1965 mustang 427 side oiler swap

[SNAKEPILOT]

You said Genesis Sideoiler. Aluminum or iron? If aluminum, don't worry about the weight.

289 - 460 lbs
351 - 510 lbs
427 - 650 lbs

Aluminum block saves 82 lbs
Fe intakes are massive, an aluminum intake saves 55 lbs
Aluminum heads save 38 lbs
Total weight savings is 175 lbs
Engine weight is now 475 lbs

Lose the shock towers and you should be good to go.

 

[BarnStang]

D. , I think the diference is in the lower control arms. Interstingly, there is 65 & 66, 67 by its self!!, and 68 to 73.
THe upers are 65-66, and then 67-73. THe fenders are bigger on the 67-68. Isn't that how they changed the wheelbase? THe frame and chassis is the same 65-68 I thought...
THe frame rails in the parts catalogs (online) show frame rails 65-68, but i can't find the one that goes accross the front that the core support attaches to.

 

[D.Hearne]

No, it's not the control arms. Back when I did the disc to drum swap on my 67 big block FB, (late 67---it had a rag joint in the steering) I used 68-73 lowers and 67 uppers with 72 front spindles. I think the ball joints are different on the lowers. The early 67's also use the 65-66 Steering shaft and box. I measured the frame rails on my 77 Comet and it's 31-1/2 from fender apron to apron (just forward of the towers), think it was 26" inside to inside. If anyone can compare that to their Stangs, post it. Maybe it is just the shock towers that allowed the big block to fit. I always figured it was the chassis being widened.

 

[dennis112]

I measured the ID of my 65' frame and it is 28" anywhere from front to back. With the motor installed, I cannot measure from lower apron to apron, but would guess that it measures about the same as your 31 1/2" measurement.

I measured the ID from the apron to apron, up high where the Monte Carlo bar is and got 40".

I also noted that the area where the battery is notched more and the top of the apron is about 42" wide there.

I also found an engine compartment pic of a 67' and it has a similiar notch out for the battery.

Another shot of the 67' engine compartment:

The area of the shock towers where the upper control arms are mounted are not as bulged as the 65/66. The towers almost appear to be vertical to the ground, whereas the early model has a definite V shape that protrudes more into the engine compartment.

Here is what I believe is a 70' (Cleveland motor) and it has the same general apron top appearance lines as the 65/66:

 

[Loup-garou]

I measured the ID of my 65' frame and it is 28" anywhere from front to back. With the motor installed, I cannot measure from lower apron to apron, but would guess that it measures about the same as your 31 1/2" measurement.
(snip)
The area of the shock towers where the upper control arms are mounted are not as bulged as the 65/66. The towers almost appear to be vertical to the ground, whereas the early model has a definite V shape that protrudes more into the engine compartment.
(snip)

I found the chassis dimensions of both the '65-'66 cars and the later '69-'70 cars on the Treasure Coast Mustangs website (tech page). The spacing of front frame rails appears the same on the two pages, which suggests that the '67-'68 were the same, too.

 

[D.Hearne]

The upper measurement between the apron tops is different from a 65-66 than my 77 Comet for sure. I have a 65-66 Monte Carlo bar left over from a parts car and was going to use it on the Comet, but it's too short to reach.

 

[jeffstar]

Quote[That won't work. The 67-70 engine bay and chassis is wider than a 65-66. It's not just the towers that are different, the whole chassis is wider.]end Quote

To set the record straight, engine bay is same width in 65-68, shock towers and LCA from 68 can be used in a 65 to allow BB to be installed with factory look.

 

[horseballz]

First off, many of the earlier posts have referred to this "427" as a "big block". It is an "FE", NOT a "big block!" That being said, anyone here who has never experienced the thrill of a "WELL BUILT" 427 under their toe, simply knows not what they're missing. If all was aluminum except the block/crank it would likely be a similar in weight to a stock small block (351 would weigh more), maybe a tad less than a small block with it's cast iron intake. An all aluminum block, heads and intake would weigh much less and one of the most important added options would be a roll of paper for your buds when you take them for an "ALL OUT" ride! Anything is doable it's simply a matter of skills and/or money. I you have someone else do the majority of the work it will cost several boatload$ of CA$H, on the other hand, if you are skilled at welding and fabrication the cost could be minimal, except, of course, the price of the engine. If you actually do it, please come see me to give me a ride. I could use a good, immediate bowel movement.
My $.02,
Gene