95 Mustang V6 in a II

Discussion in '1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech' started by Putter, Jan 2, 2008.

  1. The 4.0 does have more base HP than a 3.8, good luck with that. If you're still playing around with the idea of a 3.8 from a donor car, go with a 1996 or newer, since the older ones had head gasket issues. I don't know the reliability issues, but I'll go ahead and tell you that I've been pressing 11 psi through a procharger on mine for nearly 80,000 miles with no issues, and still get 28 mpg.
  2. alright I'm pulling this thread back up to date. Since I have an expedition that gets horrible gas mileage and 2 of my II's have 302's.
    Anyway I got questions, does the 2.8 in the II's have a front sump pan? I can't find my haynes manual so I got nothing to look at here that would tell me anything about a V6 in a II. The 4.0 went thru maturity sometime around 2000 in the explorers and went SOHC versus what the 2.8 was with OHV. Does the 2.8 have the same bolt pattern as small block ford motors, or is bellhousing specific to that motor, or does it even align with the 2.3? How much different are V6 motor mounts in the II? Do they require different frame mounts ie like changing from I4 to V8? I've got a T-top that's a factory V8 car so I'm seriously considering picking up a 4.0 and hooking this thing up since I've pretty extremely happy with the 4.0 in my wife's 05.
  3. My 460 in my pickup gets 10-11 mpg. The 351W in the other truck gets 14-16mpg. Pretty good numbers really, and besides that they are paid for. I dunno what to tell you about the Expedition, other than it's a heavy pig and if it's a V10 it will certainly drink gas no matter what. As for the V8 IIs, if they still have the 2bbl on it, loose them. A small 4bbl is way more efficient than that 2bbl will ever be. (as long as you keep your foot out of it) Netting 17-18+ mpg out of a 302 is not uncommon, fuel injected or not.

    Not that I am aware of. However anything can be fabbed up, with a little imagination. The 2.8s were also installed in the Ranger/Bronco IIs and Aerostars that i know of. These are slightly different internally but should be the same externally. I'm not sure what the Aerostar pan looks like. The Ranger/ Bronco II is a rear or mid-sump pan depending on the year/application. A 4.0L or 2.9L pan may also fit the 2.8, but have no idea if this will gain you any points.

    The 2.8L bellhousing is specific within its family. This includes the 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, and 4.0 engines. A 302 bell will NOT bolt up. Neither will the 2.3L I4, it's one of it's own aswell.
    However a 3.8L V6 will bolt up to your V8 C4 trans. I have been running the 3.8L AOD behind a few V8s.

    Not really sure what you are asking here. The II 2.8L mount is specific to the II, Pinto, Bobcat, etc... but different by comparison with the Rangers, Aerostars and so on.

    Yes, swapping between the I4 to the V8 or V-6 to V8, or I4 to V6, will need the corresponding frame stands and engine mounts. If going TO a V6 or an I4, you can source Pinto/Bobcat parts aswell to broaden your availability.

    In your case, I'd look at a 3.8L swap since you'll be able to re-use your current transmission and probably alot of other things.
    However, if you don't want to deal with the EFI, the carbed 2.8L can be stuffed in but will require frame stands, mounts, transmission, and any other brackets to run accessories that didn't come with the engine. And me personally wouldn't drive a V6 car unless it was a stick. So if you feel the same way, factor in pedal assy, cable assy, driveline, probably new clutch set and any little parts you didn't get with a donor.

  4. I wonder if there's an aftermarket 4bbl intake available for the 4.0L?
  5. 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.
  6. AFAIK, all recent Ford engines are rear sump or mid-sump. This includes the 3.8L V6, the 4.0L V6, the 2.3L I4 Lima, and the 2.3L DOHC Mazda I4. Most come with case aluminum oilpans, so modifying them will require more than a hammer. :)

    On the other hand, the 'toilet bowl' reinforcement in the MII front suspension can be removed or modified probably leaving room for a V6 rear sump oilpan. I have a Ranger with the 4.0L OHV V6 and Mazda 5-speed if anyone needs any measurements.

    For an MII that came from the factory with a 302 V8, I would go with the 3.8L and 5speed out of the '99+ SN-95 Mustang. On the plus side you get a great 5-speed, light weight, EFI, and a close fit on the engine mounts. On the down side you have to fabricate the EFI fuel system, possibly modify the headers, and possibly modify the oilpan. There is a steel front sump oilpan for the 3.8 from the early carburated Fox Mustangs and T-Birds.

    For an MII that came from the factory with a 2.8L V6, I would go with the 4.0L V6 out of the Ranger. On the plus side you get lighter weight engine and a close fit with the engine mounts. On the negative, you have to fabricate the EFI system, possibly modify the oilpan, and change to a T-5 if you have the truck 5-speed. Personally I would stick with the OHV 4.0L V6 rather than the later OHC engine. The OHV engine is much more compact, and it still has great performance potential.
  7. Amazing how I find this thread...

    I'm about to get a 77 rolling chassis dropped off, and the guy is including an 83 (carbed) 3.8 and tranny with it. The 77 was originally a V8 car as well.

    So does this sound like the hardest part of putting this all together is going to be finding a gastank that won't cost me more than the rest of the build?

    So far, I think just about everything but the gastank will either come with the chassis or get pulled out of my parts pile...

    I hope this goes pretty smooth, because as soon as its done, I'm giving it to the wife so she can finally scrap the 81 POS coupe that I've hated since before she bought the damned thing (although I think it knows its days are numbered...it hasn't run this smooth in over a year):D
  8. Was he planning the swap? Mayne he gave up for a reason, keep us posted.

  9. Ever hear the saying 'They never run so good as just before they blow up'?

    Better get it done, clocks running.
  10. Mark, I believe that quote was started by chevy owners.:rlaugh:
  11. Lately, I've been thinking about dropping a warmed up 250hp 300 inline 6 in a Mustang. Not sure if it'll fit in a II without moving the firewall some, so I might have to use a brick 'Stang for the project. I'm thinking 30 mpg with a T5, and more low end torque than the Mustang could hook.
  12. I'd hack the top off the injected intake and tig some tubes and a carb flange on there.
  13. Naw, he bought the II because of all the spare parts it came with. He's also into the Foxbodies (we're not all perfect, right?) and has an 83 coupe with the 3.8 just sitting there getting in his way.

    I was thinking and pondering trying to stuff the 3.3 inline 6 from the wife's POS into the II, but it seems like the 3.8 may be a bit easier and won't require dismembering the daily driver to make it work.

    He dropped off the 77 chassis in my driveway Saturday, and I've started going over it a bit. It needs the top 4-5" of the inner fender sheetmetal replaced, and a quick cut with the holesaw to get rid of a quarter-sized hole in the floorpan (rubber plug and its good to go!). Beyond that I think the only things to slow the project are going to be any wrinkles in the engine swap, a gastank, and maybe a bit of bumper fabrication.

    I'll probably go over and pull the 3.8 next weekend...
  14. 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
  15. I'm pretty sure the 83 donor is strictly a parts car. I'm now hoping I'll be able to get enough clearance with the manual rack that the early 3.8 pan and exhaust will clear the II x-members and rack without too much "precision adjustment"... :D
  16. How soon do you think you would get started on this project? I've got a T-top that's ready for a powertrain, and I'm wanting to do something besides a 302 in it. I'd greatly appreciate someone else's hands on knowledge versus theoretical knowledge when it comes to diving into an odd engine/body combo.
  17. I probably won't have the engine/tranny here until next weekend, and with the number of projects I seem to constantly be (not-)working on, it may be a month or more before I dive too deep on this one.

    I'll post any insight I gain to this thread, though, as soon as I gain any... :D
  18. what I'm mostly wondering is if the 3.8 motor mount points are the same for a 302? If they are then what I'm thinking is using mostly V8 parts to drop it in, and of course depending on where those mounts are located on the block headers may be considering for an install as well as a non II bellhousing with a little extra clearance.
  19. I'll be able to take a few measurements once the 3.8 is in my garage. I have a 302 sitting for comparison purposes (its out of my 77 Cobra II):nice:
  20. I found this pic on the web a long time ago. Unfortunately there was no detail.

    I'm betting its a 170 ci or 200 tops...it just fits too well. :)

    There should be a bunch of 200's floating around in mid-'80's Fairmonts and Zephyrs...

    Attached Files: