65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
Just a friendly reminder that you can edit your first reply instead of making three new ones.....
1967 Shock Towers - SOHC Engine
- Thread starter kevinbelusa
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Rusty67
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Heidt's kit = MII setup
MII setup = weakened overall structure of the car
Big ass SOHC motor = a lot of power
Heidt's kit = bad idea
I agree, especially with just the last line.
Ford designed the Mustang unibody with the weight being carried into the shock towers and then the firewall, not on the subframe.
The Mustang II front end belongs on Mustang IIs. The subframe is much thicker and stronger on the MII, as well.
Rusty67
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
I'm am really quite against using an MII setup in a classic Mustang. It can be done in a way that doesn't compromise the strength of the body, however it requires an extensive amount of work be done to the chasis beyond just installing the MII kit. It is, IMO simply not worth the trouble/cost/time.
Most of the time other options will work well enough. I havn't heard of an MII setup ever actually being neccessary to fit a motor in place as of yet, it may come up eventually. Anything that big.... I'd like to see just for the sake of seeing it in the engine bay.
SOHC in Mustang
At some level everything is a compromise. I have an SOHC motor (Stroked to 482ci) and I have a 67 S-Code Mustang. I would not put that motor in my car without doing something to move/remove the shock towers. The Heidts kit does that better than any other suspension kit. I also think that any real or percieved weakness in the stiffness of the front can easily be overcome.
The modular motor (DOHC) is also very wide, if you know anyone that has swapped one of those in, you may be able to get some additional ideas. The only swap I have seen like that was on the cover of Hot Rod as year or so ago and the owner used a Heidts kit.
Good luck, I am a little envious. My Mustang is a GTA convertible with the S-Code engine, factory A/C and most other options, so I will not put that motor in my car, but it is going to go in something...
If you do not have a transmission yet, in my thoughts I am going to use a Richmond 5 speed in order to get a better compromise on overall uses. The Richmond does not have an overdrive, so you can have a lower rear end ratio and balance 1/4 mile times, road racing and highway driving pretty well; even though the toploader would be the favored or more correct choice.
This sounds like as great project, keep us posted on your decisions.
At some level everything is a compromise. I have an SOHC motor (Stroked to 482ci) and I have a 67 S-Code Mustang. I would not put that motor in my car without doing something to move/remove the shock towers. The Heidts kit does that better than any other suspension kit. I also think that any real or percieved weakness in the stiffness of the front can easily be overcome.
The modular motor (DOHC) is also very wide, if you know anyone that has swapped one of those in, you may be able to get some additional ideas. The only swap I have seen like that was on the cover of Hot Rod as year or so ago and the owner used a Heidts kit.
Good luck, I am a little envious. My Mustang is a GTA convertible with the S-Code engine, factory A/C and most other options, so I will not put that motor in my car, but it is going to go in something...
If you do not have a transmission yet, in my thoughts I am going to use a Richmond 5 speed in order to get a better compromise on overall uses. The Richmond does not have an overdrive, so you can have a lower rear end ratio and balance 1/4 mile times, road racing and highway driving pretty well; even though the toploader would be the favored or more correct choice.
This sounds like as great project, keep us posted on your decisions.
1320stang
Founding Member
SOHC Kit for 14-15k
This is not something that is available yet. Many people are talking about it, but all the parts are not all being made yet and the ones that are, are expensive.
I have been following this for several years; when a bunch of people have gotten kits and don't scream bloody murder when they try to put them together, I'll buy one.
This is not something that is available yet. Many people are talking about it, but all the parts are not all being made yet and the ones that are, are expensive.
I have been following this for several years; when a bunch of people have gotten kits and don't scream bloody murder when they try to put them together, I'll buy one.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
Rusty67
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
FE or 429/460?
I wish, but I don't have either. With some rearranging I could probably get a picture of a 289 next to a 390...
I wish, but I don't have either. With some rearranging I could probably get a picture of a 289 next to a 390...
The fellow who started this thread needs to put an SOHC in a classic mustang. This significantly limits options. the Heidts kit is the only kit I know that will work (Ther may be others) I actually looked for similar builds (DOHC modular in a classic Mustang) and the three I found all used Heidts kit.
For a more straightforward build (ie. no shock tower modifications or removal) I would use something else. This is a forum to offer suggestions and share ones experiences, not "beat people down" For those of you that have not seen a 390 in a '67 Mustang, keep in mind many of these cars have never had all eight spark plugs changed, and making the engine 7-8 inches wider requires significant modification to the shock towers and the location of shocks or shock tower removal.
Additional Points
Thanks everyone for your advice and help. To further the conversation I thought I might add a few things. The first is I didn’t expect ever be able to find a SOHC engine let alone install one in a '67 Stang that I own!
I was building the car to run a stock 427 FE which requires no shock tower mods at all. As a result of the condition of the car and the initial plan, I had most of the metal in the front replaced and spend a lot of time researching suspensions for the front and rear. I chose the TCP front coil over because it was the strongest and lightest front suspension I could find that required little or no modification to the front end and had a lot of people who swear by it.
I considered installing a modern cobra motor, which is wider by an inch or 2 then the SOHC 427, but decided instead on cubic inches. The Mod motor requires that the front shock tower be removed, using MII type installation or the use of a notching kit and strut type front. If anyone is thinking about this the shock tower notching kit and front suspension is available via RRS. Unfortunately this notching kit will only work with the strut type front suspension as it does not contain an upper A Arm.
So here is my solution to the issue. If anyone sees any fault in this of could provide any insight, it would be very much appreciated. This is my first build and I want it done right!!!
I have a 390 in my shop, I am going to install it in the stang tonight, remove the head and then measure 9 “ off the blocks head surface. This 9” should represent the widest point of the 427 SOHC engine from the furthest edge of the block. This measurement, of coarse, will hit the shock towers at some to be determined point. From here I measure on the other side of the shock tower to determine the space available to “notch”. I think, as long as this point is above the Upper A arm mounting position (which has been lowered by 1” as per TCP instructions), and the notch doesn’t hit the coil over, I think I am ok. Comments?
BTW I was told that by using the TCP front coil over I have freed up 1”-1/2” on the other side of the shock tower as this kit is thinner than the stock set up? Comments?
I have attached 2 pics. One is of an all aluminum Cammer 427. SHE IS WIDE! The other pic is of a cammer 427 on a dyno. Note the location and direction of the headers. anyone see any future issues for me here. I was told that this unique feature of teh SOHC will made fitting it easier, not harder! comments?
Thanks everyone for your advice and help. To further the conversation I thought I might add a few things. The first is I didn’t expect ever be able to find a SOHC engine let alone install one in a '67 Stang that I own!
I was building the car to run a stock 427 FE which requires no shock tower mods at all. As a result of the condition of the car and the initial plan, I had most of the metal in the front replaced and spend a lot of time researching suspensions for the front and rear. I chose the TCP front coil over because it was the strongest and lightest front suspension I could find that required little or no modification to the front end and had a lot of people who swear by it.
I considered installing a modern cobra motor, which is wider by an inch or 2 then the SOHC 427, but decided instead on cubic inches. The Mod motor requires that the front shock tower be removed, using MII type installation or the use of a notching kit and strut type front. If anyone is thinking about this the shock tower notching kit and front suspension is available via RRS. Unfortunately this notching kit will only work with the strut type front suspension as it does not contain an upper A Arm.
So here is my solution to the issue. If anyone sees any fault in this of could provide any insight, it would be very much appreciated. This is my first build and I want it done right!!!
I have a 390 in my shop, I am going to install it in the stang tonight, remove the head and then measure 9 “ off the blocks head surface. This 9” should represent the widest point of the 427 SOHC engine from the furthest edge of the block. This measurement, of coarse, will hit the shock towers at some to be determined point. From here I measure on the other side of the shock tower to determine the space available to “notch”. I think, as long as this point is above the Upper A arm mounting position (which has been lowered by 1” as per TCP instructions), and the notch doesn’t hit the coil over, I think I am ok. Comments?
BTW I was told that by using the TCP front coil over I have freed up 1”-1/2” on the other side of the shock tower as this kit is thinner than the stock set up? Comments?
I have attached 2 pics. One is of an all aluminum Cammer 427. SHE IS WIDE! The other pic is of a cammer 427 on a dyno. Note the location and direction of the headers. anyone see any future issues for me here. I was told that this unique feature of teh SOHC will made fitting it easier, not harder! comments?
Attachments
You can still notch the towers and use stockish suspension with a DOHC. If you want to go with a strut system, I'd probably use AJE's system myself. The picture below isn't mine, it belongs to Mike Erickson on ModularFords. He is using global west upper control arms now.
Shot with E775 at 2007-08-03
Attachments
reenmachine
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Never bothered me. I've done several with great results and continue to be a fan. Then again, I'm different than the vocal critics in that I've actually done the install instead of just parroting negative info I read on the internet.
Rusty67
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Reen, if someone else said that I'd call bull**** on it. I have seen the quality of your work and I'm sure if you installed an MII front suspension setup that it would be done right.
That said, I don't think the MII setup should be used unless it is absolutely needed. Stock geometry is good (modifiable to be excelent) and a lot can be done for clearance to retain the stock setup. Hell, I'm not even really a fan of coil over setups for the front end.
