95 Mustang V6 in a II

[Blue Thunder]

The 300 truck motor is what I'd use, it's an inch or two taller than the 144/170/200/250 car inline 6.
The 300 has 3.98" stroke x 4" bore. Stock, they peak around 280 ft/lbs of torque at 1600 rpm!
They're awesome motors. I have one in my old 4x4 full size Bronco, and with a C6 and 3.55 gears, it's getting 19 mpg.

 

[Blue coyote]

Taller, yeah, but how much LONGER? Were you planning to move the rad support a foot forward or pull the firewall back to the dash face?

 

[MUSTANG J]

You reckon dude you got the car from knows he's gonna have to get a new K-member for his car to drop in a 5.0? From what I've read, the 3.8 used a different K-member than the 4popper and V8 cars, thus the reason for dropping it going into 87

The 3.8l is a V6 the V6 K-frame is the same as the V8 and the 4cyl. The 3.3L is the straight six and it has a special K-frame.

 

[Blue Thunder]

Taller, yeah, but how much LONGER? Were you planning to move the rad support a foot forward or pull the firewall back to the dash face?

It's really not that much longer. Maybe 3 or 4 inches?

And YES, I'd move all that junk outa the way if I had to! You can't let a little bit of sheet metal get in the way of torque!

 

[Blue Thunder]

I had previously dropped a thread in the V6 forums asking about a carb type intake for the 4.0. If that were an option that would be awesome, but I didn't get much there and I even googled it, with no luck. Ideally I'd like to pick up a 4.0 with the tranny and drop into a II. Since my T-top doesn't have a powertrain in it right now, I could drop a 302 in which I already have everything for or go a little wild and try something different. I prefer something different. You would think someone would at least make a sheet metal intake for a 4.0 that would be sweet.

Hey, whattaya know, there IS a 4V manifold for the 4 Liter motors. ($500)
Plus, stroker kits, hot cams, long and short block assemblies, etc etc.

http://www.krestsig.com/category.html?CategoryID=32

 

[Blue coyote]

It's really not that much longer. Maybe 3 or 4 inches?

Plus the added clearance needed for a bellhousing not designed for a II (unless a II V8 flexplate/flywheel will work on a 300 I6?), the added depth needed for non-II accessory brackets and belts (even if you go with a pusher fan in the grille), whatever x-member mods would be needed (unless you consider it okay to run a really tall induction hood just to clear the valve cover...)

And YES, I'd move all that junk outa the way if I had to! You can't let a little bit of sheet metal get in the way of torque!

Well, get started! I wanna see pics of your build

 

[Stang2Man]

I think I heard once that a 300 would bolt directly up in place of a 302. Someone else here may know for sure, I know of people that would swear by that 300 I6 though. As to reference to a 4bbl carb intake a for the 4.0 it's a shame it's a setup for a OHV motor instead of the SOHC. Plus for $500 I'd expect it to look a little bit less like a shadetree project.

 

[Dano78]

Hmmm... Doesn't look much like a $500CD intake to me. Looks like an FI bottom intake fitted with some crazy universal home made top. Probably fab one of those up better and cheaper. How about running a distrubitor in the 4.0L? Is that possible? Does the pushrod 4.0 have a gear cast on the camshaft for use with a distributor?


They stuffed 250 I6s into the Mavericks. The Maverick has a pretty short hoodline, much like a II. The '70 Grabber I had some time ago came factory with a 250ci I6 and it used a very short Carter RBS 1bbl carb. It flows more than the Carter YF does, which was used on the 200ci and some later 250ci sixes. Matter of fact, i believe that the RBS was one of the largest CFM 1bbls offered on the 250ci and smaller sixes.

 

[Blue coyote]

Maverick engine bay is WAY longer than a II engine bay, and because its so narrow between the shock towers, the Maverick/Comet platform is a PERFECT inline six candidate. I had a buddy's Maverick in my driveway until 3 days ago, and getting to the plugs on a V8 Maverick is considerably more effort than in a V8 Mustang II, and yet the Maverick doesn't have anywhere near the tight exhaust routing, even with a larger bellhousing...

 

[Blue Thunder]

The 300 I6 has the same flexplate as the 302(except the 300's has zero balance), same bellhousing pattern, too. The oil pan may be the biggest problem, in order to clear the x-member, but it's nothing some spare sheet metal and a mig can't fix. I'd most likely end up modifying the upper firewall so that the motor and trans could be moved back a few inches. That would help a lot with weight bias, anyway.
Think about it, though, a stock 300 makes its peak 270-290 ft/lbs of torque at 1600 rpm. With a 5-speed and 3.10s, you could cruise at about 65 mph at 1600 rpm, and since the motor makes so much torque, you could accelerate up steep hills, without coming out of 5th gear. With some head work, 4bbl intake, 390 holley carb, header, and higher ratio rockers on the 300, it could make an easy 240 hp, and 350 ft/lbs of torque. The truck guys on another website who specialize in the 300s actually get 3-4mpg more with all those mods done over the stock 300.

I seriously think 30 mpg highway would be possible in a light car, with substantially faster acceleration than a mild 302 would have. The 300 is no joke. But as I said, a II might actually end up requiring too much fitment to make it worthwhile, so a fox body coupe could end up with a 300 instead.

P.S. the 300 only weighs 560 pounds, ready to go, so weight isnt even an issue.