Fitment of Aussie 6's into a 67 Mustang?

[andrew3]

I searched the small six and the big six forums but couldn't find much information about retrofitting an engine like this into an i6 67 Mustang.

Does this require special fabrication of motor mounts and transmission crossmember? From what I could gather, you have to use an aussie transmission with an aussie engine?

I like the idea of putting a more modern i6 (more power is a good thing too) into my 67 mustang, but would this be wasted effort since Mike's FSPP head is coming out soon and can be set up for MPFI. If something broke on that engine, are there American made parts that fit or would I have to order nearly all replacement parts from australia?

Im sure these questions have been answered before, but I appreciate your insight. Im just toying with the idea now since I still have some rust repair to finish.

 

[Mustang Boy]

mustangsix and mustangsix2 put a aussie crossflow into a 66 mustang try sending one of them a PM

 

[andrew3]

Thanks. I sent mustangsix a PM. Hopefully he will respond here in the thread for everyone to see.

 

[MustangSix]

I was wondering if you could tell me some of the issues you ran into when retrofitting your engine.
1) Did you have to fabricate motor mounts and a transmission crossmember?
2) Did you have to use an australian transmission?
3) If something breaks on your engine, will you have to source parts from australia or are there local alternatives for some things?
4) Was the swap worth it or was it mainly for the wow factor at shows?
5) With Mike's aluminum head coming out, do you think its still worth it?

1. Stock Mustang motor mounts and a custom crossmember for the T5
2. It's a US Mustang T-5, but I had to use an Aussie bell housing. The T5 adapters work on the Aussie toploader bell. US Mustang clutch, pressure plate, and flywheel.
3. Not much interchanges. Water pumps, starter, EFI stuff is easily gotten here. Lifters, valve springs, pushrods, pistons and rings were off the shelf items. But then again, how often do you need bearings, timing chains, and oil pumps? I expect this engine will go a long time before needing anything from Oz, though I do have some extra bits on the shelf.
4. Definitely worth it. The car is fast, as fast as a stock Fox Mustang GT. It will run 14's pretty easily. Fuel economy is excellent in the mid to high 20's. It sounds wicked and totally unlike any V8. I might recam it and do some head work.
5. Hmmm....had that head been available in 2001, I probably would not have done this. As far as power potential, Mike's head may have an edge, but if I were really looking for 300 hp I would have taken the easy way out and built a 351.

Issues - None really. I used an SDS EFI and it was ok, but the latest iteration is using a Megasquirt. More tunability.

There is a little clearance issue with the stock EFI manifold with a brace at the front of the hood, but that was resolved with the 'ol three pound clearance tool.

Now, all that said, the OHC engine you showed is a different beast. The mounts are not the same so you'll have to fabricate something. The bell is different so again, make sure you get that as well. The stock intake may have clearnce issues with the left shock tower, but it's probably ok.

 

[addo]

It will be tight near the shock tower, and not sure if the oil pan will suit, straight up.

The greatest "drawback" of these motors is that they are new-tech compared to the log. If the head gets overheated, like any alloy head it may be softened. Early ones did warp and needed a line bore on the cam tunnel when rebuilding - but most have long ago had this aspect dealt with.

There's a few getting around in very quick Falcons - some running on propane with turbos.

 

[andrew3]

Issues - None really. I used an SDS EFI and it was ok, but the latest iteration is using a Megasquirt. More tunability.

There is a little clearance issue with the stock EFI manifold with a brace at the front of the hood, but that was resolved with the 'ol three pound clearance tool.

Now, all that said, the OHC engine you showed is a different beast. The mounts are not the same so you'll have to fabricate something. The bell is different so again, make sure you get that as well. The stock intake may have clearnce issues with the left shock tower, but it's probably ok.

You're right, that does sound wicked. I definitely like it. Which year fuelie x-flow are you using? Did you look into the OHC ones at all when selecting? By the brace at the front of the hood, are you referring to the export brace? Maier Racing makes a decent export brace for early mustangs that alleviates the clearance issues with stock 5.0L manifolds so that may help.

I like the idea of doing something different and Im definitely interested in a modern tech OHC engine in my 67.

Thanks for the response btw. I just found your website with x-flow swap and the hybrid 200 info and thats a wealth of information too.

 

[andrew3]

It will be tight near the shock tower, and not sure if the oil pan will suit, straight up.

The greatest "drawback" of these motors is that they are new-tech compared to the log. If the head gets overheated, like any alloy head it may be softened. Early ones did warp and needed a line bore on the cam tunnel when rebuilding - but most have long ago had this aspect dealt with.

There's a few getting around in very quick Falcons - some running on propane with turbos.

Hmm, that would possibly pose some problems. I have a unisteer rack and pinion that mounts in position of the crossmember. If the pan on the OHC engine interferes with that, I would have to scrap one or the other. I'll have to look up some information on the differences between x-flow pushrod blocks and x-flow OHC blocks. Sounds like it may just be easier to use the pushrod xflow.

Also, do you have any idea if any of the OHC bellhousings will work with the T-5 adapter plate? Are the transmissions/bellhousings the same as those used on the pushrod blocks?

 

[addo]

You can get an OHC-T5 bellhousing. Ford used it here for ages; maybe still do!

 

[andrew3]

Well that would definitely make backing it with a T-5 simpler

Im still worried about the oil pan issue. I did some digging through old threads and the only mention I could find of the oil pan didn't list a solution other than maybe piecing together a custom oil pan.

For simplicity's sake, it may be best to mimic what mustangsix did and put the fuelie crossflow in.

I wonder if a BA XR6 motor would fit

 

[OzHemi]

Let me know if you'd like any measurements off of it, be happy to help...
I have a cam in block style one too, with the injection that goes over the valve cover basically, if the intake on the side made for fitment issues...

 

[MustangSix]

The brace I'm referring to is on the hood itself. One small corner contacts the forward edge of the intake plenum. You cannot fit a Monte Carlo bar with this engine. You must fit an export brace because the stock braces would hit the rear EFI runner.

The oil pan on all these engines should be front sump and should clear. I see no issues there at all.

 

[andrew3]

Ok so to get an OHC engine in, it may be nothing more than figuring out a motor mount solution, bolting up a T-5 and getting the fore/aft alignment?
That doesn't sound too bad, although I have never tried to fabricate my own motor mounts. I wonder if something like the TCP adjustable motor mounts could be made to work? Probably not though since they are made for the V8's.

Ozhemi,
I dont have a stock 200 to compare it too, but I'd be interested in the distance from the centerline of the OHC engine to the widest part of the intake runners. Also, maybe your records have this, but do you know the dressed weight of one of these OHC engines? Im interested in how it compares to a 289/302. I want to keep the front of my car as light as I can.

 

[OzHemi]

Is this the measurement you ment? This is just approximate, but should give you an idea hopefully.. not sure on weight btw, sorry.

 

[andrew3]

Is this the measurement you ment? This is just approximate, but should give you an idea hopefully.. not sure on weight btw, sorry.

Yep, thats the measurement I wanted. I'll measure my engine bay tonight to see if there is at least 28" between the shocktowers at their narrowest point.

 

[OzHemi]

No worries..

 

[andrew3]

The distance between my shock towers near the top (about where the top of the engine would sit) is 27.75" and it gets narrower as you go down.

Suffice it to say, putting the OHC engine in without notching the shocktowers would be very tight if not impossible. If I went with a crossflow over the FSPP headed US 200, it think it would have to be the pushrod engine.

 

[OzHemi]

The overall width is about 27", but about 3 1/2" - 4" of that is the alternator and power steering pump sticking out further then the exhaust manifold.

 

[andrew3]

The overall width is about 27", but about 3 1/2" - 4" of that is the alternator and power steering pump sticking out further then the exhaust manifold.

Yeah, thats kind of the way I was envisioning it. The engine is not symmetrical so while it may fit in the engine compartment, it wont be centered.
That 27 3/4" gives me roughly 13 7/8" from centerline to the widest portion of the shocktowers that I think the engine could come in contact with. 6" beneath that and the width is more like 13 1/4" or less as the motor support comes off the shock tower.

Plenty of room on the passenger side, just not quite enough on the driver side. You never know though. Actual testing might show that it fits with a hairsbreadth to spare.

 

[MustangSix]

I'll go out on a limb and say that I believe it will fit an early Mustang, esp the 67 and later cars. Keep in mind that the chassis these engines were fitted to (Falcons and the like) were based on that early Falcon platform.

One other issue that I thought of: the later engines used a TFI style distributor with a Hall sensor. There is no provision for mechanical or vacuum advance on those. You would need to employ an ECu capable of using that distributor, building a DIS system, using an older Aussie distributor, or machining a US distributor to fit. The US distributor has a slightly larger shaft which will not fit into the Aussie block.

 

[OzHemi]

Why not just use the factory computer from he engine though? (when talking about the dizzy and such..)