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

221 v8?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 08:11 PM
  #1  
waldo786's Avatar
waldo786
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 355
Default 221 v8?

So I was doing some research and found that Ford made a 221 v8, which is the precursor to the 260 and then the 289. Should I be right to assume that bolt on modifications that fit on the 289 will also bolt to the 260 and 221? Anyone know if an AOD will bolt to all three of these engines? Thanks!
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 08:18 PM
  #2  
2+2GT's Avatar
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,232
From: PA
Default

Some, not all, of the modifications of the later engines might apply. There was something odd about the water passages in the intake manifold.

As for the AOD, not a chance. The 221 was the wrong bellhousing pattern. There is a 5-bolt bellhousing adapter for the T5.
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 08:44 PM
  #3  
JMD's Avatar
JMD
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,469
From: AR
Default

It is a total looser as far as ANY performance value. It has little bitty cylinders only big enough to fit little bitty valves.

I would imagine that it would be a POS as far as far as economy goes because it would have to work so hard wheezing through those anemic heads....

the 289/302 engine is just so superior to a 221/260 that a person would be nuts to spend the big $$$ it would cost to even rebuild this oddball engine, (even stock).

>>> And as stated, it is a 5 bolt bell, it will only fit a few early trannys.

Last edited by JMD; Jan 15, 2010 at 08:46 PM. Reason: 5 bolt
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 08:56 PM
  #4  
NuclearMuscle523's Avatar
NuclearMuscle523
SCAM ALERT! This person is known around the internet for ripping people off. You've been warned.
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 831
From: Edgewood, MD
Default

221, cute. And well put JMD. My V6 has more cubes. How big is the bore on that little tike?
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 09:35 PM
  #5  
waldo786's Avatar
waldo786
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 355
Default

It's a 3.5 bore
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 09:37 PM
  #6  
NuclearMuscle523's Avatar
NuclearMuscle523
SCAM ALERT! This person is known around the internet for ripping people off. You've been warned.
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 831
From: Edgewood, MD
Default

not too bad.
Old Jan 15, 2010 | 10:14 PM
  #7  
2+2GT's Avatar
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,232
From: PA
Default

Originally Posted by JMD
It is a total looser as far as ANY performance value. It has little bitty cylinders only big enough to fit little bitty valves.

I would imagine that it would be a POS as far as far as economy goes because it would have to work so hard wheezing through those anemic heads.....
I did some work last year on a "64" Mustang that had somehow acquired a 221 to replace the original 260. I gotta tell you, it ran very well after the tune-up, certainly not a disappointment. You'd never be able to tell from the driver seat that it was an undersize engine.
Old Jan 16, 2010 | 12:56 PM
  #8  
THUMPIN455's Avatar
THUMPIN455
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,566
From: Marquette Mi
Default

slap some turbos on it and wind it to 8000 rpm and see what it does then.. Remember this is coming from a guy who rarely builds engines under 400ci...
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HorsePower4321
New Member Area
6
Aug 11, 2015 07:46 AM
68rollercoupe
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
6
Aug 2, 2009 03:12 PM
crazyhorse
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
6
Apr 4, 2008 11:49 AM
tom991
General Tech
1
Jun 17, 2007 07:17 PM
hahnfam
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
4
Feb 17, 2007 04:01 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.