A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finally chose the engine for my 68 coupe!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 24th 05, 05:28 AM
Thomas Cameron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Finally chose the engine for my 68 coupe!

Well, I have been going back and forth like a pendulum - do I rebuild the
289? Do I just go nuts and drop a 460 in there? Do I build a 351W
stroker? ARGH!

So I thought I had finally settled on a 351W with a PAW Automotive stroker
kit, taking it out to 420 cubes. I was referred to a Mustangs- and
Fords-only bone yard in Temple, Texas (I am in Austin). I called them up,
told them I wanted a 351W bare block to start the project, and also
scored the complete front disc brakes off a 1980 Grenada cheap in the
process.

So this morning I was supposed to drive up, and I called them and asked if
there was any chance the block I was getting was from a 1994 or newer
vehicle, i.e. a roller motor. He said, "No, it's a 1970 block. But," he
says, "I have a complete 1994 Ford Lightning engine for sale" (from the
oil pan to the fuel injection, with computer and complete wiring harness).
So I look it up. Hrm... 351W, GT40 heads, roller motor, fuel injection,
plenty of horsepower and gobs of torque. So I ask him a bunch of
questions, and find out that the engine was running around a year ago when
the Lightning was wrecked, and has been in a covered warehouse ever since.

He also refers me to a local mechanic who put one of these in a '67 coupe,
and told me to call him. I call, and the guy says that it is not a hard
swap, all you need is a high pressure fuel pump and lines.

I ask how much for the engine, and he tells me $2600. So, there's a new
(to me) fuel-injected Lightning 351W on a stand in the garage!

I think it will be really slick - a fuel-injected 351W roller motor with
GT40 heads in a 1968 Coupe. I am also seriously considering the Ford
Racing blower for the Lightning - at 6psi boost, it pumps up horsepower
and torque by about 30% according to the Ford Racing web site. And it's
only $2050. Hell, I was planning on spending $4000-$5000 on the stroker
motor. If I spend the same amount on this engine and the blower I will
probably wind up with around 375-400 ponies and a more reliable engine.

Thoughts?

Thomas
Ads
  #2  
Old June 24th 05, 02:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Cameron wrote:

> Well, I have been going back and forth like a pendulum - do I rebuild the
> 289? Do I just go nuts and drop a 460 in there? Do I build a 351W
> stroker? ARGH!


> I ask how much for the engine, and he tells me $2600. So, there's a new
> (to me) fuel-injected Lightning 351W on a stand in the garage!
>
> I think it will be really slick - a fuel-injected 351W roller motor with
> GT40 heads in a 1968 Coupe. I am also seriously considering the Ford
> Racing blower for the Lightning - at 6psi boost, it pumps up horsepower
> and torque by about 30% according to the Ford Racing web site. And it's
> only $2050. Hell, I was planning on spending $4000-$5000 on the stroker
> motor. If I spend the same amount on this engine and the blower I will
> probably wind up with around 375-400 ponies and a more reliable engine.
>
> Thoughts?


I think you'll have more hp than 400. Sounds like a good direction to
go. And you'll surely never see another one like it, which is a big
plus.

180 Out

  #3  
Old June 24th 05, 07:02 PM
Mark C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How many miles on the lightining moter? Try getting it running first and
then upgrade to the blower. You may like it naturally aspirated and can
spend the money on better brakes, etc. If you get it running as is, you'll
be able to work out the bugs before installing a blower. Remember murphy's
law. Just my opinion.

--
Mark
--
"I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank
what?". " Val Kilmer in Real Genius.





"Thomas Cameron" > wrote in message
news
> Well, I have been going back and forth like a pendulum - do I rebuild the
> 289? Do I just go nuts and drop a 460 in there? Do I build a 351W
> stroker? ARGH!
>
> So I thought I had finally settled on a 351W with a PAW Automotive stroker
> kit, taking it out to 420 cubes. I was referred to a Mustangs- and
> Fords-only bone yard in Temple, Texas (I am in Austin). I called them up,
> told them I wanted a 351W bare block to start the project, and also
> scored the complete front disc brakes off a 1980 Grenada cheap in the
> process.
>
> So this morning I was supposed to drive up, and I called them and asked if
> there was any chance the block I was getting was from a 1994 or newer
> vehicle, i.e. a roller motor. He said, "No, it's a 1970 block. But," he
> says, "I have a complete 1994 Ford Lightning engine for sale" (from the
> oil pan to the fuel injection, with computer and complete wiring harness).
> So I look it up. Hrm... 351W, GT40 heads, roller motor, fuel injection,
> plenty of horsepower and gobs of torque. So I ask him a bunch of
> questions, and find out that the engine was running around a year ago when
> the Lightning was wrecked, and has been in a covered warehouse ever since.
>
> He also refers me to a local mechanic who put one of these in a '67 coupe,
> and told me to call him. I call, and the guy says that it is not a hard
> swap, all you need is a high pressure fuel pump and lines.
>
> I ask how much for the engine, and he tells me $2600. So, there's a new
> (to me) fuel-injected Lightning 351W on a stand in the garage!
>
> I think it will be really slick - a fuel-injected 351W roller motor with
> GT40 heads in a 1968 Coupe. I am also seriously considering the Ford
> Racing blower for the Lightning - at 6psi boost, it pumps up horsepower
> and torque by about 30% according to the Ford Racing web site. And it's
> only $2050. Hell, I was planning on spending $4000-$5000 on the stroker
> motor. If I spend the same amount on this engine and the blower I will
> probably wind up with around 375-400 ponies and a more reliable engine.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thomas



  #4  
Old June 24th 05, 07:41 PM
.boB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Cameron wrote:

> Well, I have been going back and forth like a pendulum - do I rebuild the
> 289? Do I just go nuts and drop a 460 in there? Do I build a 351W
> stroker? ARGH!
>
> So I thought I had finally settled on a 351W with a PAW Automotive stroker
> kit, taking it out to 420 cubes. I was referred to a Mustangs- and
> Fords-only bone yard in Temple, Texas (I am in Austin). I called them up,
> told them I wanted a 351W bare block to start the project, and also
> scored the complete front disc brakes off a 1980 Grenada cheap in the
> process.
>
> So this morning I was supposed to drive up, and I called them and asked if
> there was any chance the block I was getting was from a 1994 or newer
> vehicle, i.e. a roller motor. He said, "No, it's a 1970 block. But," he
> says, "I have a complete 1994 Ford Lightning engine for sale" (from the
> oil pan to the fuel injection, with computer and complete wiring harness).
> So I look it up. Hrm... 351W, GT40 heads, roller motor, fuel injection,
> plenty of horsepower and gobs of torque. So I ask him a bunch of
> questions, and find out that the engine was running around a year ago when
> the Lightning was wrecked, and has been in a covered warehouse ever since.
>
> He also refers me to a local mechanic who put one of these in a '67 coupe,
> and told me to call him. I call, and the guy says that it is not a hard
> swap, all you need is a high pressure fuel pump and lines.
>
> I ask how much for the engine, and he tells me $2600. So, there's a new
> (to me) fuel-injected Lightning 351W on a stand in the garage!
>
> I think it will be really slick - a fuel-injected 351W roller motor with
> GT40 heads in a 1968 Coupe. I am also seriously considering the Ford
> Racing blower for the Lightning - at 6psi boost, it pumps up horsepower
> and torque by about 30% according to the Ford Racing web site. And it's
> only $2050. Hell, I was planning on spending $4000-$5000 on the stroker
> motor. If I spend the same amount on this engine and the blower I will
> probably wind up with around 375-400 ponies and a more reliable engine.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thomas

Score! That's going to be a heck of a motor. What about the trans? The
Lightening AOD would fit in there very easily, and would be a blast to drive.

--
..boB
1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged!
2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92
1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver
1966 FFR Cobra - Ongoing project

  #5  
Old June 24th 05, 08:23 PM
Thomas Cameron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:41:20 -0600, .boB wrote:


> Score! That's going to be a heck of a motor. What about the trans? The
> Lightening AOD would fit in there very easily, and would be a blast to drive.


He wanted $700 for the AOD, and I have no idea if it will fit in the '68
coupe's tunnel. I actually *want* a T56 six-speed manual, but will
probably go with the C4 until it breaks.

Thomas
  #6  
Old June 24th 05, 08:25 PM
Thomas Cameron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:02:18 -0700, Mark C. wrote:

> How many miles on the lightining moter?


He said it was about 40K miles. I'm going to do compression and oil
pressure tests off the bat to make sure the engine is OK.

> Try getting it running first and
> then upgrade to the blower.


Yeah, I probably will. I have a budget for this project, but blowing it
all up front worries me.

> You may like it naturally aspirated and can
> spend the money on better brakes, etc. If you get it running as is, you'll
> be able to work out the bugs before installing a blower.


Yeah, good point. I *really* want to get the suspension worked out, too.

> Remember murphy's
> law. Just my opinion.


Heck, it's not opinion - it's the LAW. :-) Murphy was an optimist.

Thomas
  #7  
Old June 24th 05, 08:26 PM
Thomas Cameron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:53:28 -0700, one80out wrote:


>
> I think you'll have more hp than 400.


Me, too. I'm just trying to keep from getting my hopes up too high.

> Sounds like a good direction to
> go. And you'll surely never see another one like it, which is a big
> plus.


Yeah, it will definitely be unique!

Thomas
  #8  
Old June 24th 05, 09:06 PM
66 6F HCS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Thomas Cameron" > wrote
> the guy says that it is not a hard
> swap, all you need is a high pressure fuel pump and lines.


It's not THAT easy. There are some things that have to be modified on the
harness for the 'puter to "see" things that you won't have on the '68. Plus,
you'll have to run O2 sensors in your exhaust, which means drilling and
adding the O2 bungs into your headers. You'll also have to plumb a return
line back to the gas tank and then figure out where you're going to have the
return line return to (through the sending unit usually). If ONLY it truly
WAS that easy.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/


  #9  
Old June 24th 05, 09:29 PM
Thomas Cameron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:06:21 -0600, 66 6F HCS wrote:

>
> "Thomas Cameron" > wrote
>> the guy says that it is not a hard
>> swap, all you need is a high pressure fuel pump and lines.

>
> It's not THAT easy. There are some things that have to be modified on the
> harness for the 'puter to "see" things that you won't have on the '68.


My understanding is that Painless can either sell you a complete
wiring harness or modify yours so that everything will work together.

> Plus,
> you'll have to run O2 sensors in your exhaust, which means drilling and
> adding the O2 bungs into your headers.


Ugh - hadn't thought of that.

> You'll also have to plumb a return
> line back to the gas tank and then figure out where you're going to have the
> return line return to (through the sending unit usually).


Yeah, we're looking at cutting a high pressure fuel pump out of some other
fuel tank and welding it into the Mustang's tank. Nothing like a little
fabrication work!

> If ONLY it truly
> WAS that easy.


Nothing, but nothing is ever *that* easy. :-)

But it ought to be a beast when all is said and done!

Thomas
  #10  
Old June 24th 05, 09:56 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A T56 will definitely require tunnel surgery. I don't believe I've
heard of any need for that with an AOD. I don't think $700 is much of
a bargain for an AOD. Those things are not rare, and these days
they're not young either. I would think about the 4R70W instead.
Here's one guy's web page on his '66's conversion:
http://www.blueriver.net/~finite/project_od.htm

180 Out

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 5 June 24th 05 05:27 AM
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 5 June 8th 05 05:28 AM
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 5 May 24th 05 05:27 AM
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 3 February 18th 05 06:34 AM
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 Dr. David Zatz Chrysler 4 February 2nd 05 06:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.