Just out of curiosity
just because I don’t want to blow all the money away if I ever were to ever do it.
In theory, how similar would a 91 thunderbirds 5.0 be from a mustangs?
For instance if I were to go on American muscle, or jegs or whatever the case may be.
Would they fit perfectly fine if I bought 91 foxbody parts, or is there differences that wouldn’t allow them to work in the 5.0 I have.

 

(Source - Coolcats.net)
* 91-93 *

The Cougar and Thunderbird received an HO 5.0 from 1991-93, rated at 200 hp. It was a different version than that used in the Fox Mustang. Physically the blocks and most of the internals resembled the 1993 engine, but there was a different camshaft grind. All of the accessories and brackets were also revised to hug the block for better NVH. The most important change was the dramatically lowered upper intake manifold, designed to clear the low MN12 hood, and the curved intake attachment for the throttle body.

* 1994-95 *

In 1994 the all-new SN95 Mustang debuted and with it was a revised HO 5.0 engine, rated at 210 hp. Virtually all the parts needed to stuff the motor in the engine bay were already pre-engineered for use in the 1991-93 MN12 Cougar/Thunderbird, so Ford wisely used that engine setup for the SN95 Pony.

 

Ok this thread has had me pondering all day trying to help you figure this out,so I went back through your pictures again and the more I looked,the more something stood out.You're missing a block inspection plate (which fits between the block & the bellhousing) but in its place,it appears the previous owner has installed an aluminum spacer in its place.The spacer looks to be around 1/4" - 1/2" or so thick,instead of being the normal thickness of an oem inspection plate.The last picture below shows an oem inspection plate,so you can see how much difference there is in thickness between the two.The oem plate is paper thin compared to the spacer shown on your car.This could likely be the cause as to why the clutch fork is almost making contact with the front of the bellhousing window before the pressure plate fingers have been pressed inwards far enough to fully disengage the clutch disk.Once you remove this spacer & install an oem plate,it will move the T5 forward by 1/4" - 1/2",which also means it'll move the bellhousing window forward by the same amount & the fork & TOB will be able to press the pressure plate fingers in more without the fork getting as close to the front of the bellhousing window.So I would say this is your problem or at minimum a part of it.
The following is my theory: since you stated the transmission that was in this car when you bought it had a 87 TC casting number,its highly likely the spacer may have been used to compensate for that transmission being mounted to a 5.0 in a 94-95 body.Its possible the car was never ran on the road at all because the correct combination of parts were never found/used?? Who knows,since I assume you bought the car in non mobile state,correct?? Regardless,theres absolutely no reason you should need a spacer,if your block,transmission,
bellhousing,clutch fork & clutch components are correct for the application.Id use the link below to verify your transmission is indeed a 94-95 5.0 piece before I would go any further and for sure before I begin to reassemble everything.I wouldn't necessarily trust that tag since anybody can change it easily.Heres that link.

http://www.pro-forceperformance.com/...tification.htm

Your pointing at the spacer with your thumb in picture one.The spacer is visible at a bolt hole in picture two.

 

I done a few edits so to make sure you dont miss anything,go back a few posts and read posts # 22,23 & 24 in their entirety so you wont be lost/confused.
As I mentioned in post 22,after doing some research,it appears the 91-93 5.0 Tbird engines were the same ones that Ford decided to equip the 94-95 5.0 Mustangs with.This was done because the 91-93 Tbird engine accessories were designed to hug the block and since that was exactly what the 94-95 Mustangs needed, Ford just decided to make use of these earlier engines to make it easy all the way around.

 

damn homey, that was a good catch. I wonder if his input shaft is even reaching the pilot bearing since they shaved it off?

 

I appreciate all the information and I will be sure to make good use of it.
I’ll see if I can’t get back to the car soon and try to get the actual cast numbers on and around the trans
instead of the BW plates.

also while doing that.
ill see if I can’t re look over the entirety of the clutch system and take detailed pictures of it again.
see

hopefully this bad boy can drive soon.
and not end up having an expensive lawn ornament

 

Yeah man I completely looked past it for a day or two,but as I hinted,it really started to rack my brain so I was forced to put my four eyes on it and search harder,then it began to stick out like a sore thumb.......The input shaft is still questionable at this point.Seeing as how the Foxbody vs SN95 bellhousings are only (Fox= 7.18" SN= 7.83") slightly different in depths,it seems like that spacer would've made up for any difference between the two and not required a trimming of the shaft?? As a matter of fact,since the bellhousing has now been verified to indeed be from a 94-95 model,+ adding another 1/4-1/2" of additional depth from the spacer,that should have been even more of a reason for the input shaft to not have required a trimming.Im curious about the following since I have zero knowledge of it: : if a 4cyl pilot bearing was in place of a 5.0 bearing,since the op mentioned the previous transmission had a casting number that id'd it as a possible transmission from a 87 Tbird SC with a 2.3,or if the pilot bearing that replaced the original bearing was actually a 4cyl piece as well (packaged incorrectly) would that create an issue trying to fit a 5.0 T5 into a 5.0 engine or would the input shaft fit,but be just a little to small internally?? I know when using a 4cyl T5 in a 5.0 application,you're supposed to replace the pilot bearing.Without re-reading this thread,Im pretty sure the op had mentioned that he replaced the pilot already,but maybe it was the wrong one.Maybe he can check the ID of both to verify?? ID vs ID of both.Well we'll all figure it out in the end....

 

it is looking like he is going to have to pull the whole sha-bang anyways, so we will know maybe

 

I ordered all my replacement parts from American muscle.
the list said it included a pilot bearing for my year 5.0

 

Just curious, how did you know the shaft was to long in the first place?