V6 in a Classic Stang??

A

Anonymous

Guest
I was looking on ebay at the "ford 6cyl" stuff and of course a bunch of ford v6 stuff came up, and it got me thinking that I have never seen anything on this board about swapping something like a 4.0 V6 into a classic stang. I know they were used in Rangers in the late 80's so they would be RWD and later models would have EFI, they look to be cheap with some aftermarket performance parts available. Some questions come to mind right away:

What kind of hp numbers do these things pull compared to a 200?

What is the weight compared to a 200? Would you need to do all the V8 suspension mods?

What kind of Bellhousings are out there? C4?

Not saying that I want to do this swap but would be interested to hear about it.
 
My guess is that the hp is around 200, don't feel like looking it up. My thought on this is that if I were to do a swap, it would be for a V8 and nothing less 351W. IMO, its not worth it otherwise. I've never been a fan of V6's.
 
The 4.0 is based on the Cologne V6 from Germany but is built in the States (somewhere...). The block may need a sump modification to fit because of the drag links for the suspension.

Its critical sump dimensions are the wacko 2.6/2.8 Capri/Mustang II/Pinto type, with a wildly offset block which is a throw back from the 1962 V4 from the Cardinal (which saw service in the first mid engined Mustang show car in 1963, and ran balnace shafts).

Essentially, the block pattern is a hybrid of OHC Pinto and V8 bolt spacings. It wont take the SBF transmissions without a fight. I'm not sure if its similar to any other early 2.6/2.8 blocks.

The early C4 Mustang II's with V6's are possibly similar, and I ran one of these on my 2.3 V6 Cortina.

The C3-based 4-speed auto used from 1985 on was quite okay if it wasn't thrashed within an inch of its life. The starter is on the drivers side from memory, so it may not be a good option for a car with a drag linked, rear mount recirculating ball steering box.

Sounds like a fun swap. The 4.0 is very,very heavy, its as heavy as a 250, and only slightly less than a 302. If it is the SOHC version, not the base OHV, it is heavier than the 302!
 
If you're looking for V-6 to drop in...consider the late mustang 3.8L. It is just the 302 block cut down (literally), so the mounts shouldn't be too off. The 4.0 is too tall of an engine for the classic chassis.

the 3.8 from 99+ mustangs gets 197 BHP, around 210 ft-lbs. Really peppy engine. If you need an engine, call Saleen, since they usually (or at least used to) but the 3.8L mustangs and convert them.

Slade
 
CobraSix":y7611snd said:
If you're looking for V-6 to drop in...consider the late mustang 3.8L. It is just the 302 block cut down (literally), so the mounts shouldn't be too off.

That's a common misconception. The Ford 3.8 is considerably different than the 302/5.0 and nearly nothing interchanges, short of a few bolts. The only thing they really have in common is the bellhousing pattern and starter. OTOH, the GM (ex-Buick) 3.8 did develop from a cut down version of their V8.

In order to coax 200 hp out of a 3.8 requires a lot of high tech - returnless EFI, dual intake runners, EEC V engine management, etc. Not exactly a drop in. Installing a 5.0 would be easier.

And I've driven a lot of rental V6 Mustangs - they are not great performers even at that rating. They are lazy, low reving engines that run out of breath very early.

IMO, A 3.0 DOHC 60 degree Duratec V6 would be a better choice if you were going to go to all that effort.
 
I've got a new 3.0 Duratec from a Lincoln LS that I'm looking to put in the Mustang. With the right ECU (Electromotive, SDS, MS) and exhaust (custom long tubes w/ 2" duals), 240HP is easily attainable, and that is the goal. I should not have to break down the motor to do any mods to get that either, such as porting or cams. The motor will rev safely to well over 7K and weighs in at right around 400lbs fully dressed. There are quite a few sensors and assemblies on this motor to allow it to meet emissions requirements. I won't have to meet these, so I will be shedding precious pounds from the already light-all aluminum motor.

I was going to use the Getrag LS trans behind this, but was informed that they are not durable for the abuses I may put it through. So, I'm adapting a T-5 to it. I'm having a custom billet steel flywheel made for me through Moderndriveline and will adapt the standard T-5 bell using an adapter bolted to the block. I'm switching the input shaft on my V8 T-5 for one off of a 3.8L T-5 as it's longer and will make up for the width of the block spacer.

As it stands now, I won't be back into my car until the late August, September time frame, if even that. Other life ventures are taking precedence.
 
Whats the weight on that 3.0? Is that out of a rwd car?

Can't wait to see what you do! Should be cool! I will be going to a few junkyards today to look for granada spindles, but I may bring my tape measure and camera, and check out other engines....
 
Spyke":33k97ebx said:
Whats the weight on that 3.0? Is that out of a rwd car?

....

Al":33k97ebx said:
...The motor will rev safely to well over 7K and weighs in at right around 400lbs fully dressed....

It's from a 00/01 RWD Lincoln LS.
 
MustangSix":279x5lua said:
CobraSix":279x5lua said:
If you're looking for V-6 to drop in...consider the late mustang 3.8L. It is just the 302 block cut down (literally), so the mounts shouldn't be too off.

That's a common misconception. The Ford 3.8 is considerably different than the 302/5.0 and nearly nothing interchanges, short of a few bolts. The only thing they really have in common is the bellhousing pattern and starter. OTOH, the GM (ex-Buick) 3.8 did develop from a cut down version of their V8.

In order to coax 200 hp out of a 3.8 requires a lot of high tech - returnless EFI, dual intake runners, EEC V engine management, etc. Not exactly a drop in. Installing a 5.0 would be easier.

And I've driven a lot of rental V6 Mustangs - they are not great performers even at that rating. They are lazy, low reving engines that run out of breath very early. .

Sorry...probably got the two confused. I think what got was this. The 3.8 is a 90* V which is usually a V-8 design (like the 5.0) where most other V-6s are 60* designs for better inherent balancing.

As far as performance, I have to disagree. Maybe you have the pre 99 3.8 and an auto. Those were dogs at 160BHP, the 99+ are 197BHP. I can tell you, even with 255/45 tires, I can easily spin the tires going from 1st-2nd, and can do the same for 2nd-3rd shift. The 99's are very peepy and will pull very hard, especially above 4000 RPM. They are rough revers though. They aren't smooth at upper RPMs, but sound really mean, even with the stock quiet exhaust.

Slade
 
I just want to get in on this post since I was going to post on this topic anyway.
I got a 66 coupe auto w/ 81 200. I was prepared to do the t5 swap and was rounding up all my clutch and trans parts. I had a 4 cyl trans all lingned up but at last minute I couldn't get it. It got me thinking. Could I swap a 3.8 in? I think the 94-97 was mated to the t5, no surprises there. The motor mounts may need changes but if I can't do it I know who can. The crossmember will need to be changed anyway for the t5. The V6 should allow enough room for adjustment. Id have a modern engine with the classic look. The problem would be with the electrical, right. If I was to take everything from the donor car could I make it work fairly easily. There are other problems like fuel pressure, etc.

Does anyone have any help on this. Is it feasible. Are there any sources or literature for this.
Thanks
Paul
 
Returning to the cologne engine, it was available w/ a c4 in Moostang II and the fox platform. Most of the pickup stick options are fairly unsporting, but the 2. bellhousing from an M II is rumred to be a good fit for adapting a T5.

Weight is slightly heavier (just under 400 lb) than a 200, OHV motor were 160, SOHC were 205? hp
 
If you're going to go cutting and welding anyway, I think a Rex or Liberty driveline would be a neat swap. 4 wheel burnouts! :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Back
Top