best junkyard options for a fox body

[mike1157]

Let me apologize in advance for what will look like a "wishy washy" lack of judgment,.. but I just want to be sure I don't go off half cocked in one direction,.. only to wish I had asked these questions before.

I build street cars. I hate conformity. I own a Fairmont future as a testament to that. My last car was so far out there,... you either hated it,.. or loved it. There were no in betweens.

(your forum won't let me post my big pictures,... consider this my invite to view the pcs off site:
http://imageshack.com/i/5zmustangbuild001j

The new car will be a little more traditional, exteriorwise,..but it will get a similar "resto-rod" treatment. The point of contention is the engine:

I have another thread started on this side of the board stating my intention to radically modify the head on the 200 that comes in the car w/ the final objective being to turbocharge the engine. The good thing about this plan, is that I can drive the car with the poor old wheezy 6 in place,.. while I modify a donor head for the future. It is also important that this combo fits the car it comes in. My intentions are to drive it,.. daily.

While the eventual plans require I either pull that engine, and upgrade the internals, or swap the 200 for a 250 (and upgrade the internals) initially, I was planning on throwing that modified head on the stock bottom end turning the boost down,.. and driving it while I sorted out the future plans for the upgraded bottom end.

Adding confusion for me is the prospect of completely doing away with the small 6 and swapping in a 300. I know there are fitment issues, but the prospect of possibly having a much less lethargic combination before the modifications to come (same turbocharging plans) while I drive it seems like it is a better starting point.

I was in a yard last week,..and there it is,... an injected 300 that supposedly ran laying on its side, just waiting for a new home. After doing some reading however,..aside from the oil pan that wont work, an injection manifold that may require I add a small Morton building to hide that part of the engine that would hang out of my hood,...it looks like they aren't very solid as a stock engine due to a weak cast piston.

So the real dilemma stems from original design plan to do a jy swap and go completely off brand,.....I was considering a LS swap. I've done the homework,...ive located the engine/trans/computer.....all can be had for about 1500.00 w/ exhaust, cooling, and driveshaft modifications,...id be in it for right about 2 grand. I'd have an engine rated at 295 hp/350tq,..that typically gets 27 mpg and has the reputation in the swap community for taking a tone of abuse in its stock form.

But I'd get stoned in the ford forums.

I refuse to swap in either of the two Windsors they are more commonplace than belly buttons,.. and a 4.6 in any configuration is just too much money,....besides I've already did that. (that red car above had a 2v swapped in)

Which brings me back home here,... the appeal of the 6 fits the bill for being different, keeps me from being lynched by the Ford fanatics But will probably require I spend more money turbocharged just to make the same power as my junkyard Chevy option.
It is now a choice between the three:
The 200 (I have one,.. they fit, they seem plentiful )
A 250 (wondering where to even look for one, no fox oil pan).
The 300 ( big heavy brute w/possibly weak pistons, may hang out worse than a fat chick in a bikini)

 

[JackFish]

The 200 fits nicely in the engine bay. If you can find a late low-starter block that would be ideal, IMHO.
The 250 is doable if you don't mind fabbing up the oil pan.
The big advantage to that would be the tranny options.
I wouldn't even consider the 300 it's really too tall and just the wrong kind of motor for a little wagon.
But is has been done, but in a very rat-rod way. I have pics somewhere.

 

[FalconSedanDelivery]

Find a low mount 200 , add the Aluminum head ( you will easly have as much in a log IMHO as you need to treat your time as money ) go to town 8)

 

[xctasy]

If emissions compliance isn't an issue, the best junkyard options are the 250 engine from the x-shell Mavericks, Granadas, Monarchs, Versaillies. The big 250 comes with a range of good components, but they are kind of hard to fit into the Fox platform. Its got 25% more torque than a 200, and responds to the right mods much better, Its a giveaway engine, but 200 sixes would outrate it 5:1. If you find a junked X-shell, though, it will most likely have the L or C-code 250 engine, often with a Jatco 3 speed auto and 8 or 8.7" diff. It is about the same weight as a 5.0, and takes the same fox body transmissions. Since its less frequently found than a Fox 3,3, its a good, cheap giveaway, and can be the best option if you don't have annual emissions inspections.

Second is the 200 Fox engine, found absolutely everywhere. Its a compact, legal, simple fit.


Cheeper than all probably the F150 4.9, but its not a starter, it needs to many alterations to easy fit into a Fox body.

The elusive 4.9 into Fox SWAP posted way back in 2002-2003 by Jack

See viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6829

Here's a 300 in a Zephyr.
It fits. Sort of:

The 3.3 is 7.803" tall, the 250 9.469", and the Big Six 240/300, the tall triffid at 9.800". See how tall the 300/4.9 above sits in the Fox body Zephyr above.

Remember, you have to clear the cross member and rack and pinion steering, which colide with the stock sump . IIRC, the Big Six oil pump fouls them physically, its not just a sump issue. At the very least, you have to work with the oil pump pickup and remote mount the oil filter.

One other thing, as noted by dstud. Even the little I6 forces the engine to sit further forward in the engine bay than the V8's because it has to clear the firewall. V8's can be set back, but a big I6 can't be set back without firewall mods, and thus wouldn't be a great handling car. But hey, if they put 460's in them, then I'd say go for it!


As for 250 Fox conversion, they are difficult as the US 250 engine is 1.666" taller, and after the early 70's, they got the 78 Granada 250 alternator position, the problemmatic low mount starter and too high water pump in obtrusive place which menas you have to change the radiator shroud or use a smaller fan, needing some reverse engineering into the 200 Fox arrangment. 66shelby showed how a 67 Mustang could take a 250 engine with a late model Fox air cleaner, and the stock F100 big six engine mounts. Ford changed a lot of stuff with the US 250, and it creates a number of problems, but none is too much. Ford totally changed the way the mounts were arranged with the 250. 66shelby and others at Four Eyed pride have found that the mounts on later 250 sixes were backwards on the 69 250's, and forwards on the Foxes, but the 69 Mustang 250 frame mounts are worse than the 200 mounts, the location moving to the firewall by almost 2". Eyeballing the V8 brackets angle and doing a fab job with some 3/16 plate and angle,one can reverse the frame mounts to get a lower installed height. Do a search. The 250 has a wider transverse mount distnce, 11" verses just 9" with the 200, so there is a lot to contend with to get a 250 down an dirty in a Fox engine bay. Putting stock Fox 200 mounts on puts the engine way up high in the attic by comparsion. Most aftermarket Mustang, Mercury Capri or big block 351 fibreglass Fox hoods will give you the clearnace for a 250, but with a little work, you can eliminated a hood scoop entirely

Examples of two turbo 250 peas in a pod are these guys
see fast64ranchero from Boise ID, viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52695

and JGTurbo from Portland, Oregon. Its just like fast64ranchero, but going in a '68 Mustang, not a Fox, but you can see the idea of getting a big tall deck turbo 250 six under a low lying hood

see viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54242

and his




Custom sump needed.

Some of the critical dimensions can be checked out by the 250 (4.1) swap. This engine is 1.67" taller than the 3.3. Jack Collins and a mate built this up to a Fox 'Stang. See the sump kick? Gotta make sure you can duplicate it on the 4.9.

AOD, good diffs and fitting it all in should be okay. You will have to do a hood mod to clear the extra 2 inches of engine height over the little 3.3, which is a little bit futher forward.

And for the 200. well its a natural

the Finnish FEP forum member who bought FSP 80Stang's 200 w/ Holley 390 4bbl, CI/CSC 274/110, CI headers + 2.5" exhaust, Duraspark + MSD + Crane, in a '80 Notch back Mustang street car built for some fun in slalom and race track



http://www.ponikorjaamo.com/ti80/index_repo.htm, with his hot engine project

http://www.ponikorjaamo.com/ti80/gen2_5.html


This is his 180 hp engine, which has some FSP headers he carried over from the old log head .

http://www.ponikorjaamo.com/ti80/Gen2_5.jpg

http://www.ponikorjaamo.com/ti80/header/header2.jpg

 

[xctasy]

One other thing. Most guys put the battery in the trunk.


If your working a Fox with special induction, then for cost and pros, the taller 250 really comes into its own, and fits the chassis better, especially if you are turbo charging it. The right IHI or T3 60 turbo, or perhaps the ball bearing T35 turbo's can be placed better.


Lincs 200 was a low mount 3.3, which was found only on some automtic Fox bodies, but a taller 4.1 would work even more with his set-up. The taller deck gives more space.

See the famous Lincs 200 13.5 second 1984 Mustang with 83 X code LTD 3.3 conversion to see how simple it can be. One 92 hp six and one 20 psi turbo boost killed the old girl, but it shows you what you can do.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24859

So would a high mount 200 if you used hasa68stang set-up



kirkallen143 here on Fsp and the turbo forum has a some nice work too http://www.theturboforums.com/threads/3 ... 0-inline-6


Oh, and the rules for a great Turbo 6 Project from Lincs200


1) use what you have already.
2) If you don't have it - - find someone to give it to you for free
or buy it as cheap as you can.
3) Don't get too serious - this is for fun!
4) Try not to make it look too terribly cobbled together. A little is OK but you can't be totally embarrased to let anyone look under the hood.

 

[mike1157]

One other thing. Most guys put the battery in the trunk.


If your working a Fox with special induction, then for cost and pros, the taller 250 really comes into its own, and fits the chassis better, especially if you are turbo charging it. The right IHI or T3 60 turbo, or perhaps the ball bearing T35 turbo's can be placed better.


Lincs 200 was a low mount 3.3, which was found only on some automtic Fox bodies, but a taller 4.1 would work even more with his set-up. The taller deck gives more space.

See the famous Lincs 200 13.5 second 1984 Mustang with 83 X code LTD 3.3 conversion to see how simple it can be. One 92 hp six and one 20 psi turbo boost killed the old girl, but it shows you what you can do.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24859

So would a high mount 200 if you used hasa68stang set-up



kirkallen143 here on Fsp and the turbo forum has a some nice work too http://www.theturboforums.com/threads/3 ... 0-inline-6


Oh, and the rules for a great Turbo 6 Project from Lincs200


1) use what you have already.
2) If you don't have it - - find someone to give it to you for free
or buy it as cheap as you can.
3) Don't get too serious - this is for fun!
4) Try not to make it look too terribly cobbled together. A little is OK but you can't be totally embarrased to let anyone look under the hood.

Thanks,...you did alot of work to offer up a very helpful reply. I appreciate it.

The 200 turbo build of Lincs 200 was very inspirational. That guy probably has forgotten more than I'll ever know,...and he's 20 years younger than me. Reading that he was able to flog that high mile bottom end while he sorted out his turbo was what I was really looking for,...as I wanted to do a really exotic head mod first, to include building a tubular intake manifold that will allow me to port fuel inject it w/ the throttle body on the driver side of the engine, much like a 300 in the F150. The turbo,...the wastegate, the B.O.V. and I/C are all too cheap on ebay as long as you don't mind patronizing another Chinese company. That said, It'll still end up being fairly expensive, and very time consuming, considering I gotta build all of that stuff, but I think I'm up to the challenge.

Unlike Linc though,...I'm not trying to use the stock log,or a 1 bbl carb sitting directly over the exhaust manifold. I'm looking at using an A2Water intercooler w/ meth injection activated at boost pressures above 7 PSI, /w timing pulled out as boost pressures ramp up all controlled by a Megasquirt ( that I'll also have to build myself) If that'll net me the 300 HP/350 TQ I can get as a result of dropping a stock 100k mile Chevrolet LS in the car instead,...I'll really give that a hard look. The primary attraction of the 200 being that it's in the car, it fits w/o any modification,...and it was made by the same company that built the car it resides in.

But,....I'll turn coat and go to the dark side if I cant.

 

[MustangSix]

If you want to go Ford don't rule out the V6's. Not the 90-degree 3.8, but the 3.0 DOHC duratec engines found in various Taurus and Sable models.

Sweet sounding, high revving engines. Perfect for a lightweight Fox-body.

And the four cylinder engines aren't bad either. The later Ranger DOHC 2.3 and 2.5 are an easy 200hp and the earlier 2.0 Zetec is pretty nice too. Very lightweight. This is the one I just finished putting into my son's MGB:

The rest of the build thread is at http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=302371

 

[thesameguy]

(Gonna go read that build right now... I wanna do exactly that in my '62 Falcon!)

 

[xctasy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 93DfrCOBPQ

Nice. Tell Brian its perfect. Glad to see the sextant of carbs you used on your Locost fanned the performance flame. Reminds me of Bens Volvo 120 with Zetec....some little cars with the heavier B series four cylinders work much better with a lightweight modern thinwall twin cam Ford four...its the 221/260/289 Windsor really, plentiful and perfect for a Pommy or European classic.Its sort of like the SHO V6

http://www.britishv8.org/other/normanrest.htm
http://www.taurusclub.com/forum/87-engi ... tions.html

Can anyone say ahamaY?

Of all the designs that spawned the Duratec 4's and V6's, the specifically Yamaha designed SHO Taurus designed V6 is the most compact and smartest quad cam engine ever. Its the heir to the Aston Martin V12, the SHO V8, the Volvo S80 V8, and the legion of Yamaha v6 and v8 jet boat engines.

Fox parts raiders can take a leaf from mgman75's book, grab an old lowly Fox like a 1993 2.3 Mustang and plumb in the SHO, an Areostar 4-speed auto, and turn it into this



into this

Ditch the EFI, and run six or eight motorbike carbs, depending on if its an SHO6 or 8. The frame is basically Aussie Ford Cortina, and they've been using rat rod chassis horn mounted frames since 1977 for there TE and TF's, and those kind of engine mounts are dead easy to fit up.

http://s177.photobucket.com/user/mgman7 ... 4.jpg.html

Its a more expensive Fox body engine, but a great, cheap pickup good if it it hasn't been broken by they low rent hollow camshaft in the SHO8 engine from the Taurus.

V6 and V8 SHO engines into a Fox work well, and use the small HSC Tempo/Taurus/CVH/ EAO bellhousing, which means the Explorer and Ranger 4 and 5 speed automatic bolts right up to the Front drive bellhousing with virtually no mods.





http://ultimatefoxbody.com/forum/viewto ... =233&t=622

http://s177.photobucket.com/user/mgman7 ... e.mp4.html

How Ford got such an amazing engine is a real good story. To keep costs down by contracting out the insane development costs of twin and quad cam engines, Ford played off the 3.78" bore spacing 1970 British twin cam BDA Cosworth and 4.33" bore spacing 1974 quad cam GAA Cosworth engines with the 4.0157" bore spacing Japanese Yamaha development team in the mid 80's. The factory Ford Cosworth GAA predated the SHO 6 14 year in the 400 hp RS 3400 Ford Capri race engines. It was also used in British Formula F5000 races where it ate up small block 302 fuel injected Chevs for breakfast.

At that stage, Cosworth and Ford was working hard to make better power for Formula 1 DFV 183 cube race engines. The costs were huge, so consulting businesses were keen to win four and five valve per cylinder head and engine supply contracts. The Japanse and Yamaha even made a sensational 5 valve per cylinder head to fit to the Coworth DF series engine, and it was supplied to Cosworth for testing. It did well over 500 hp with ease but was irratic through the rev range. The point was, with the the 400 hp plus championship winning Cosworth V6's based on the Essex 60 degree V6 with 4.32 bore spacing engine used in the English Capri already a reality, all Ford Dearborn had to do was farm out the 1988 SHO engine to the Japanese Yamaha. The result? The full supply of 3.0 and 3.2 SHO V6's and then 3.5 liter SHO8 V8's. Only the quad cam best six cylinder engine ever made. That the later SHO 8 engine that replaced it became a major service disaster was due to the hollow cam shaft process, but the rest of the concept was very sound. What is really funny is that the Vulcan was a clean sheet metric design, not related to the 4.76" center spacing Cologne V6's 1936 two stroke Graf und Stiff tooling sizes, but was loosely 1966 British Essex 60 degree V4 and V6 based, with the same deck and bore spacings, but metricated with a Ford Cologne Pinto bellhousing. The Vulcan heads are basically huge classic D port 3.0 Essex Capri. When quad cams were placed on it, the engine was way too big to easily fit in a front drive Taurus or Tempo, so Ford got a totally new smaller bore spacing engine from Yamaha. That's how samrt Ford Dearborn were, there were already Cologne 4.76", Essex 60 and Vulcan 4.33, and Essex 90 4.193" bore spacing V-sixes, and then, sudddenly, the 4.0157" bore spacing Yamaha SHO 60 degree which then forms the base for every other Duratec V6.

In my opinion, the pick of the litter for Foxes is the Yamaha based 60 degree. You can see its potential today as the bored and stroked out Yamaha F350 outboard 5.3 liter 60 degree V8. When used in the Taurus, Ford SVO made a kit in the 90's for this in RWD platforms, but it cost someting like 12 grand large back in the day. Since the second-generation S80 engine is the Yamaha V8 engine these days, all the SHO 8, Volvo 60 degree V8 Yamaha outboard engines are effectively based on the 4.0157" bore spacing 1988 Taurus SHO engine. Ford owns the rights to there's, but since Ford farmed out its developement to Yamaha, the Japanese plant still makes 6 and 8 cylinder engines with the same hard dimensions for power boat outboards as the SHO engine. It's the most sensational over head cam engine family ever made, as it combines tight bore spacings with a conventional 60 degree vee and used its plant to build. And it has been made in V6, V8, V12 form. Ford may have had issues with making the Fords Premium Automotive division make money, but Volvo, Aston Martin, Mazda and Jaguar used this engine configuation with stellar success. It was built in other plants asside from Cleveland. In Variable Valve Timing form, its a docile engine with a top end to die for.

This 4.0157 (102mm) bore centre Ford Duratec/ Mazda AJ V6 was doubled up to form the Aston Martin V12, and in other forms, the Front Drive Volvo 60 degree V8 and SHO 6 and 8 cylinder engines are the Yamaha 6 and v8 outboard engines, and are the worlds most compact engine for capacity. The bore spacing is the key to its origin in this case. The old Cologne 1969-1974 EOA I4 Pinto 1.3/1.6/1.8/2.0 engine also has the same 102 mm bore centers, and its likely the transfer machines making the V6 Duratec and V12 Cologne Aston Martin V12 used the Yamaha bore spacing after the SHO engine deal was coined. Ford most likely decided on the Yamaha based SHO because:-

a) it sorted out the packaging issues of the Quad cam versions of the Essex 60 degree in an Erica ( Escort/Tempo/Topaz/Tracer) front drive car, The 86-98 Vulcan engine in the Taurus/Sable was Metricated ex Ford of Europe 1966 model year Essex 60 degree V4 and V6 in design. It died in the United Kingdom in late 1980, but was continued in the South African Cortina, P100 and Sierra XR6 till 1993 in Imeprial tooling , and had the same huge 4.33" bore spacing, not the same as the SHO Yamaha.

b) With the SHO, Ford farmed out development to Yamaha. It's not the same as the joint effort between Mazda K and Suzuki H series 60 degree V6's used in Suzuki Vitaras, and Probe platform front drive drive Mazdas. And not the same as the illfated J series Mazda V6. The 1936 tooling, 1961 model year Corsair/Taunus/ Mutang II V4 based Cologne 4.76" spacing 60 degree V4 and V6 engine is not related.

Effectively, the Aston Martin V12 engines were two SHO V6's joined together. When they came out, the Duratech 25 and 30 [2,967 cc (181 cu in)] was found in Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, Jaguar S-Type, Lincoln LS, Mazda MPV, Mazda 6, Mondeo ST220 and many other Ford vehicles. It is essentially an 89mm bore version of the 1994 Duratec 25 and is built in Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Engine #2 plant in Cleveland, Ohio. The Duratec 25 was a 2544 cc (155 cu in) 60° V6, developed for the Ford Contour and used in the Ford Mondeo, Mercury Cougar, Mercury Mystique, Jaguar X-Type. Based on the bore spacings, the key to the origins of this engine was the smaller 102 mm (4.0157")bore spacings, with the tell tale 8.189" deck of the SHO V8. For instance, Ford and Mazda have global engines with many differernt bore spacings, but some are actually reworks of other basic Ford engines, like the Kent i4's 3.78" distance that has reapered in Mazda MZRs 2.3 Four cylinder OHC engines. The Ford SHO engine detail in the Ford Racing catalogue is quite wrong

https://fordperformanceracingparts.com/ ... nsions.pdf

...the 3.4 V8 SHO engine has the Duratec 25 bore, and V6 and V8 SHO's share the same bore spacings.

The whole family of 60 degree Ford Yamaha Mazda Volvo 4.0157" spacing engines was totally different to the Mazda narrow bore spacing 985 cc PC, 1272 cc TC, 1416 cc UC, 1586 cc NA, 1796cc VB and 1970cc MC based 3.346" bore spacing xC design which the E and early B family was an evolution of. The Toyo Kogyo team in 1982 then made the bigger 626/929 engine , the bigger 3.81 " bore spacing medium spacing F series Mazda FWD Capella/626/Probe 1982 to date gasoline and diesel engines.

The MZR Durtec 2.3 and 2.5 I4 has a 3.78" Ford Kent/BDA OHC spacing. The early Ford Duretec i4 engines are 3.614" bore spacing engines.