1968 Mustang Cpe / 2001 Mustang GT Conv.


Registered: September 2001
Location: Allen, TX

68 I6 to V8 engine swap

My wife bought me a 1968 Mustang for my birthday this weekend. The I6 needs to be rebuilt, so I was thinking about putting in a 302 or 351W, but am not sure which. I was told that all I would have to change is the suspension, the bell housing, the motor mounts, and the radiator. It is an automatic, so I should be okay there. Does this sound correct?
Also, what year engine should I use? Does it matter?
What specific parts of the suspension need to be replaced? Aren't the shocks and the control arms the same?
It has power steering, power brakes and A/C.

Thanks in advance for the help and advice.

__________________
2001 Mustang GT Conv.
1968 Mustang Coupe (302 w/ mild cam, electronic distributor, dual exhaust w/ 2-chamber flowmasters)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

69' Convertible, 99' 35th Anniversary


Registered: August 2000
Location: Currently: Exeter NH, Formerly: TX, MA, and a Native Rhode Islander

Not as simple to do as it sounds. There is much work involved. The topic has been covered many times. You may want to browse through some of these prior threads that came up in a search for "engine swap".

http://forums.stangnet.com/search.p...rder=descending

__________________

I can, therfore I Must.........ang!

A Mach 1 is great, but haven't you always wanted a Mach 5???

Mach 5 Motorsports

Racer X's Shooting Star coming soon!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

64 1/2 convertible: "stock as a rock"


Registered: May 2000
Location: Tacoma, WA USA

This swap is discussed all the time on this board. Understand that the six cylinder car was built of lighter duty components and doing a PROPER conversion is a considerable task. In addition to the specific items you mention, the brakes need to be changed to larger units, the diferential should be converted to include five-bolt pattern.... like Pak suggests, do a search.

The 302 is a better fit than the 351.

In my opinion, the job is too expensive in time and money. It would be my advice just to go buy a V-8 car and be done with it. Sure, it CAN be done but why?

__________________
SuperDave's timeless wisdom:

1- "Rust never sleeps!"
2- "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."
3-"Never say a job is easy until after you have finished it."
4- "Cheap ain't good and good ain't cheap."
5- "Just because a part is "new" doesn't mean it is good: VERIFY it!"
6- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance:PPPPPP
7- "When in doubt, RTFM! (read the FORD manual)
8- "A little Bondo and a little paint can make a Mustang what it ain't."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

66-302 Coupe & 67-200 Coupe


Registered: February 2002
Location: Mesa, Az.

SuperDave hit the nail on the head. If you want a V8, buy a V8 car and save yourself time and money.

But since you have the six, check out Fordsix.com for some ideas for better performance. The six isn't as bad as you think. Due to its lighter weight, the handling is much improved over a V8, and you can still get them to perform respectfully.

Mustang Monthly's April issue has a six with a Paxton supercharger on an otherwise bone stock 200. His numbers are very impressive, check it out too.

You can also check out a current thread "Performance Suggestions" by Sprint Stang for some pics of my 67 coupe with a hot six.

Either way, welcome to the world of Classic Mustangs.

__________________
Mike
67-200 Coupe
66-302 Coupe
http://pages.prodigy.net/winterboer1/_uimages/smallcombo.JPG

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1968 Mustang Cpe / 2001 Mustang GT Conv.


Registered: September 2001
Location: Allen, TX

Not a bad idea! I never even thought about a supercharger. Definately something to think about. I'll have to go out and buy that issue of Mustang Monthly.
Thanks for the help guys.

__________________
2001 Mustang GT Conv.
1968 Mustang Coupe (302 w/ mild cam, electronic distributor, dual exhaust w/ 2-chamber flowmasters)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

69' Convertible, 99' 35th Anniversary


Registered: August 2000
Location: Currently: Exeter NH, Formerly: TX, MA, and a Native Rhode Islander

I was actually going to suggest you check out AZcoupe's car too, only I'll go one better and give you the link to it and save you some time.

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthre...threadid=132301

While Superdave is right that it's way easier to start with a V8, he is forgetting what this hobby is truly about, emotional attachment! Your very first statement was "My wife bought me a 1968 Mustang for my birthday this weekend". So personally, I wouldn't dream of following his advice to "just to go buy a V-8 car and be done with it". It's the first time I have not agreed with his timeless wisdom. Sometimes the easy way out is not the best route. When an emotion like this involved, any amount of time or money is not a waste. Sorry SD. This does not however suggest that you should do it. AZCoupes car is an outstanding example of just how magnificent your car can be. All the SHOW and still most of the GO.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

67 GT 390 FB, 65 6cyl CP, 66 390 T-bird


Registered: December 2001
Location: St. Louis

I personally really like the I6. I have a 65 Coupe with a 6cyl. 3 speed. As everyone has mentioned, you can do quite a bit to enhance the performance of the 200 without changing to a v8. Not to mention that the 200's are a very strong engine. My coupe has been sitting for 5 years without turning over, and my uncle and I boosted it this summer and within 3 minutes it was running. It didn't burn any oil, sputter or anything. Actually, it sounded better than my 390 and I have put lots of time and effort into the 390. The picture was taken at the same time it was running last summer. I really wish people gave the I6 more credit for being a truly strong and reliable engine, as well as the potential performance, granted it isn't the same as a v8. Good luck, I hope this helps.

__________________
67 S-code GT Fastback 4V 4spd
65 6 cyl. 3spd Coupe, 66 390 T-bird

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1967 mustang


Registered: February 2002
Location: North Carolina

I have to disagree with alot of these guys this time. The swap has been done on my car for over 15 years and I still have the same suspension. The control arms, idler arm, tie rods are all the same. You do NOT need to switch to five lug spindles or rear end; I never have. If you add gobs of power, then yes, the rear and tranny will need to be upgraded, but in my case, everything has worked fine. All old Mustangs could use a brake upgrade, but it has nothing to do with swapping an I6 for a V8.

__________________
6 to 8 conversion
302
headers
dual exhaust
deluxe interior w/brushed aluminum
needs lotsa work

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

69' Convertible, 99' 35th Anniversary


Registered: August 2000
Location: Currently: Exeter NH, Formerly: TX, MA, and a Native Rhode Islander

Hmmmmm, I think that's is great and all, but I'd consider yourself lucky and leave it at that. I wouldn't reccomend anybody do the switch without doing it all, otherwise why would Ford, the geniuses at letting nothing go to waste, go thru all the trouble of re-designing and beefing up all the parts for the V8's? You may have skated thru 15 years without a hitch, but honestly, I think that's like telling someone to go ahead and play russian roulette because you've done it and your still alive. Your case is the exception to the rule. It's just good safety practice. Something worth doing is worth doing right.

67GTFastback: I think the problem always boils down to appearance honestly. Regardless of how proven the 200 is to be an excellent runner, or how pretty it's dressed up, it just looks so enemic in there. Unfortunately for a car, it can't just stuff a sock in there to appear like there's more.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1968 Mustang Cpe / 2001 Mustang GT Conv.


Registered: September 2001
Location: Allen, TX

So what exactly is different on the suspension?
When I look in a Mustang catalog, the only thing that I see that is different is the coil springs.
It appears that they all use the same shocks and leaf springs.

__________________
2001 Mustang GT Conv.
1968 Mustang Coupe (302 w/ mild cam, electronic distributor, dual exhaust w/ 2-chamber flowmasters)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

67, 65 mustang coupes


Registered: September 2001
Location: HAHA I escaped fricken new mexico!!! I am an Oregonian now

i knew a girl in high school that had a 65 that had the v8 conversion without doing anything other than swapping the motor. she was pulling out of a parking lot after school and the right front spindle broke off dragging the tire and wheel and the underside of the car. the tire was at a 90* angle.

__________________
drive it like grandma stole it...


http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/bencurtisrocks/

http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0011/monkey/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

64 1/2 convertible: "stock as a rock"


Registered: May 2000
Location: Tacoma, WA USA

Follow me on this: A person does the 6 to V-8 swap (and spends a lot of money in the process) to achieve what? My guess is that you'll say the "p" word (PERFORMANCE) What good is performance if you can't use it? How can you safely and enjoyably use the performance gained with a car that is not equipped to handle it?

If you've been here a while, you've seen me defend standard drum brakes as being very adequate. How can the already undersized brakes on a six possibly accomodate a "rippin" V-8 when so many of you are critical of them in the original application? Seems to me, "smart money" would step up to the disc brake conversion and thereby remove al doubt about the adequacy of the brake system. Ditto the suspension, steering and drive line.

I've always held that the six cylinder was an adequate performer even in stock configuration. Having owned several, I can quantify that statement. Of course there is always the "there no substitute for cubic inches" crowd who can't get over the fact that is absolutly an outdated concept. Need I remind you of the performance of the current 4.6 Mustangs compared to their "bigger" 5.0 brothers?

I propose a new saying' for the 21st century: "There is NO substitute for technology." SuperDave 2002

__________________
SuperDave's timeless wisdom:

1- "Rust never sleeps!"
2- "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."
3-"Never say a job is easy until after you have finished it."
4- "Cheap ain't good and good ain't cheap."
5- "Just because a part is "new" doesn't mean it is good: VERIFY it!"
6- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance:PPPPPP
7- "When in doubt, RTFM! (read the FORD manual)
8- "A little Bondo and a little paint can make a Mustang what it ain't."

Last edited by SuperDave on 03-19-02 at 04:46 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ignore this post


Registered: February 2001
Location: Cowtown

quote:

---

Originally posted by SuperDave
Need I remind you of the performance of the current 4.6 Mustangs compared to their "bigger" 5.0 brothers?

---

Well, my 4.6 gets its ass kicked by the "bigger" 5.0

__________________
66 Fastback-> 289 4bbl / Black, Red interior / C4 auto
96 GT-> Lotsa bolt ons / Black, Black Leather / 5 spd
96 V6-> Wife's car / Pacific Green, Grey interior / stock / 5 spd

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

66-302 Coupe & 67-200 Coupe


Registered: February 2002
Location: Mesa, Az.

Here is a couple of shots of a 66 that belongs to a friend of mine. Actually he is the one who inspired me to keep the six. I am forever in his debt. Check out his website, lots of good info. http://www.oocities.org/mustang_man_1966/index.html




Just goes to show you what a six can do given the right attention.

__________________
Mike
67-200 Coupe
66-302 Coupe
http://pages.prodigy.net/winterboer1/_uimages/smallcombo.JPG

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

64 1/2 convertible: "stock as a rock"


Registered: May 2000
Location: Tacoma, WA USA

Blake: I can't imagine that happening unless the 5.0 had been "pumped up" a bit. Drove my neighbor's 2001 ragtop recently. With 320 plus ponies, it just flat hauls. Even one of my customer's Grand Marquis 4.6 will whomp the old Crown Vic 5.0s and these cars are bone stock.

__________________
SuperDave's timeless wisdom:

1- "Rust never sleeps!"
2- "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."
3-"Never say a job is easy until after you have finished it."
4- "Cheap ain't good and good ain't cheap."
5- "Just because a part is "new" doesn't mean it is good: VERIFY it!"
6- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance:PPPPPP
7- "When in doubt, RTFM! (read the FORD manual)
8- "A little Bondo and a little paint can make a Mustang what it ain't."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ignore this post


Registered: February 2001
Location: Cowtown

quote:

---

Originally posted by SuperDave
Blake: I can't imagine that happening unless the 5.0 had been "pumped up" a bit. Drove my neighbor's 2001 ragtop recently. With 320 plus ponies, it just flat hauls. Even one of my customer's Grand Marquis 4.6 will whomp the old Crown Vic 5.0s and these cars are bone stock.

---

Here's the reality of late model Mustangs.

96-98 4.6's are inherintly slower (lots less low end torque). Ford went a long way to fix the problem by changing the heads in 99, giving the 99 to present GT's 260 horsepower.
The Cobras are a different story. Starting in 96 they've been close to 300 hp, and since 99 they've had 320 hp. Starting next year they will be supercharged and have 385 hp. (Wow!)

I must assume that your neigbor has either a highly modified GT, or a Cobra.

Assuming your stance is that there is no subtitute for technology, and my stance is clinging to the notion that there is no sub. for cubic inches, I believe that the closest to the truth would be a little bit of both.

I believe that an OHV engine such as the 5.0 would be faster than a similarly designed OHV of smaller size. For the 4.6 to make up the difference, a more technilogically advanced (and complicated, and expensive) engine sporting SOHC is necessary, and my particular car is an example of how this can still not be enough. Finally, in an effort to make up for lost displacement, a more advanced (and more complicated, and more expensive) DOHC design is emplimented to compensate.

Make sense?

After all that typeing, its still not enough info, since there are endless variables such as cam grind(s) and any other factor you can think of that would influence power numbers.

Conclusion:

1. A bigger engine has more potential for power output than a smaller engine.

2. Rule 1 can be combated with higher technology.

3. An engine with the same technology, but more displacement will outperform the smaller engine.

Whew, sorry for the novel. I'm going to take a nap now.

__________________
66 Fastback-> 289 4bbl / Black, Red interior / C4 auto
96 GT-> Lotsa bolt ons / Black, Black Leather / 5 spd
96 V6-> Wife's car / Pacific Green, Grey interior / stock / 5 spd

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1965 Ford Mustang 200ci Inline 6


Registered: February 2002
Location: FresnoCA

The way I see it is all I really need to build a car and build it to perform is four cylinders. 2 extra cylinders is icing on the cake. 4 extra cylinders is a joy to have but I don't need it. I'd like a V8 but am not willing to deal with the problems.

Given the whole cubic inches thing why even use a V8, why not a V10 or V12? Why 302s or 289s? Why not a 428 or even 460 in every little stang on the road?

But many of you are right, take two similarly built engines and the one with the more cubic inches will win. So if you wan't a V8 then go for all the trouble but if you're satisfied with a smaller six, (btw they make 250 cubic inch inlines also they put 240s and 300s in trucks) then keep it and squeeze every last bit of GO out of it.

__________________
200 ci Inline Six/C4 Auto tranz
Aus. 250 2v cyl. head
Isky 262/.445 Cam
Holley 2bbl Carb 350cfm
6/2header dual 2"exhaust/glasspacks
Electronic Duraspark/MSD ignition

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ignore this post


Registered: February 2001
Location: Cowtown

quote:

---

Originally posted by 65stangOz2vI-6
The way I see it is all I really need to build a car and build it to perform is four cylinders. 2 extra cylinders is icing on the cake. 4 extra cylinders is a joy to have but I don't need it. I'd like a V8 but am not willing to deal with the problems.

Given the whole cubic inches thing why even use a V8, why not a V10 or V12? Why 302s or 289s? Why not a 428 or even 460 in every little stang on the road?

But many of you are right, take two similarly built engines and the one with the more cubic inches will win. So if you wan't a V8 then go for all the trouble but if you're satisfied with a smaller six, (btw they make 250 cubic inch inlines also they put 240s and 300s in trucks) then keep it and squeeze every last bit of GO out of it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1965 Ford Mustang 200ci Inline 6


Registered: February 2002
Location: FresnoCA

I mean the trouble of converting engines duh.

And I mean why do most companies stick with V8s instead of more more more cylinders? Because 8 i=s enuff, just like alot of companies build 6s (mostly v6s), because its enuff.

My point is that six cylinders is all I need and probably all quite a few people need.

But I can't argue with the plethora of aftermarket for V8s, although going further us Ford guys get screwed compared to the Cheby 350 crowd.

__________________
200 ci Inline Six/C4 Auto tranz
Aus. 250 2v cyl. head
Isky 262/.445 Cam
Holley 2bbl Carb 350cfm
6/2header dual 2"exhaust/glasspacks
Electronic Duraspark/MSD ignition

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

64 1/2 convertible: "stock as a rock"


Registered: May 2000
Location: Tacoma, WA USA

Blake: Yeah, it is a Cobra. I love that car for it's throttle response and, as importantly, it goes where you point it. Most impressive.

I'd agree that a marriage of CID and technology expands the envelope considerably BUT, especially in the case of the early Mustang, that power is useless unless it can be connected to the pavement. The "burnout" picture in this thread does nothing to prove the car is fast. I could probably duplicate that with a Yugo!

There are indeed many factors in being "fast". To achieve the best performance, the car must be engineered with many things beside engine size as consideration. Those who overlook those factors will indeed be disappointed in the results.

__________________
SuperDave's timeless wisdom:

1- "Rust never sleeps!"
2- "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."
3-"Never say a job is easy until after you have finished it."
4- "Cheap ain't good and good ain't cheap."
5- "Just because a part is "new" doesn't mean it is good: VERIFY it!"
6- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance:PPPPPP
7- "When in doubt, RTFM! (read the FORD manual)
8- "A little Bondo and a little paint can make a Mustang what it ain't."

Last edited by SuperDave on 03-19-02 at 06:23 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1967 mustang


Registered: February 2002
Location: North Carolina

We kinda got off track, but are the V8 spindles made heavier? Other than allowing 5 lugs, what is the difference? Other than springs and spindles, I must restate, there is no difference between the I6 supension and the V8! I also stated that ALL vintage Mustangs need a brake upgrade, and that if power is added, the tranny and rear will need to be upgraded. O.K., I'm ducking, go ahead and fire.

__________________
6 to 8 conversion
302
headers
dual exhaust
deluxe interior w/brushed aluminum
needs lotsa work

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

64 1/2 convertible: "stock as a rock"


Registered: May 2000
Location: Tacoma, WA USA

Dave: I get your point but also the tie rod ends and other steering components are different. I really don't want to re-state what I said and have said previously. The simple fact is that a V-8 conversion is a big job, espcially if it is done correctly.

__________________
SuperDave's timeless wisdom:

1- "Rust never sleeps!"
2- "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."
3-"Never say a job is easy until after you have finished it."
4- "Cheap ain't good and good ain't cheap."
5- "Just because a part is "new" doesn't mean it is good: VERIFY it!"
6- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance:PPPPPP
7- "When in doubt, RTFM! (read the FORD manual)
8- "A little Bondo and a little paint can make a Mustang what it ain't."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

'65 Coupe 200ci, '88 Notch 2.3


Registered: January 2002
Location: Shelton CT

Ill just throw in one more vote for the sixes
heres mine
and check www.kingroyale.50megs.com for more images and info

__________________
Dan~
'65 Coupe "BeeBop"
200ci, T-5, Cliffy 6-2 header, 26" Smithys, some other goodies
'88 Notch 2.3 w/AOD....for now

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: January 2000
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Can

Can't believe I am commenting on this topic again. Yes the suspension is lighter weight than the V-8's. Main reason you would want to change spindles is to accomodate either five lug disc brakes or the larger V-8 drum brakes. Going faster means you would want to stop faster. I'm not sure if the spindles are actually stonger or not. But yes the springs are smaller diameter too, the 6's are .590 in. in diameter and are rated at 259 lb/in. the 8's are thicker wire at .610 in. in diameter and rated at 291 lb/in. Sway bars are also not as thick in the sixes I believe they are stock at 5/8 in. The V-8's are thicker. I don't have the specs on the rear leafs but the aren't as heavy either and need to be changed to stop any wheel hop when you pin it. Guys have been doing this swap for probable 30+ years. If you want to do it go ahead. It is not particularly hard, there is just lots to do. If you have the determination, resources and time go for it. Yes my car used to be a six and is now a V-8. Good luck.

__________________

Restored 65 Coupe
88 GT Foxbody
http://www.canadiancobra.stangnet.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ignore this post


Registered: February 2001
Location: Cowtown

quote:

---

Originally posted by 65stangOz2vI-6
I mean the trouble of converting engines duh.

And I mean why do most companies stick with V8s instead of more more more cylinders? Because 8 i=s enuff, just like alot of companies build 6s (mostly v6s), because its enuff.

My point is that six cylinders is all I need and probably all quite a few people need.

But I can't argue with the plethora of aftermarket for V8s, although going further us Ford guys get screwed compared to the Cheby 350 crowd.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged