Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs (Tech)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-18-2011, 11:19 PM   #11
Bosko
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Vehicle: 1971 Mach 1
Location: Texas
Posts: 60
Default

I can't thank you guys enough! You have brought up some very good points to consider.

I was shocked by the photo and comments from Thumpin455 above, and not that I doubt him, I did a little research tonight. A stock 351C is roughly 29 x 25.5 x 27.5. Dimensions are in inches, and length x width x height. Weight is about 550lbs.

An older 302 is 29 x 24 x 27.5, and weighs in about 460 lbs.

A newer 4.6L is 36 x 36 x 44, and weighs in at about 600 lbs. It appears that the Coyote may be just a couple of inches shorter in length, and weighs in at about 450 lbs. I am still looking for good reliable data on the dimensions.

So yes, it appears that quite a bit of slicing and dicing will need to be done to squeeze in a Coyote. I'll head out to the car in the next day or two with a tape measure, I'll let y'all know what I find.

Check out this thread where details of a Coyote swap into a 66 Mustang are detailed. That engine really fills the spaces under the hood, but looks cool as hell!
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
Bosko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 11:57 PM   #12
Gregski
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Vehicle: 1968, Ford, Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 611
Default

it would be an ambitious attempt to say the least, so you would have to ask yourself why are you doing this, are you after the performance and reliability of a new power train in the classic vintage look of a first gen mustang? if so, then you could do what I have seen the crew of West Coast Custom's do for Tanner Foust, they dropped a 69 GTO body on a 2006 underpinnings, Google "Rockstar GTO" of course like someone already suggested you may need to wait a couple years to find a salvaged one or something
Gregski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 02:05 AM   #13
andrewmp6
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 8,162
Default

I hate to say it but that rockstar gto is a mutt.For the price i could make the 69 faster out handle and out brake the 06 with change left over.The problems with a mod motor swap is using a mustang 2 will cut back the handling and it puts more stress on the front frame rails not the firewall like ford designed.Its the size of a big block but only a 5.0 is kinda sad most stock big blocks will walk on it.Most who do it just do it for the wow effect is all.My friend built a Eleanor with a cobra 4.6 and hates me that my small block is faster.
andrewmp6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 08:33 AM   #14
Bosko
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Vehicle: 1971 Mach 1
Location: Texas
Posts: 60
Default

I intend for this car to be capable of being a daily driver. That means good reliability and safety. My plan is to upgrade to four wheel power disk brakes, coil over suspension up front, overdrive transmission, and retain the power steering and air conditioning. I was looking at the new Coyote mostly for the reliability and economy, but I can burn a lot of gas in a hopped up 351C for the money and time I would have to spend getting the Coyote integrated and working.

Performance wise, I don't think there will be a big difference between the Coyote and 351C. I can probably get a few more hp out of the 351, but the Coyote weighs a hundred pounds less. Aluminum intake and heads on the 351 will close that gap, but not completely. And, in theory, a stroked 351 should deliver more torque at lower rpm's than the Coyote.
Bosko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 09:28 AM   #15
ozarks06
2nd Gear Member
 
ozarks06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MO
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosko View Post
A newer 4.6L is 36 x 36 x 44, and weighs in at about 600 lbs. It appears that the Coyote may be just a couple of inches shorter in length, and weighs in at about 450 lbs. I am still looking for good reliable data on the dimensions.
The 4.6 Terminator is 28" long, 30" high and 30" wide (from the Ford Racing Parts catalog).

I don't think you have to worry about structural issues with an M2 (marketing hype by FatMan) and unless you are going to road race your car, handling probably will not be an issue. It probably will handle better than it does now since you'll have rack and pinion steering and all new components. But I would think you should be able to trim the shock towers to get a 4.6 or 5.0 Coyote in there. Guys have done it in 67-70s. Lots of info on mod conversions here: http://www.modularfords.com/forums/f...ar-Conversions

If your goal is a 'capable daily driver' or, like mine, a capable weekend cruiser, the 5.0 Coyote (if you have skills, money, time, etc.) is probably a better pick all around (except perhaps for money). You'll have great performance, much better gas mileage than a 351C of comparable power (probably as much as 50% better mileage), a much more streetable ride (will idle like a kitten and have torque where you need it). And with a few bolts ons (like a supercharger) will probably make more reliable streetable power than the 351C. (And you'll have a 12/12 warranty if you buy the crate motor.)

The 5.0 in the Mustang rates at 412 HP but with just a tune and headers they pick up about 50 HP. Granted, the new Mustang has suspension and tires our old Mustangs could only dream of, but a 12.7 second car, right off the showroom, is faster than just about any factory ride from 'back in the day'. That says something for the engine in that beast.

But in the end it's what you want for you car. The 351C would be a lot easier and get you on the road faster.
__________________
Plain Jane 65 Coupe - 284 ci with virtual displacement enhancer
Feature Car in December 2010 StreetScene (the magazine of the National Street Rod Assoc)

Last edited by ozarks06; 01-19-2011 at 09:49 AM.
ozarks06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 12:16 PM   #16
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,366
Default

Or you could just build a 347 stroker, make 450-500hp at the crank, and it fights right in since it's a 302 block. And you'll save thousands and thousands of dollars. And it will have plenty of drivability and decent mileage.

And on the issue of drivability, what is all this nonsense about "late model" engines having better drivability? It's all in the engine package and tune, it has nothing to do with whether it's an engine built in the last 5 years or not. Performance engines sacrifice mileage and drivability, regardless of year, it's always a compromise based on physics(airflow and vaporization points don't care when your engine was built). There's no reason you can't build a stroker with excellent drivability and a ton of power.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 12:46 PM   #17
rtintwo
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Vehicle: 1970 Mach 1
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 475
Default

There is alot of talk about cutting the shock towers. But the 71-73 engine bay was made bigger to fit the 429. Its possible the little to no cutting will be need to the towers. The tunnel on the other hand is a different story.
rtintwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 01:06 PM   #18
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Vehicle: 2008 GT Premium
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 6,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67mustang302 View Post
And on the issue of drivability, what is all this nonsense about "late model" engines having better drivability? It's all in the engine package and tune, it has nothing to do with whether it's an engine built in the last 5 years or not.
Yes and no.

Some things haven't changed much - block, squish, piston contours, etc.

Others have, like valve angles being straightened up and four valves/cylinder.

There is drivability improvement to be had relative to specific peak power/torque output by cam phasing (both relative between all valves and the crank and between the intake and exhaust valves). The closest things to this in the pushrod engine world would be the "Vari-cam" arrangement that was around in the 1960's and the cam-in-cam arrangement as used in the last year or so of the Vipers. I strongly doubt that there is any comparable aftermarket offering that combines both.


BTW, the aluminum 3-valve 4.6L motor weighs in at around 430 lbs. In iron as in the SN95 cars it would be quite a bit heavier. Dimensions of most Ford engines can be found in the FRPP catalogs.


Norm
__________________
'08 GT/5MT (mine)
'10 Subaru Legacy 2.5GT/6MT (hers)
'01 Maxima 20AE/5MT (spare, my occasional winter driver)

'95 626/V6/5MT (still in the family but not at this address)

Last edited by Norm Peterson; 01-19-2011 at 01:08 PM.
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 02:33 PM   #19
ozarks06
2nd Gear Member
 
ozarks06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MO
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67mustang302 View Post
And on the issue of drivability, what is all this nonsense about "late model" engines having better drivability? It's all in the engine package and tune, it has nothing to do with whether it's an engine built in the last 5 years or not. Performance engines sacrifice mileage and drivability, regardless of year, it's always a compromise based on physics(airflow and vaporization points don't care when your engine was built). There's no reason you can't build a stroker with excellent drivability and a ton of power.
By driveability, I mean even a 347 making 500 HP is going to have a pretty lumpy cam and high-flow heads, which means less low-end torque, which makes the car less enjoyable to drive around town. I had a Chebby with a built 283 'back in the day' with the Z28 off road cam (.493/.512 lift, 257/269 duration) and that thing was a pain to drive. It made lots of high-end power (shifted at 7K, 5.57 gears, dual quads) but around town I had to downshift all the time to get enough torque to get out of my own way.

As Norm Peterson said, variable cam timing allows the ECM to change the closing and opening points of intake and exhaust valves (indepently) based on the load, RPM, etc. Thus, with the 5.0 motor, you get the advantage of a long duration cam (at high RPM) and the streetability of a stock cam for good low-end torque, smooth idle, fuel economy, and emissions. With a SBF you have a cam that is designed for torque or high-RPM power, or a compromise between the two. With ViCT, you have all the above (which is precisely why they can get 412 net HP and 390 lb torque [120 lb more than the 93 Cobra 5.0] and still get 26 MPG in a car that weighs about 600 lbs more than our old Mustangs).
__________________
Plain Jane 65 Coupe - 284 ci with virtual displacement enhancer
Feature Car in December 2010 StreetScene (the magazine of the National Street Rod Assoc)

Last edited by ozarks06; 01-19-2011 at 02:37 PM.
ozarks06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 02:34 PM   #20
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,366
Default

Again, it gets back to engine configuration. Newer engine designs allow you to have drivability and a bit more power or the same power and a bit more drivability, ie you don't have to sacrifice as much. But even on non variable timing pushrod engines, modern designed custom cams and heads etc have closed the gap up quite a bit in performance differences while retaining drivability.

In the end though, drivability problems are related to poor tuning, or an engine that's not configured for it. If you even look at the new engines with variable cam timing....once the modding starts for power, drivability starts to diminish. A cammed 3V 4.6L for example is going to lose drivability to gain power.

But in the end it gets back to money. It's MUCH cheaper to get a pushrod engine to produce large power and retain drivability(the main reason they still dominate the performance arena) than it is to do the same with a more modern engine. Sure, a new 5.0 Coyote can make the same power and have slightly better drivability, but is an extra 1-2mpg and running slightly smoother worth the tons of extra money it costs? It's WAAAYYYY past the point of diminishing returns. For a car that comes with a modern engine in it, that's great and you're already ahead....but the tremendous cost involved in swapping a modern engine into an older car doesn't even come close to making up for it in terms of performance.

My main point though, is people tend to bring up the drivability issue, like somehow an older engine design can't make power without having **** poor drivability, or being undrivable altogether....which is an old school and ignorant mentality. It's simply not true. Most modern cars have excellent drivability primarily from a bunch of gearing and tons of ignition timing. And that has virtually nothing to do with the engine(other than it's ability to tolerate timing).

The question to be asked is "Is the benefit of running a modern engine in an older car worth the cost involved?" The answer is always "No." Sure, it has a cool factor, and a neat factor, but in the end the guys who spent half as much money are going to be twice as fast with the same drivability, AND have an engine they can work on....which is something else to consider, MOD engines are highly complex, difficult to work on and require additional specialized knowledge and tools, neither of which most people have.

I just don't like seeing people spend $20,000 on a car to get the same outcome that could have gotten for less than half of that, because they thought it was the only way(usually because that's what someone else told them).
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 02:34 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
1971, 50, 66, 71, bullitt, coyote, engine, mach, mustang, rims, sale, shock, suspension, swap, towers, width

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup