A 250 & 302??

[LameHoof65]

A novice mustanger here..Just wanted to introduce myself and post a question regarding drivetrain. I have a 65 cpe w/a 6cyl.74 maverick engine and want to interchange it on occasion w/a 302. I have already begun the disc brake conversion.. and am using the steering and spindle setup out of another 74 maverick.. but want to use a new T5 transmission and hook the 302 to a 9in if I can find one...Does anyone know what combination of rearend would go well with both the 250 and the 302??? and would I have to do a lot of converting everytime I swapped?? I love engines and I want to hop up that 6 as much as possible but within reason.

 

[Anlushac11]

8)

As far as I know the front crossmember on the Maverick is not interchangeable with a V8. But I dont know for sure.

You could switch to V8 brakes and a 9" rear. You would probably need two driveshafts.

 

[Rustang Racer]

If you mean gear ratios, around 3.73 is a good match for a street car with a T-5 and still gives you good mileage. Around 4.10 if you don't care as much about mileage. I don't know that a 9 inch is really necessary for a mildly built 302. An 8 inch would probably be fine. That might be what your car has now. Somebody here can probably tell you if you don't already know.

 

[Anonymous]

You might run into problems with motor mounts.

 

[MustangSix]

Swapping back and forth? To what end?

Mounts, throttle and kickdown linkage, exhaust, cooling, wiring harness, fuel line......If you had all the rest done, I suppose you could knock out an engine switcheroo in a day.

 

[Anonymous]

I had a 88 Mustang GT with a T-5. The car had 3.27s when I bought it, I swaped the rear for one with 3.73s. The 3.73s were way to steep for the manual, so I put in 3.55s. They were great. I recommend the 3.27s or the 3.55s. The 3.27s gave me 25mpg highway and the 3.55s gave me 24 mpg highway. I would also recommend a 7.5 or 8.8 out of a Ranger. The width is about right and the 2.3 trucks came standard with 3.73s. As far as durability the 7.5 was in early fox v8s and 4x4 trucks. They also have bigger brakes. If you find one out of a 4x4 it will be trac loc. The 8 and 9 inch are great but they are pushing 30+ years old. Any you find in a boneyard will have a b'zillion miles on them. I have been on some other boards where guys did a 7.5 or 8.8 swap and they are pleased with the result.

 

[LameHoof65]

Thanks for the quick response I really do appreciate it. As for the swapping thing....I don't plan on doing this every weekend. But I do need the experience and the curiosity of what can be done with that 250 6 banger is intriguing to me. Actually, this had a 170 that caught on fire going down I-40. My cuz rebuilt the 74 Mav. 250 and I am now getting a 302 from him to rebuild myself. The idea is to have 302 in the cpe, the 6 on an engine stand and a little 289 o the bench. Why, I don't know---I just want to get back some of what my ol'man gave me when i was a kid.

 

[LameHoof65]

You might run into problems with motor mounts.

I'm not sure but I have heard through some of the stuff I've read on the net that the 250 shouldn't have fit in the well as good as it does. I talked to my cuz the other day and he doesn't remember all he had to do to get it to fit. Articles lead me to believe he had to use the Maverick motor mounts.... to get the 250 to sit low enough to close the hood??? Also, the starter is positioned to the side of the block, not at the oil pan??? I've heard through this forum and other articles that the 250 has the starter at the oil pan...like a V8. So I measured the distance from the crank center to the deck and it was approximately 9.5" I believe that confirms it is a 250???

By the way I plan on keeping that 250 in for some time...it has less than 500 miles on it...though it has been 5 years since it was rebuilt. I am wondering now how I can insure when I do my first swap that I won't have to do major work to the drivetrain??? While the 250 is out I plan on doing lots of hopping up with a cam, maybe an aussie 250 intake if i can find one that will allow a 2 bbl carb.... and I would like to convert it to a HEI system and use some of those Great lookin Clifford headers. I like the idea of dual exhaust for a 6... Am I dreamin or is all this really possible?

 

[LameHoof65]

Swapping back and forth? To what end?

Mounts, throttle and kickdown linkage, exhaust, cooling, wiring harness, fuel line......If you had all the rest done, I suppose you could knock out an engine switcheroo in a day.

Okay, your right, it is a lot of work but I'm not to worried about the work as long as i'm learning something...And I won't be changing it out that often, I just want to make sure when I do..I don't have to do a lot of re-working of the drivetrain.

I do have another question for you however, I read JD's text on the Aussie sixes....I know that the intake manifold is integral up until the 70 model? Is it something I can adapt to my 250 six to get that 2 bbl weber? Or do I have to have the whole head?? It may not fit---but I read somewhere, maybe it was an argentine 2 bbl intake manifold????? Am I delusional??

 

[LameHoof65]

I had a 88 Mustang GT with a T-5. The car had 3.27s when I bought it, I swaped the rear for one with 3.73s. The 3.73s were way to steep for the manual, so I put in 3.55s. They were great. I recommend the 3.27s or the 3.55s. The 3.27s gave me 25mpg highway and the 3.55s gave me 24 mpg highway. I would also recommend a 7.5 or 8.8 out of a Ranger. The width is about right and the 2.3 trucks came standard with 3.73s. As far as durability the 7.5 was in early fox v8s and 4x4 trucks. They also have bigger brakes. If you find one out of a 4x4 it will be trac loc. The 8 and 9 inch are great but they are pushing 30+ years old. Any you find in a boneyard will have a b'zillion miles on them. I have been on some other boards where guys did a 7.5 or 8.8 swap and they are pleased with the result.

Thanks for the great info, I have looked into finding an old rearend but have talked to a few people and they simply don't recommend hooking an old rearend to a new T5.. I went to the Currie website and looked into a new one that they would build me. I put in the calculator a 3.55(Torino) with Big Bearing pinion, and Track lock and a short yoke....I don't really think it makes much difference but that 9" racing setup sounds strong...What do you think? Is this a possibility??? Or am I deluding myself??? I have lots of questions and probably sound pretty stupid to most of you, but I need help figuring this all out...it's pretty confusing you hear so many different things and I'm not sure that what I'm hearing is all that true.

 

[Anonymous]

Darwin, you're not seeing things In 1970, there was a 2V option introduced into the aussie six lineup. This meant that the pre-crossflow motors had a detatchable intake and 2bbl carb. These heads are out there, and yes, you need the head and intake before it'll work. However, there are ways and means to get 2bbl carbs onto the log head via an adapter plate, but they're less than optimum compared to a 2V head. And yes, there are argentine heads out there too

 

[Anonymous]

Most guys want a 9 inch or an 8 inch rear under thier car. Those are great but they get harder to find and more expensive all the time. All the new Mustangs come with an 8.8 under them, plenty strong enough. There are lots of them in the boneyards, they are cheap, lots of gears available, and they will fit nicely under a classic Mustang. For the 200/250 a 7.5 or 8.8 will hold up well. I like the 7.5 because in the 2.3 Ranger the 5spd had 3.73s and the AT had 3.55s, both great ratios for the 200/250. I have a trac loc 7.5 with 355s and the brakes out of a 4x4 Ranger. I paid 125$ for it. I think that is plenty for a 200 Mustang. If I break it Im going to spend another 125$ and do the same thing again.

 

[LameHoof65]

Most guys want a 9 inch or an 8 inch rear under thier car. Those are great but they get harder to find and more expensive all the time. All the new Mustangs come with an 8.8 under them, plenty strong enough. There are lots of them in the boneyards, they are cheap, lots of gears available, and they will fit nicely under a classic Mustang. For the 200/250 a 7.5 or 8.8 will hold up well. I like the 7.5 because in the 2.3 Ranger the 5spd had 3.73s and the AT had 3.55s, both great ratios for the 200/250. I have a trac loc 7.5 with 355s and the brakes out of a 4x4 Ranger. I paid 125$ for it. I think that is plenty for a 200 Mustang. If I break it Im going to spend another 125$ and do the same thing again.

I like your way of thinking a lot better than depleting the family cookie jar..So, tell me---if i find that 8.8 rearend out of an early stang how difficult will it be to bolt that to my 65??? I really need that 5 lug pattern since I've got all the parts and have torn down my stang to the s-towers to clean and install the new disks. And, are those carriers removable, and do you know if i can beef it up with trac-loc if it doesn't already have it??? like i said I'm full of ?????? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

I temporarly moved to Virgina earlier this year and left all my car stuff back home. (recalled back into the military for 2 years). If I remember right the Ranger rear end is about an inch narrower than a 65-66 Mustang and about 1.5 narrower than a 67 Mustang. A Fox Mustang has coil springs and is narrower than the Ranger rear. If you are running a T5 go to a yard and find a 7.5 or 8.8 out of a late Ranger with the gears you want. Get a driveshaft out of anything with a T5/7.5 or 8.8. You will have to have the spring seats moved to fit your Mustang and if you get the driveshaft have it sized to the proper length. Ford makes alot of Rangers, the yards are full of them. I would look until you find a 7.5 or 8.8 trac loc out of a 4X4 with the gears you want. No sence buying a non-trac loc with the wrong gears then spending money to make it like you want when patience will get you what you want for the same money in the first place.

There is a yard at home where I can get a Ranger rear end with brakes for 125$ it doesnt matter what rear end as long as it comes out of a Ranger. Across town another yard will look at the same rear end and say " Ford, 8.8, trac loc, optional gears, brakes, 250$" It takes somw shopping but good newer parts can be had for a bargan.

 

[LameHoof65]

I temporarly moved to Virgina earlier this year and left all my car stuff back home. (recalled back into the military for 2 years). If I remember right the Ranger rear end is about an inch narrower than a 65-66 Mustang and about 1.5 narrower than a 67 Mustang. A Fox Mustang has coil springs and is narrower than the Ranger rear. If you are running a T5 go to a yard and find a 7.5 or 8.8 out of a late Ranger with the gears you want. Get a driveshaft out of anything with a T5/7.5 or 8.8. You will have to have the spring seats moved to fit your Mustang and if you get the driveshaft have it sized to the proper length. Ford makes alot of Rangers, the yards are full of them. I would look until you find a 7.5 or 8.8 trac loc out of a 4X4 with the gears you want. No sence buying a non-trac loc with the wrong gears then spending money to make it like you want when patience will get you what you want for the same money in the first place.

There is a yard at home where I can get a Ranger rear end with brakes for 125$ it doesnt matter what rear end as long as it comes out of a Ranger. Across town another yard will look at the same rear end and say " Ford, 8.8, trac loc, optional gears, brakes, 250$" It takes somw shopping but good newer parts can be had for a bargan.

This is a great help, i appreciate your assistance, yet I have another "?"---I know that the older models have tags delineating the gearing and whether it has trac-loc or is open---are these later model ranger rearend axles and carrier identified the same way?

I've seen some great looking stangs on this site---with knowledge like yours i hope to have a winner as well... again thanks

 

[Anonymous]

Never say never, but all the Ranger 4X4 rears I have seen were trac loc. There is a tag on the pumpkin. I dont recall if the tag has the gear ratio on it or if it has a letter code for the gear ratio. Someone on a Ranger board will know. rangerpowersports.com I think.

 

[rancheroman]

All Ford 7.5 and 8.8 rear ends came from the factory
with a tag bolted to the rear inspection cover. If it
dosen't have one someone has removed it.
To the best of my knowledge this is how it is coded.
first digit is the first digit of the ratio.
If there is an 'L' at the 3rd digit it is a posi.
4th and 5th digit are the last 2 digits of the ratio
7th and 8th digit are the ring gear size
i.e. a tag that would read 35L73A889F09
this rear end would be a 8.8 with a 3.73 ratio and posi.
I hope this helps
Paul

 

[LameHoof65]

All Ford 7.5 and 8.8 rear ends came from the factory
with a tag bolted to the rear inspection cover. If it
dosen't have one someone has removed it.
To the best of my knowledge this is how it is coded.
first digit is the first digit of the ratio.
If there is an 'L' at the 3rd digit it is a posi.
4th and 5th digit are the last 2 digits of the ratio
7th and 8th digit are the ring gear size
i.e. a tag that would read 35L73A889F09
this rear end would be a 8.8 with a 3.73 ratio and posi.
I hope this helps
Paul

I'm thinking if I hadn't found this site I would be in a world of hurt trying to get all this information...and so fast, thanks, you all have been a great help. I will start looking through the boneyards with my son-in-law, he enjoys it as well, besides he has a nice truck to haul my treasures home in. !!

 

[LameHoof65]

I've never seen a 250 with the high mount starter. Count the waterpump bolts. If it has 3 it's a 200, if it has 4 it's a 250. I'd say you have a 200.

You know, you may be right, I was looking at the engine and all I could tell---without disconnecting the hose work was that it had 2 bolts and maybe a third that is somewhat hidden, it is so tight I had trouble getting my hand in there and feeling around. Suppose cuz'n Al could have rebuilt this thing thinking it was a 250?? It doesn't really matter to me...he did a great job as always... Besides from everything I've read the 200 is the preferred engine by some..but I think it has something to do with when the engine was produced??? According to the tech page here regarding the 200/250 swap--I read that the 250 has a 9.469 deck height (from the crank centerline to the top of the deck) and i measured mine and it appears to have that deck height, but I was just using a tape and eyeballing it...I assumed that the deck is where the block ends and the head attaches???). However, I did get the block and head # and compared these to the casting #'s on the tech page and found that the block casting of c8de-9015b corresponds most closely with the 1968/69 200 production though the whole number did not match...???? As well the head casting # of c5de-8090-AX8 most closely matches the 1965 production of heads for that 200 engine... I could barely read these #'s on the block and my vision ain't what it use to be,,,,,but what do you think does this look like a 200... According to the tech page a 200 has a deck height of 7.808"......???? And I do not know where to find the T or L code to differentiate the two...This could make a big difference in hp according to the david lyons page regarding production years from vintage mustangs where a 1968 200 1V has about 120@4400 with Ft-lb of 190@2400 and a 1973 250 1V has about 145@4400 and Ft-lb of 232@1600??? If it is in fact a 1974 250 out of a Maverick I would assume it would look most like the latter. Sorry, for all the verbage, but I'm not sure I'm reading all the info right nor the measurements...any info that might help me is greatly appreciated :roll:

 

[LameHoof65]

Your head is a 65 and your block is a 68 so that rules out the 74 250. And it should rule out it being a 250 as the first 250 was a 69.

Thank you, I again appreciate your info, however, and I'm sure you are pleased to hear this, I have more questions...I've read that the 250 with it's V8 type bellhousing hooks up pretty easily to a T5, so---what about the 200, and I guess the 250 aussie head and intake is out as well.