Possibility of Transplanting 200 I6 into Late Fox Body 94-04

[rocklord]

I've been reading the forum about transplanting a 200 I6 into the "early" Fox based Mustangs, 1979-1993. Basically, this involves replacing the front crossmember with one from a I6 found in the Fairmont based autos.

Just a thought, what about the "later" Mustangs, 1994-2004? These were still based on a modified Fox platform. Would the crossmember from the early Fox platform bolt into the later? Is there enough height in the engine compartment to accommodate the 200 I6? These Mustangs have nice body lines inspired from the original.

Has anybody attempted this transplant, and would they like to share their experience?

Just a thought.

 

[rbohm]

8) why would you want to? as good as the 200 is, the 3.8 V6 in the 94 up mustangs is far superior in regards to performance, fuel economy, smoothness, and drivability. the only advantage the 200 has is durability. you need a large nuclear warhead to kill one, and even then............

 

[Anonymous]

They use an SN95 k-member to swap modular motors (i.e. 4.6L V8 ) into the early fox cars, so it would seem reasonable that you could swap the other way 'round. You could probably fab up some mounts using the existing k-member as well -- some guys have swapped V8s into I6 cars this way.

Frankly, I don't see why it is any worse of an idea than playing with a 200 six in any other car. Not sure if it would pass the emissions test, however.

 

[rocklord]

rbohm,
Why do people install an I6 into a 79-93 Mustang when you could've had a V8? Why do people install one into a vehicle that originally had a V8? A V8 is reliable and more powerful than the I6. Performance parts are more readily available.

If we all wanted reliability, we would all drive Toyotas.

One reason is to be different.

straight fox,
Thank you for your response. I didn't realize people were making that switch. Now the question is whether the I6 will fit under the hood. In regards to emissions, as long as you are in a state that doesn't require testing, you would be OK.

 

[mjpchief]

I like reliability. That's why I drive Fords.

 

[Anlushac11]

8)

So...Im not the only CRAZYYYYY person to have thought of this.

I have actually been eyeballing some V6 SN95's to do the very same thing. Saw a red V6/T5 recently for $1595 but didnt have the cash. I really dont have the cash to do the swap now even if I did get the car.

I think you can do it to 1994-1996 cars only but Im not 100% positive. I have heard of guys taking 1996-1998 mod motor K-members and using them to drop mod motors into 1979-1995 Mustangs.

Why do it? Why do people climb Everest? Why do people jump off bridges with rubber bands strapper to their legs? Because they can. Its different.

94-96 or was it 97? 3.8L V6's had a reputation for blowing head gaskets. IIRC was related to the crappy stretchable head bolts that were non retorqing. A co-worker's GF had a nice dark green 95 V6 that went through 3 head gaskets in IIRC 2 years. I dont think the problem was really fixes til I think the update (1999?).

IMHO here's how I was thinking of doing it.

Use a Fox body I6 K-member, just ask any V8 swap guys for their leftovers though I hear the I6 K-members are popular for mod motor swaps into Foxes.

Anyhoo...

Use Fox K-member but everything else suspension leave SN95. You will need to get adapter sleeves to set SN95 spindles on Fox ball joint or better yet switch over to Fox ball joint in SN95 A-arm. IIRC Baer racing and Steeda sell the sleeves.

Any machine shop should be able to swap the ball joints but get late model frictionless ball joints as they have better road feel and operate more smoothly. IIRC they are teflon lined.

IIRC header might be a problem cause you will have same problem clearing K-member. The old sIngle outheader will fit.Mike says his Classic Inlines dual out FSPP header will cear a Fox K-member. Thats the only option I have so I will be going that route.

I would use late model SN95 rack and pinion as alot of Fox guys say they are hearing thelate model has better road feel.

Still be the problem of adapting T5 to I6 but SN95 will take ot a T5 like a duck to water. IIRC C4 swaps are pretty easy into a SN95 as well.

Should be able to leave the rest. IIRC T5 V6's got 3.45:1 rears and auto cars got 3.73:1 rears. All SN95 V6's still have disc brake rears and 5 wheel studs.

The car would be a natural for a Aussie or Argie 221or 250 I6 running and a CI aluminum head with EFI. You could also run a Aussie 250 crossflow with the aluminum head but IIRC you would need a Cortina TC rear sump oilpan and pickup.

 

[82F100]

it's a thought provoking idea but to me the biggest draw back would be the weight of the vehicle as most tip the scales anywhere from 3,400 to 3,600 lbs

 

[fb71]

V6 cars all have 3.27 rears. I've both owned V6 SN95s and have worked on them since new in 94 (Ford dealer tech)

94-95 5.0 / 96-98 4.6 cars got 3.08 in autos, 3.27 in sticks

99-04 4.6 cars all got 3.27s, with 3.55 as an option for 4.6 cars

I think all this is correct, my memory is getting a bit fuzzy lately...

 

[80Stang]

94-95 5.0 / 96-98 4.6 cars got 3.08 in autos, 3.27 in sticks

Most 94-95 5.0s around here were factory equipped with a salt-lake-suitable 2.79 rear end (I wrote 'were' because many of them are already swapped to better gearing). No SN95 were sold thru dealers here, all are imported afterwards mostly from the US by individual persons or companies.

I never thought of this swap. There are plenty of V6 cars available ("cheap", kind of) and a 250 L6 would make a difference in those...the emissions is a concern here too, so catalytic converters and other smog equip has to be dealt with. Hmmm...how about a trailered SN95 racer with a hot 250...? Would be a nice sight and loaded with dare-to-be-different -attitude. But an early fox notchback would make a better racer due to a lot lighter weight of the car plus easier possibility to drive it on public roads too (lighter emissions requirements).

A cheap 94-95 GT might be even cheaper to build for L6. It already has 8.8" rear end with trac-loc (vs. 7.5" with no lock in the V6 car), plus it has disc brakes at the rear (vs. drums). You will also get better price out of the SBF than V6 when you sell the engine.

 

[shmoozo]

Frankly, I don't see why it is any worse of an idea than playing with a 200 six in any other car. Not sure if it would pass the emissions test, however.

It more than likely wouldn't.

 

[XFlow_Fairlane]

I would just mod the SN95 K to fit a six. K's are pretty simple in design wen it comes to the motor mounts.

I would also prob be looking at a crossflow motor to swap in (being EEC4 based on the EFI it should make for a simple swap on a 3.8L car...repin and lengthen some wires...the 3.8L ecu is hacked I think with the tuner crowd)

only hangup would be the trans. I am looking into a fabbed steel bell for my crossflow(s) even though I have an aussie bell and trans. you could go C4 but I am still thinking fabbed bell bolted on a AOD trans. also thinking of looking into the T56 I have sitting here now....

 

[Abandoned67]

sorry about this random post in this topic but...

rbohm I hope you dont mind that I use this in my sig.

the 200 has is durability. you need a large nuclear warhead to kill one, and even then............

 

[MustangSix]

At one time I was looking for a clapped out 94-98 convertible to do a crossflow swap. The idea fell by the wayside, but I did learn a couple of things along the way.

First, the major differences in the I6/V8 cross member are for accommodating the engine. If you replicate the mounts, the rest of the K-member is the same. Second, if you use an early K-member in a later car, you screw up the geometry. You have to move a few holes to get it back. Third, you want to use the later control arms, steering, hubs and brakes.

On the engine side, you would have to build a rear sump pan and pickup. No biggie. The 3.8 EFI might accomodate a crossflow if you used a TFI crossflow ignition. A little more fuel pressure and reorganizing the injector layout is probably all you really need.

A T-5 would bolt in, but a custom bracket or some custom work to the release arm would be needed to actuate the clutch. AOD would need an adapter plate.

 

[XFlow_Fairlane]

for the AOD I was thinking like the Buick guys do. cut off the bell (since it is part of the case) use the existing front pump holes and a couple extras to bolt a fabbed bell onto it.

honestly as far as mounting is concerned the easiest would be to cut the engine mounts off a I6 K and then weld them into a sn95 K. can all be done in the car. If it were me I would prob make up some custom mounts using a better isolator or a poly suspension bushing.

 

[fb71]

94-95 5.0 / 96-98 4.6 cars got 3.08 in autos, 3.27 in sticks

Most 94-95 5.0s around here were factory equipped with a salt-lake-suitable 2.79 rear end (I wrote 'were' because many of them are already swapped to better gearing). No SN95 were sold thru dealers here, all are imported afterwards mostly from the US by individual persons or companies.

I never thought of this swap. There are plenty of V6 cars available ("cheap", kind of) and a 250 L6 would make a difference in those...the emissions is a concern here too, so catalytic converters and other smog equip has to be dealt with. Hmmm...how about a trailered SN95 racer with a hot 250...? Would be a nice sight and loaded with dare-to-be-different -attitude. But an early fox notchback would make a better racer due to a lot lighter weight of the car plus easier possibility to drive it on public roads too (lighter emissions requirements).

A cheap 94-95 GT might be even cheaper to build for L6. It already has 8.8" rear end with trac-loc (vs. 7.5" with no lock in the V6 car), plus it has disc brakes at the rear (vs. drums). You will also get better price out of the SBF than V6 when you sell the engine.

You're right, I forgot about the 2.73s. I had those in my '86 T-Bird Elan... :roll:

FWIW, all Mustangs 6 and 8, had rear discs after 1993. Also, both 6 and 8 cars used the same brakes from '94 on, with the exception of the Cobras, Bullitts, etc.

From 94-up the v6 cars used EDIS, external in 94-95, integrated into the PCM 96-up.

 

[XFlow_Fairlane]

actually the 2000 up (I think) brakes are different up front. they use a 2 piston alloy caliper instead of the single piston iron calipers. both use same rotors and mountings (minor grinding for caliper clearance needed)

 

[addo]

Take the idea to extremes... Transplant a turbo DOHC Falcon six in the current Mustang shell and annoy the R32 drifters.

 

[fb71]

actually the 2000 up (I think) brakes are different up front. they use a 2 piston alloy caliper instead of the single piston iron calipers. both use same rotors and mountings (minor grinding for caliper clearance needed)

yes, 99-04 went to PBR calipers (aluminum 2-pot floating), vs the TRW 1-pot iron calipers for 94-98. But, both v6 and v8 cars used the same brakes. The earlier Fox cars had separate brake systems for the 5.0 and 2.3 cars.

 

[wallaka]

Take the idea to extremes... Transplant a turbo DOHC Falcon six in the current Mustang shell and annoy the R32 drifters.

Not too many R32s around here--and they're not so hot for drifting, what with AWD and all. A 1992 R32 starts at about $30k.

 

[addo]

Lots cheaper here. Start around the $7K mark - say $5700 of yours. Even a GT-R can be had for less than USD$16K.