The Ford Torino Page Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Model Specific Forum > 1972-1976 Ford and Mercury
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Modular Drivetrain Into '76 Torino
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedModular Drivetrain Into '76 Torino

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
unlovedford View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2010
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 9436
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Modular Drivetrain Into '76 Torino
    Posted: 04-February-2011 at 6:33AM
I am thinking about installing a 4.6 out of a Crown Vic or a DOHC 4.6 out of a Mark VIII in our '76 Torino. I would be using the complete drivetrain with wiring and ECM and would most likely will purchase an entire vehicle (wrecked/P71 Cruiser/great deal?) - reducing the amount of effort necessary to co-ordinate parts. Has anyone tried this? Engine mounts can be fabricated, but my main concern is hood clearance and type of oil pan setup. I believe the width of the Torino should accomodate these abnormally wide engines. Current drivetrain is the original 351W/C4. Please give any input, as the current engine is just shot (transmission was rebuilt shortly before parking it, but has been sitting for many years). Looking for longevity, good performance and ease of obtaining replacement parts, rather than just an all out performance aspect. What do you folks think? The whole idea started when we decided to find a wrecked F150 with the 4.6/5.4 drivetrain to donate to our '68 Ranger. Please let me know.
 
Thanks,
 
Joe
Joe
1972 GTSquire Wagon
1972 Torino Wagon
1976 Torino (2)       
1968 Cougar XR7-First batch
1972 Torino 460
1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous

Back to Top
iangj View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06-March-2009
Location: Fonthill, ON
Status: Offline
Points: 977
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-February-2011 at 8:51AM
I think it's a GREAT idea! In fact I would even contemplate doing just that if I had another car that I wouldn't want to a full on resto.
I'd be grabbing a 4.6 3V & 6 speed auto just like what is in my '09 F150.  300HP right out of the box. The truck goes like stink and hauls my big 30' Toyhauler no problems.
It has been done to a Torino I think. I seem to remember it posted somewhere. Definitely done to a Mustang.
Even better would be either the newer 5.0 Coyote or the Ecoboost twinturbo 6 banger.
Ian Glyn-Jones
Fonthill, Ontario, Canada

'72 Montego GT Q Code

Montego GT Registry
Forum; http://mmgt.forumchitchat.com/
Back to Top
unlovedford View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2010
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 9436
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-February-2011 at 4:20AM

I appreciate the information. P71 Crown Vics are reasonable around here when purchased at auction (which is why I was considering one) and I can use the front suspension on my '68 Ranger. Kind of a dual purpose donor, so to speak. My car will not be nearly as nice as some of these I have seen on here, but the sentimental value I place on it makes the effort worthwhile. Besides, I really want to meet all of you folks in September, and this seems to be a somewhat direct path to getting the car roadworthy again.

Joe
1972 GTSquire Wagon
1972 Torino Wagon
1976 Torino (2)       
1968 Cougar XR7-First batch
1972 Torino 460
1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous

Back to Top
Hey Z View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-February-2011 at 4:38AM
If it were me I'd go with the greater torque potential of the 5.4 over the 4.6 for our heavy cars.  Sounds like a very cool project so if you dive into it you need to keep us posted.
Back to Top
occupant View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 23-October-2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-February-2011 at 6:09AM
I rented an E350 van from Penske this past week. I was very UNimpressed with the power levels of the 5.4L. I think this is due to bad gearing and only a 4-speed automatic transmission that likes to upshift and drop into lockup as fast as possible. Even tow/haul mode did no favors. I had to shift manually to keep it from bogging down. Once in 4th and lockup on the interstate, it's absolutely GUTLESS.

I will request a GMC van next time, the 6.0L with the Allison transmission has gumption.

But I did like one thing about the 5.4L. It had a great sound from about 2500-5500 even with the plain stock exhaust on that 16-foot box van. Was a 2009 model. But a great bark is worthless when there is no bite. Penske should have splurged for the V10 or the diesel in those Ford vans.
Back to Top
Ron Earp View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06-November-2010
Location: Cary NC
Status: Offline
Points: 254
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-February-2011 at 7:35AM
You might want to have a look at this diagram. The mod motors (DOHC) are quite large and sport a low output per cubic foot of space. The 429/460 BB isn't shown in this diagram but it is not as wide as the mod motor. Bear in mind the upper intake plenium is not shown for the mod motor (the black lined motor). It is wide and tall, but it s bit shorter than the others when they are used in factory configuration. The FEs, 460s, and 351s can be shortened a bit with careful cover/pump selection.




Edited by Ron Earp - 09-February-2011 at 7:37AM
04 Ford Lightning
72 GTS BB Stroker & Toploader
98 Mustang ITS SCCA #38
08 Buell Ulysses
GT40s.com
Back to Top
unlovedford View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2010
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 9436
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-February-2011 at 5:55AM
Holy cow! I knew these were wide, but had no idea they were that much wider than an FE. I will have to do some more in-depth measuring of the engine bay before proceeding. I glanced at a CV one afternoon and then looked at the engine bay on my Torino (swallowed the Windsor) and figured it would be tight, but might fit with little or no problems. I had assumed the oil pan would be the major stumbling block. Last night, a friend called me and asked why I just didn't get a 5.8 FI/AOD setup out of a F150/Bronco and swap it into the car - Fuel Injected, minimal changes. Intake height might be close, but 5.0 upper intake and plumbing may adapt. Better than my current arrangement, and no need to cause myself additional grief. I would really like to get rid of the current carb and current electronics in favor of the better updated systems now available. Something in the pit of my stomach just fears being stuck on the side of the interstate with an angry female in a car not driven since the mid 80's... " I TOLD YOU WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MY CAR!!!"  Gives me the chills, lol.
Joe
1972 GTSquire Wagon
1972 Torino Wagon
1976 Torino (2)       
1968 Cougar XR7-First batch
1972 Torino 460
1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous

Back to Top
Blueoval76 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Member of the Stroker Club

Joined: 20-February-2010
Location: Sussex WI
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-February-2011 at 6:20AM
Ok Joe that last statement is funny and I have heard it too many times!! Lol! However just to compare a little bit. If you have a carb the only thing that usually would cause an issue is a stuck needle and seat or trash in the filter. Other than that the ignition is the other item on the list in the case of a breakdown. I know there is the other internals but that is in any motor FI or Carb. Now lets look at the Modular. Two top issues I know of on a mod is the coil packs, and the spark plug threads. Also you are looking at alot of sensors that at any time could go bad and if you dont add a CEL and a OBD port you wont know what is wrong. You will also have to worry about an electric fuel pump and the pressure regulator. I dont want to kill your idea so please dont take offense as none is meant. Cool I just want to rationalize the cost involved on just the basics of this once you have it swapped in. I am an old school carb guy and though the thought of a stand alone FI on my motor I am building sounds cool I would be afraid of failure of components.
68 Galaxie Wagon 390/auto/2.70
03 Bonneville some mods
Back to Top
Psquare75 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Member of the Stroker Club

Joined: 26-November-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4587
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-February-2011 at 7:15AM
Back in my AOL days, I remember a guy in one of the chat rooms had a mark IV Lincoln with a 5.4 swap. Of course no pics, but it seemed doable from the way he described it. 

Edited by Psquare75 - 10-February-2011 at 7:16AM
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
Back to Top
BackInBlack View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 11-January-2011
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 713
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-February-2011 at 2:19AM
Originally posted by Ron Earp Ron Earp wrote:

You might want to have a look at this diagram. The mod motors (DOHC) are quite large and sport a low output per cubic foot of space. The 429/460 BB isn't shown in this diagram but it is not as wide as the mod motor. Bear in mind the upper intake plenium is not shown for the mod motor (the black lined motor). It is wide and tall, but it s bit shorter than the others when they are used in factory configuration. The FEs, 460s, and 351s can be shortened a bit with careful cover/pump selection.


Great pic for comparison.   The only thing not shown here is the EFI setup for the 351W.  It would add more height to the old Winsor motor as compared to the modular motor where the intake sits low in between the heads.   It would be an accurate comparison for the aftermarket throttle body fuel injection such as the FAST setup.   I've been thinking of the 5.4L or the new 6.2L as a swap vs sticking with a stroked 351C.   Problem is that I want EFI and I can't find anything for the Cleveland.

Edited by BackInBlack - 12-February-2011 at 2:21AM
-John
1973 GTS
Back to Top
Blueoval76 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Member of the Stroker Club

Joined: 20-February-2010
Location: Sussex WI
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-February-2011 at 3:31AM
That is where you get something like this!!! I have been looking at it everytime I pick up my Summit catalog.
 
 
 
 
68 Galaxie Wagon 390/auto/2.70
03 Bonneville some mods
Back to Top
BackInBlack View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 11-January-2011
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 713
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-February-2011 at 4:18AM

That looks pretty interesting.   I can't decide to try to adapt some multiport EFI or use a throttlebody setup like this one.   Trickflow is suppose to release a manifold for the Cleveland to adapt a multiport EFI, but nothing released so far.    I have time.   I'm busy fixing the interior then suspension/brakes/wheels.

Do you know of any comparison info regarding this injection setup vs others?
-John
1973 GTS
Back to Top
Blueoval76 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Member of the Stroker Club

Joined: 20-February-2010
Location: Sussex WI
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-February-2011 at 4:56AM
Originally posted by BackInBlack BackInBlack wrote:

That looks pretty interesting.   I can't decide to try to adapt some multiport EFI or use a throttlebody setup like this one.   Trickflow is suppose to release a manifold for the Cleveland to adapt a multiport EFI, but nothing released so far.    I have time.   I'm busy fixing the interior then suspension/brakes/wheels.

Do you know of any comparison info regarding this injection setup vs others?
 
 
 
I mentioned above that I am a Die Hard Carb guy and always have been. However I am like in a trance with this system!!! Lol! I love it and really would love to try it out, but it is not in my budget for my build. Check out this link and watch the video at the bottom. This system is really trick and I love how it uses a Wideband O2 cause they are much better for tuning since it makes its own adjustments.
 
 
One note though is that the throttle body WILL NOT fit with a large cap dist. cause it is longet than a standard double pumper.


Edited by Blueoval76 - 12-February-2011 at 4:56AM
68 Galaxie Wagon 390/auto/2.70
03 Bonneville some mods
Back to Top
JimW View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 09-December-2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 602
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-February-2011 at 5:54AM
Don't be scared of the Mod swap.  The P71's run forever with major abuse and once you have a 4.6 2V in there, the 3V, the 4V, the 5.0 4V, the 5.4 2V, 3V, and 4V and the 6.8 2V and 3V V10 will swap in bellhousing and engine mount wise, then it's computer, exhaust and intake worries. Remember, for all it's impressive dimensions, even the 5.4 4V will fit in a Fox Mustang..
 
They are definitely large for the hp output, and I am first to admit that the stroker BBF is awesome, (just woke mine up from hibernation on Sunday) but for a distance driver that you don't need to run below 14.0 seconds, a mod could be a good choice.  You can get an easy factory OD transmission in auto or manual, and they are smooth and efficient engines that sound great when properly exhausted. 
 
Sure, a 351 can go to 427+ ci, have easy FI, be small and light and majorly powerful, but the visual cool factor of the 4V (whether 4.6, 5.0 or 5.4) is tough to deny as it looks like a 7/8 scale boss 429.
 
Honestly?  I am being selfish here, I really want someone to do it so I have inspiration to try it myself.  I've been kicking it around ever since 2005 when I saw a turboed 5.4 4V with a high rise intake on it in a Gen 2 Lightning, even spent an hour+ talking to Lidio Iacobelli about tuning and such before wimping out and putting together the 545...
 
 
Jim
 
 
1976 S&H Gran Torino

460/C6/4.33 13.05@105.6

545/C6/3.56 11.52@117.8

More to come!!!!

463rwhp/495rwtq

two tons of fun

see it and hear it at:

www.torinocobra.com

www.st
Back to Top
unlovedford View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2010
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 9436
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-February-2011 at 7:58AM
I have been doing some investigation on the spark plug issue on these engines. It seems that from 1997-2004 Ford used heads on the 4.2/4.6/5.4/V10 that had 4-6 threads per plug. The plugs will work loose from normal engine vibration or heat/cooling cycles over time. The aluminum threads in the heads are not strong enough to withstand this and the plug will soon eject (taking the coil pack with it). A warning sound is a slight "exhaust leak" or "ticking" noise eminating from the head. Apparently, the proper fix is to remove the head and install steel inserts into each plug hole. I don't see where 4.6 engines from '92 -96 have this issue (they have an inferior head design, but that is from a performance standpoint alone) nor engines in this family built after '04. I love these engines, the smooth sound they can make with a simple intake/exhaust swap and like the economy, but it seems that I should be looking for a newer donor car (05-up).
 
Fenderwell clearance with the 2V modular engines is no problem. When you step up to the 3V and 4V engines, the suspension appears to provide an obstacle with exhaust manifolds in some instances. I am actively investigating different solutions to that. Again, some creative modifications to the metal fenderwells might be in order. I really would like to try this, but will have to keep an eye out for the Police auctions to snag a late model P71. On that note, I spoke with the super over the Police motorpool and he reccomended that I try to find out the location where a particular vehicle was used to determine if it would be the better car. According to him, a highway pursuit car is a bad choice over a town cruiser (the opposite of what I would have guessed). Reason? Cruisers around town have short bursts of full throttle and more steady speeds, whereas the highway vehicles sit stationary and every time they move it is matted to the floor for extended periods (high speeds) to overtake their target - then parked at idle and the whole cycle starts again, over and over. A donor truck is absurdly expensive. So now I am waiting for the auction to see if the pricing on a late model P71 is worth the gamble. A Torino with the sound of an X-piped, flowmaster equipped late model GT is awfully enticing...
Joe
1972 GTSquire Wagon
1972 Torino Wagon
1976 Torino (2)       
1968 Cougar XR7-First batch
1972 Torino 460
1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous

Back to Top
Rockatansky View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30-July-2010
Location: On The Road
Status: Online
Points: 3454
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-February-2011 at 9:31AM
here's a thread, 1994 4.6 2V going into a 72 Ranchero, some of you may have seen it on another board also
 
 
PDW decided to graft the Crown Vic frame clip onto the Ranchero rear frame
Back to Top
Eliteman76 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 20-March-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4437
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-February-2011 at 3:20PM
As pointed out, I was going to suggest that thread.
Another option, if you can, take the rear sump mod pan, cut at rails, cut the pan oil pickup, rotate 180 degrees, tig weld back together.
Guy I know took and had a '95 lincoln, wrecked, saved the entire setup and dropped into a starliner and was just a perfect fit and setup.
Frankly, as I have stated before, I would find a 2003 CVPI or newer, clip front frame for the larger brakes and rack and pinion setup. Only issue then is you have to run late model high offset wheels in the front, but you could order late model mustang wheels in the 5x4.5/114mm bolt pattern.
And, yes, I would find a freaking 6.2 from a Raptor or 3/4 ton F series. And bolt a t56 to it.Evil Smile

Andrew
Back to Top
unlovedford View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2010
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 9436
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-February-2011 at 2:53AM
Well, not suprisingly, I have hit a detour with the Torino that might pay off in spades. Last night, a buddy called wanting to sell a '97 Ford Econoline van cheap. It has the 4.2 V6 (80K miles) with the overdrive transmission. Thinking ahead, I bought it and will try to install this combo in our '68 Ranger (better gas mileage while gas is so high - and I can drive/enjoy it without so much guilt, then install a larger engine later). Since it is from the same family as the modular engines, I can experiment with it and see what is involved so not to hack up the Torino. Admittedly, it is not a V8, and the engine bay in a Ranger is far different from a Torino, but it will give me some insight, as the donor van was able to be equipped with the 4.6 and 5.4 engines as well. Sounds far-fetched, but any hands-on experience is better than none, and in this case I will probably need all that I can get. Better to spend $500 on a van that will provide some insight and parts rather than going blindly into a $2K CV and need a shrink by the time it is over. Besides, the van will junk for about that.
 
Back to the Torino. I completely agree that clipping the frame would make the most sense as far as the mechanical simplicity. My concern would be how the Torino body panels would go with the new CV front frame mounting points (bumper, core support, etc.).
 
I doubt anyone would be interested in a thread to the 4.2 swap into the truck, but if there is anyone, I would be happy to post pics and a step by step account.
 
Thanks to all of you guys for the response and advice.
Joe
1972 GTSquire Wagon
1972 Torino Wagon
1976 Torino (2)       
1968 Cougar XR7-First batch
1972 Torino 460
1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous

Back to Top
unlovedford View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2010
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 9436
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-February-2011 at 10:03AM
Upon further research, I stand corrected - the 4.2 is of the older "Essex" engine family (3.8, 3.9, 4.2) and not a modular engine. It is a pushrod type. Still going to try it though, as the worst that can happen is that I end up with a 200 horse V6 in a truck that had a pieced together 302 with a cam and an old FMX. You may laugh at me in person if we drive it to the show in September. Bet it will have quiet mufflers on it, lol.
Joe
1972 GTSquire Wagon
1972 Torino Wagon
1976 Torino (2)       
1968 Cougar XR7-First batch
1972 Torino 460
1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous

Back to Top
72project View Drop Down
New Member
New Member
Avatar

Joined: 26-April-2010
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Status: Offline
Points: 37
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-February-2011 at 10:04AM
Somewhere on this forum is my post about my intent to install a 4.6 DOHC from a 03 Lincoln Aviator into my 72 project.  I just today hung the 4.6 DOHC into the engine bay.  Once lowered in the right side exhaust manifold hit the crossmember and the left side manifold hit the steering box.  Bad part was the engine still needed to go down a little lower.  So I started looking at mid to late 90's Crown Vic frame dimensions.  The front clip idea would definetly work.  What I am thinking about is swapping the whole frame and having all newer brakes suspension and everything.  More research is on the way.......
1973 GTS with 1972 front clip, 4.6 DOHC
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.217 seconds.