I want to 'downgrade' to a v6, tell me what you think
- Thread starter wicked93gs
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Yes, but you'd be adding the whole transaxles to the rear
that should be close to balancing it out.
Here is a web site with the idea of what I am thinking.
Please excuse the fact that this is a GM product.
http://www.lateral-g.net/5050/
All in all, I'm thinking this could be, if nothing else, one heck of a lot of fun to do, and one hell of a show car.
that should be close to balancing it out.
Here is a web site with the idea of what I am thinking.
Please excuse the fact that this is a GM product.
http://www.lateral-g.net/5050/
All in all, I'm thinking this could be, if nothing else, one heck of a lot of fun to do, and one hell of a show car.
heh, it is a rather heavy engine from experience...or rather heavy for a v6...all in all I would say it weighs in roughly the same as the 289
Then I wouldn't even consider that V6
Find another one more applicable.
Besides, you're supposed to be working on that R&P.
But seriously though, for the amount of effort and work, you can find a much lighter V6 and supercharge the darned thing, then be done with it.
For the amount of engineering involved to do a clean install with the engine you are talking about, (IMO) you are not going to come up with a clean looking car without a serious amount of rework as you originally stated.
So, If you are going that far, build the frame and make it right. Otherwise, let it go.
Just some input from someone who has been there and done that.
Find another one more applicable.
Besides, you're supposed to be working on that R&P.
But seriously though, for the amount of effort and work, you can find a much lighter V6 and supercharge the darned thing, then be done with it.
For the amount of engineering involved to do a clean install with the engine you are talking about, (IMO) you are not going to come up with a clean looking car without a serious amount of rework as you originally stated.
So, If you are going that far, build the frame and make it right. Otherwise, let it go.
Just some input from someone who has been there and done that.
wicked93gs said:
That is what the information I have found says, that it weighs about as much as a 289/302....actually a few pounds more. I want to keep it as far back as possible. You really can't move it forward anyway or the tranny bellhousing would be into the steering linkage. The whole oilpan/pickup is going to have to be redesigned. The only problem being the oilpan is structural in the way it is designed and bolts to the lower part of the bellhousing.
well...in that case I suppose the bottom will have to be cut off the bottom of the oil pain and some sheet aluminum used to create a front sump design...after all cast aluminum can be welded(I've had it done before) its just not ideal, at that point is probably the best time to have some 10AN fittings welded in for the turbo oil returns...its also a good time to icrease the oil capacity to 6 or 7 quarts
LMan
Founding Member
Why all the work to install an engine that weighs the same, yet is potentially less powerful, than a 289?
[puzzled]
[puzzled]
LMan said:
Belive me.....a SHO V6 will make more useable power than a 289 unless you really build up the 289 at which point you will be getting such lousy mileage the benefit of the SHO engine becomes even greater. Throw a budget turbo setup on the SHO engine and not only will you spank most 289 cars you won't loose any gas mileage if you drive conservatively. Not only will the car be quicker it should get ~30mpg on the highway at least. My 93 SHO used to get 29-30 mpg on the highway when it had 100K miles on it and a 65/66 Mustang weighs 500lbs less. Even with the aerodymanic hit it will be a push in the best case scenario.
Even though the SHO engine weighs about the same as a 289 the weight will be farther back in the chassis so the car is going to drive better. There are tons of reasons not to do this swap but I don't care. I want something different and have been planning this swap for at least 3 years. I will soon have the car to put it in and I have most of the parts.
LMan
Founding Member
*patting motion* Ron.....sounds great to me. I envy those with the willpower and skill to make these sorts of projects a reality. I am gravely deficient in both, sadly. I could ponder such a project but know better (now) not to even pick up a wrench
I must know my limitations and stick to the well-blazed trails (ruts?) that many others have made before me.
Best of luck.....we, of course, demand a full review with peeekchurrrresssss when you can report
I must know my limitations and stick to the well-blazed trails (ruts?) that many others have made before me.
Best of luck.....we, of course, demand a full review with peeekchurrrresssss when you can report
1320stang
Founding Member
I love the SHO engine, but if I were going to do something along these lines, I think I'd go with the mod V6. The Mustang v6's make about 220 stock and Procharger makes a blower for it. You already have the bellhousing which I think is the same as the V8's, so anything from the engine back would be the same as a GT.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
LMan said:
I know it's no consolation(especially to me), but a 2.3 turbo like what's in my SVO actually weighs the same as a 5.0, which weighs the same as an SHO V6. The only benefit is that the factory 2.3 block will hold more power than even a 351W. I wouldn't hesitate to build a ragged-edge high power 2.3, though.
I'm actually better off knowing the key limitations of any engine I build so I can rectify them or know not to exceed them.IMO, the SHO engine would be a better candidate for either a high compression, high RPM N/A build or high power turbocharging. Even if the weights are the same, power the same......even if the potential is ultimately equal, the SHO engine screams uniqueness.
I dunno, anyone sure they don't want to put a Skyine engine in there?
I for one dont like superchargers too much(or at least a supercharger isnt my first choice...besides there are SC setups available for the SHO should I ever decide I want one) I can build my own turbo kit for around $1200(1/3rd the cost of a SC) and turbos have the big advantage of not leeching power from the engine to run...also they are not always on, they are on demand only power adders...like nitrous that never runs out or has to be refilled, simply the best of all worlds, but you are right in asking why all the fuss...since after all the 289 makes like 220HP/290ft/lbs?(correct me if I am wrong) however...everyone who has a classic mustang has a v8, very few of them are modern v8s, even fewer are DOHC 4 valve engines(which is the only one I would want...I'm afraid I'm a technophile) with 4 valves per cylinder, I can get the same power as a v8(even a higher power v8) with double the gas mileage...and of course reason #1 was already stated, its fun and different...I enjoy challenges
well, I have been thinking on this and decided that I will probably use a reinforced mustang II front end...simply for the fact that if I use one I wont have to manufacture a custom oil pan that will end up costing me $500...also it would tie into my desire for better handling and give me more room for headers and turbos here is a picture of a SHO engine from the side
View attachment 434900
as you can see, with a mustang II conversion....
View attachment 434902
the rear sump design will not be a problem, so the biggest issue seems to be solved, as for the coolant neck on the 'back' of the engine...I think there just might be enough room I wont have to do anything but make a custom pipe...I can always move the engine forward a couple inches if need be
View attachment 434900
as you can see, with a mustang II conversion....
View attachment 434902
the rear sump design will not be a problem, so the biggest issue seems to be solved, as for the coolant neck on the 'back' of the engine...I think there just might be enough room I wont have to do anything but make a custom pipe...I can always move the engine forward a couple inches if need be
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
well, technically it is the back as used in a FWD application, but lets ignore the facts shall we? as for a v12, since when can I afford 8mpg? and even worse than 8mpg...I dont want to pay $500 for a set of spark plug wires! also I couldnt care less whether or not my engine has a picture of an animal on it 
p.s. 65shelbyclone...are you by any chance looking for a LA3 computer?
p.s. 65shelbyclone...are you by any chance looking for a LA3 computer?
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
well, I had one sitting around, I'll have to check if I still do, anyway if I do you can have it free if you pay shipping...I pulled it from an 88 turbo t-bird years ago when I had an XR4TI, I know it runs because it ran the Merkur...but the timing curves for intercooling are evidently very different since it didnt run right(or maybe the VAF was incorrectly sized for it) anyway, I see no reason for it to sit around since I wont ever be using it again most likely since I no longer have the XR, so if you want it let me know...oh and did you know that people have finally gotten the DOHC volvo head swap for the 2.3L running? theres some interesting potential there...
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
Similar threads
