 2001 to 2011. Not the old Lima four. It's technically a rebadged Mazda engine, but oh well. Quad4Rods sells an adapter to run a T-5 behind the FWD versions (think Focus, Fusion, Mazda3, Mazda6, others) if I can't find a truck model. Again, a 1968-1969 Fairlane with a 302 V8 is under 3300lbs and the 2011 Rangers (the last year) weighed between 3030lbs and 3189lbs when equipped with the 4-cylinder. I'd be real happy if the Fairlane could match the 2011 Ranger EPA ratings of 22 city 27 highway. Geared right probably more than that. Edited by occupant - 23-November-2014 at 3:36PM |
|
Psquare75
Admin Group Member of the Stroker Club Joined: 26-November-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4591 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This is where I'm going with my Cougar, if the cards play right
use an 11+ Fseries engine. Through a stick they are around 350whp with no engine work. I know a few fox body guys locally putting down almost 30 MPG with one. They are just mad that they spent so much $ playing with 302s when a Coyote is light years ahead of them. |
|
Paul
77 XR7 460/C6/3.00:1 *SOLD* 78 XR7 523/C6/3.5:1 79 F100 460/TKO500/3.25:1 'I also have some left over potatoes-I understand you can generate electricity from them'- Foote500 |
|
unlovedford
Senior Member Joined: 17-December-2010 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 10142 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I would absolutely consider a Coyote swap if there was an easy kit and the parts weren't so astronomical. $6K for an engine, $2K for a transmission, more for wiring, mounts, driveshaft, electronics, etc. With as many projects as I have, money is a strong consideration for each and every step. Before you know it, you have $10K in parts or a donor vehicle. Just about my budget for 3 of my cars, LOL.
There were several times I considered a stroker 4.0 Jeep drivetrain for the red wagon. Plenty of power, loads of torque, and I had everything except the mounts. Still a straight six, but EFI, AOD, and a great look. The little boy in me stopped that plan - I wanted to hear the car rumble, and wanted a 5 speed transmission. All of that I have as well, so it became just a visceral preference. |
|
Joe
1972 Mom's Squire Wagon 1972 Torino Wagon 1976 Torino 1968 Cougar XR7-First batch 1972 Torino 460 1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous Popeye and Brutus (Rams) |
|
Big Bird
Senior Member Joined: 25-August-2013 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 4194 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I spent/wasted and generally enjoyed an immense amount of time trying to figure out putting an EFI 300 and 5-speed manual transmission from a 91 F150 into my T-Bird. If it would have fit under the hood, it would be in there now. Intake goes over the top of the valve covers on an engine already taller than a 460.
Front sump on these cars rules out a 4.2 swap (pity, I liked the 4.2 in my 02 F150).
|
|
"What we do in full frontal view, is more honest than your cleaned-up mind."
Randy 1979 T-Bird 2005 F-150 STX RCSB 4.6, 3.55 LSD How the Heck does a REGULAR CAB SHORTBED weigh over 5200 pounds? |
|
MonteCobra
Member Joined: 24-October-2014 Location: Ontario Status: Offline Points: 77 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Anything in anything, if i have a choice i'd keep things brand specific, but i was down on cash, out of work, and wanted to keep my hobby alive, i'd stick a ford in a chevy, and a chrysler in a ford if thats what it took to keep a smile on my face.
|
|
antlerfiend
Senior Member Joined: 14-June-2010 Location: Louisville,KY Status: Offline Points: 3023 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Don't know anything about any other engine. So it would be Ford for me. Other than that, I am Blue Oval til the day I die! I would much rather worship the Devil than switch.
|
|
Alex
72 GTS (Morgan's Baby) 68 CJ Drag Car Clone 65 Mustang (first car) 77 LTD II (Drag Car) 78 Mustang II V6 4 speed |
|
aquartlow
Senior Member Joined: 19-December-2011 Location: Summerfield, Fl Status: Offline Points: 2271 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am also a true-blue Ford guy and would never put or run anything but a Ford engine in a Ford.........until I go out to my Superduty, lift the hood to find an International-built diesel sitting between the frame rails.
|
|
www.supermotors.net/22468
Yeah, It's a Hybrid...It burns gas and tires. No matter how good she looks, somebody, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t. Beauty is skin deep, ugliness goes clear to the bone. |
|
Nuggets
Senior Member Joined: 07-November-2014 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Just seen this thread, in my opinion if it fits it fits......
I'm putting a 440 into my 73 and as a landrover owner I've stuck stupid engines into things before, 350, 454, Essex, 215 Buick all fit into the engine bay of an old LR with the right modifications and transmissions Nothing wrong with putting a better engine into a car The 440 has a better rod angle, better block durability, more power potential and sounds better! Yes it may not get 351c mileage but its a tradeoff I'm willing to make and will always be happy to make. If the positives outweigh the negatives then theres no reason not to........
|
|
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |