ModernMuscleCars.net - Modern Muscle Cars Archive

Pages: 1

Cheap Mustang Project
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: bl3wbyu

Well, I guess I'll go ahead and give ya the whole story...but lemme warn ya now, you'll wanna shoot yourself after reading my writing for an extended period. I wanted to get that out of the way so no one can sue me...

A friend and I were talking Saturday, and we decided that in about two years when we have some loose change laying around that we should pool our resources to buy a cheap Fox Body and get it going fast enough to be worth of a few trips to the dragstrip. When I say cheap, I mean cheap...I'm talking maybe $3,000 tops for everything, though we are planning on doing all the work ourselves. It'll probably be more like him doing the work and me learning, but hopefully I'll be able to catch on pretty fast.

Let me say here that I have always been, am, and probably will always be a Chevy man, so I really didn't know anything about Mustangs. I found out the pretty Fox Body Stangs are from '87-'93, and that the '89-'92 models are preferred because of the stronger block, forged pistons, and the MAF sensor. So, I started searching AutoTrader for Fox Body's. I was quite disappointed to see the prices on those Mustangs, as our original goad was to pay about $500 for the car and then put in $500 worth of parts. I think we're gonna have to stretch that a little bit. But I wasn't finding anything even remotely close to *decent* for any less than about $1200, and the nicer examples were over $2000.

I finally decided that we coudln't do one for near as cheap as we had thought. But what's funny is, I actually became fond of the Fox Body's in the course of a day or two. I had always thought the were ugly, but now I'm actually really fond of the newer notchbacks. So much so that I've decided I'll have to get one of those 'nicer' examples later on so I can do it right.

Well, at any rate, I happened to remember John and that he could probably save my dreams of building a fast Mustang on the cheap if indeed they were salvageable.

After talking to him, I'm now looking for an early 80's Fox Body (shoot, maybe even on old Mercury Capri) for as cheap as possible, with the plan to get a decent, in tact car, and then worry about obtaining a 5.0 and transmission from an Explorer or some such if the Mustang doesn't have one.

Well, I guess that's the plan as it stands right now. I'm also hoping we might can move the time frame up from 2 years from now to maybe this coming up summer. I don't wanna wait too long.

I guess we're hoping for as deep into the 11's as reasonably possible, though we would both really like for it to be able to handle the corners fairly well, too.

Please feel free to throw out any and all advice you might have to offer. I know nothing about Mustangs and have no hands on experience with mechanical work, but I'm hoping all that will change soon enough!

Thanks!
bl3wbyu

Posted by: StoneFox

I must live in the Mustang Promised land or something. I bought this one a few years ago for $100.00, just as a roller, droped an engine and trans in it, a set of wheels and a CHEEP paint job and good to go have some fun with

My curent one $250.00, with everything it needed to get running, including a short block with only 500 miles on it. Just had to put it together. Put an Erson .512/.512 lift .296/.296 duration cam and a set of pedistal mount roller rockers that I got off a guy for 40 bucks and an Edelbrock performer intake for $150.00. got less than a grand in it total investment

Posted by: bl3wbyu

Wow. Those are the stories like I wanna hear! And experience!

Oh, and thanks for reading such a long post.

Posted by: merczephyr

Check out the freebie classified papers in your area. It will take time, but with some searching you should be able to dig up deals similar to Stonefox. Also don't overlook earlier models. The fox Stangs started in 1979. Most any aftermarket parts for the 87-93's will work on 79-86's in the right combination. My personal favorite is the 1985. First year of the roller cam block, last year of the carb, and Four Eyed (versus the 87-93 aero headlights). And they are not quite as popular so the values for generic models are generally lower than 87-93's leaving more money for mods. The only problem with them being less popular is there isn't as much support for restoration type stuff.

Posted by: VETTKLR

I better post my suggestion in the pit...

Posted by: John

Yeah but ya gotta watch the 79-82 Mustangs. They didn't necessarily come with V8's, the transmissions are flat out junk and the engines they did come with were weaknuts in both the power and the durability department. If you do go with one of those examples, the best one is a turbo'ed 4 cylinder but they are rare and usually require alot of work. They are usually cheap because of all the issues with them and they just aren't a good platform for performance. The chassis is weak and will not easily support the big power that the 83-93 chassis can support. So if you do go with a 79-82, make sure you know what you are getting into.

Also, I have seen many people in other places say that the Fox chassis has been around up until 2004. That's not true at all. The last year for any car built on the Fox chassis was 1993 and that was the Mustang. In 1994, Ford released the new Mustang on the redesigned SN95 chassis. While the SN95 chassis was derived as an evolution of the Fox chassis, it is decidedly not even remotely close to the Fox chassis. Therefore, the Fox chassis ended it's reign in 1993 and it went out with a bang when the 1993 Mustang Cobra was introduced along with the 1993 F-150 Lightning. Then, mid-year, Ford upped the ante with the Cobra R and made a factory race car that just tore up it's classes at the tracks.

Now, even Wikipedia says that the Fox chassis was used until 2004. However, Ford and Ford engineers state that the Fox chassis was the basis for the SN95 chassis but the SN95 chassis was wider, longer and over 70% of the parts for the SN95 were redesigned from the Fox chassis and virtually nothing transfers over. The SN95 chassis is not a Fox chassis and the 1994-2004 Mustangs are not Fox chassied cars.

The new Mustangs are built on a stretched D2C platform after it was determined that using a modified version of the DEW98 chassis would be too expensive. They are also known as D2 or S197 chassis. The older Lincoln LS's from the first generation were built on the DEW98 chassis shared with the Jaguar S-type

Vehicles using the Fox platform:

* 1978-1983 Ford Fairmont
* 1978-1983 Mercury Zephyr
* 1979-1993 Ford Mustang
* 1979-1986 Mercury Capri
* 1980-1988 Ford Thunderbird
* 1980-1988 Mercury Cougar
* 1981-1982 Ford Granada
* 1982-1987 Lincoln Continental
* 1983-1986 Ford LTD
* 1983-1986 Mercury Marquis
* 1984-1992 Lincoln Mark VII

Consequently, there are many go-fast goodies for the Fox chassis.

Now, the following chassis were changed. In 1987, when the Taurus and Sable were new and built on the D186 platform, Ford took the Lincoln Continental and redesigned it for 1988 and built it on the D186 platform. The Taurus and Sable replaced the LTD and Marquis as the Ford/Mercury mid-sized entry.

In 1989, the Thunderbird was redesigned from the ground up on the MN12 chassis. Also, the Lincoln Mark series was built on a similar version of this chassis called the FN10 chassis which was derived from an 80's concept car chassis. However, it is similar to the MN12 chassis and they share many parts. The Cougar was also built on the MN12 chassis. The Thunderbird and Cougar died in 1997 and the Mark VIII stayed on until 1998. The Thunderbird was then redesigned and rereleased in 2002 on the D2C chassis which was shortened for the T-bird. The Cougar was redesigned and rereleased in 1999 and built on CDW-27 platform from Ford of Europe which is what the top selling car in Europe, the Ford Mondeo, is based on. The Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique were also built on this platform.

The Granada, LTD, Marquis, Capri, Fairmont and Zephyr all died with the Fox chassis. Do not confuse the Mercury Grand Marquis and the Ford LTD Crown Victoria with the LTD and Marquis. The Crown Vic and the Grand Marquis are full-sized body-on-frame vehicles with a pedigree that goes back well into the early 70's. The current models are built, along with the Lincoln Town Car, on the FR Panther platform which got it's start in 1979 as a derivation from an older platform for full-sized, RWD cars using live axles that dates it's roots back to the mid 60's and the Galaxie 500. FR stands for Front-engine Rear-wheel-drive.

But yeah, the Fox-chassis has many, many incarnations and many parts will swap among cars with minimal efforts. As you learn more, you'll start to see things like the 2.3L Turbo 4 banger from the T-bird TurboCoupes will swap directly in and since the TC's used T-5's, the 2.3L bolts right up an will make 300+ horses all day long. Of, the 8.8" rears out of the T-bird/Cougar/Mark VII are an almost bolt-in affair, are a stronger rear and could be had with disc brakes. Add in that '93 Cobra master cylinder and you got yourself 4 wheels discs for your Mustang. Almost any V8 will swap over including the 351W. They are a tight fit but even the 400M based off of the older 351C. The 351C can be shoe horned in but so can the bigger 429/460 and since companies are making hotter heads and Ford released the 514 cubic inch Sportsman blocks, you can stuff an 800 horse big block Ford into your Mustang and have a rocket ship on par with stuffing a 500ci Caddy engine into a Chevette.

The possibilities are endless and are only etermined by your cubic dollars.

Posted by: MadScientistMatt

Another warning about the '82 and earlier cars: Except for the '79, if you get one with the original V8, it will be the dreaded 255 (I can't remember when they went back to the 5.0, it was either '82 or '83). Not much you can do with that motor except swap it out.

Sounds like a cool idea for a project. I tried building a 5.0 Capri a few years ago, along with AndyR, another guy from this board (haven't seen him post here in a while). Unfortunately I had too much going on and the car had too many issues. Finally wound up junking it.

Posted by: bl3wbyu

StoneFox - Do you have any more pictures of your white Stang? I do believe that's the only 4-eyed Mustang I've seen that I like.

MadScientisMatt - Thanks, I'll try to stay away from the '79. How hard would it be to get a good drag suspension going that would also take some curves fairly well?

I'm beginning to think about a bigger engine. It'd probably be easier to get a lot of power out of a 351, and I wouldn't have to come near as close to its limit to get the power I want...plus, there's more potential should we decide we want to tap into it. Is it a farily easy swap to get a 351 in a Fox Body? About how much do they cost?

Also, can someone tell me about the Cleveland/Windsor blocks and how they compare to the 5.0 block? I'm really lost with these Ford engines...

Posted by: John

Slow down there cochise.

First off, a 351 will fit but you will need to get a different hood. Also, the size of that hood is determined by your intake options. The 351 has a taller deck height so the engine is taller overall. If you get tunnel rams and dual carbs and stuff it gets even taller. It also sits a bit higher in the engine bay of the Mustang. Not much but enough to make a difference.

Will a 351 make more power? Yes, it will but for what you are going to be able to afford, a 351 running a mild to moderate tune will blow your budget and give you no real benefit over a 302 at all. All the talk you hear about people cracking 302's right down the center is exaggerated in most respects. I haven't heard of anyone breaking blocks like that with power levels 400 horses and under. Most of the time, blocks crack because they have issues to begin with and someone is just pushing hard enough to make those issues compromise the block completely. Naturally aspirated 302's have a ceiling of about 400-450 horses before you have to start worrying about block integrity. Even at that point, you are talking about some serious chamber pressures to get over 500 horses plus some serious RPM. That will stress any block. However, it is not uncommon to see blown 302's with a mild cam/heads/intake combo pushing something north of 600 horses.

Keep in mind though that weight is a factor. 351W are heavy and having alot of weight over the nose can make the car squirrely and hard to drive.

Now, how power do you think you are going to make? If 350 horses in a lightweight Mustang isn't enough for you then forget about your 2K budget, it's no where near enough. Your engine alone will cost you over 3K to go for the higher power ranges. You'll need heads, a new cam, rotating assemblies, intakes and a machine shop to put it all together for you.

What you need to do is stop worrying about power and figure out how fast you want to go and find the cheapest yet safest and most reliable way to go about getting there. Stop worrying about "...to get the power I want...plus, there's more potential should we decide we want to tap into it" and just wory about getting a car rolling on the ground otherwise it's just a bench racing pipe dream. There is plenty of potential in a Mustang with a 302. We just ran a Mustang with a blown 302 on an .030 overbore (306ci) that was capable of running high 9 second 1/4 mile times. At that point, unless you are doing brackets, you will need to apply and test for a competition license. You are far, far away from that level so stop trying to achieve it in one shot. Keep it simple and do some learning first.

The first thing you should learn about these cars is humility and respect. It's a fucking blast to go fast in something you built yourself, believe me, I know! But you also have to remember that these cars will kill you in an instant if you don't keep your head about you and understand them. In a Mustang that you can honestly get down to the 2300 pound range, 350 horses is way more power than any novice can handle. There is a great deal of energy in that car. Honestly, the best thing to do is to go down to the track and get a spot in the stands as close to the burnout box as you can get and just soak it in. You can't help but FEEL the power.

Now as far as a rear suspension for drag racing and turning, the Mustang already has a sort of 4-link/drag link rear suspension. What you should do there is replace the rear suspension parts with tubular steel parts and get something done about the torque boxes. Once you get that done, a decent pair of shocks, good urethane sway bar bushings and decent springs, you'll be set. Get good springs, bushings and shocks upfront and you should be OK there too. Turbular control arms would be best for turning but they are expensive and will require pressed bushings and such. Something you may not be able to do in your garage with a press.

Posted by: John

Oh, a 351W is not the same as a 351C. However, he 351C has different chamber designs which flow better than the 351W but you need a ton of machine work done to get them to work right. It's pretty much cheaper to go and get a set of AFR, TrickFlow or Edelbrock Performer RPM heads for a 351W and go that router.

A 351W is a 351 Windsor engine. It is essentially a 302 with a taller deck height and a half inch more stroke. The 351 has the W nomenclature with it because eventhough the 255/260/289/289HO and 302 are all Windsor engines, they don't have similarly sized siblings. The 351 has a sibling in the Cleveland family of engines.

The 351C is based off of a design from the Cleveland family. The names of the blocks come from the names of the plants that made the engines. Windsors are made at the Windsor plant, Clevelands are made at the Cleveland plant. The Cleveland has bigger siblings. It also has a different head/block design and it is the smallest engine in the Cleveland line of engines. I gotta get some research so I get my facts straight but I'll post more about it later.

Posted by: John

Here is some info about the Cleveland engines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Engine

Here is some info about Ford 335 Engine otherwise known as the "Cleveland Engines"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_335_engine

Here is some info about the Windsor engines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine

Here is some info on the current "mod motors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine

Here is some info on the older Y-block that the Windsor engines replaced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Y-block_engine

Here is the FE Engine which has legendary status due to extensive use by Carroll Shelby in his cars and having a pretty successful run in both drag racing and NASCAR. If I remember correctly, the FE was the engine that pushed the GT40 MkIV to it's record setting laps at LeMans. They hit approximatly 230 MPH in the late 60's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine

The last of the Ford "Big Blocks" included the Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet and also powered the wicked BOSS 429 Mustang. Most people know the 385 Engine as the Ford 429/460. It never was much for huge horsepower numbers but it makes torque in gobs. This is the current "Big Block" and is what the massive 512 cube Sportsman blocks are made from. However, I have seen these blocks punched out to close to 600 cubes with strokes and over-bores and such. Aftermarket support was lacking at times but it has gotten much better. So those "weak" stock horsepower numbers are a thing of the past and it's not uncommon to see these engines making disgusting power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_385_engine

Anyhow, I gave you all these links because this is kind of confusing at times to sort out. I didn't want to screw it all up and have to go back and correct it all. However, one thing that should be mentioned is that there is no such thing as a Ford "Big Block". The big block nomenclature came out of the Chevy ranks where the 305/327/350/383/400 had a small block designation and the 400/427/454/500 had a big block designation. This was GM's way of categorizing thier engine lines. Dodge followed suit and both GM and Dodge only have two specific lines of engines dating all the way back to the 50's and prefer to only assign special nomenclature to engines due to head design, combustion chamber design, bearing journal sizes and so on.

The common idea behind a "big block" is that it displaces 5.9L or more. Ford had at least two lines that displaced this amount and there were engines capable of more. Including the Windsor line. So, given that idea, Ford's engines from almost any line are capable of supporting 5.9L or more and 5.9L or less. They can be both a big block and a small block. So Ford doesn't officially subscribe to the big block/small block mentality that the one track minds at Chevy and Dodge prefer to adhere to.

Here's some more info on that one too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_block

So start reading dude. It's actually quite interesting. You ay be a Chevy guy and think Chevy is the greatest but Ford and Dodge both have rich and varied histories with many, many successful racing programs to develop all of this shit. Who was more successful is still up for debate since GM doesn't compete in as many venues as Ford does and neither does Dodge. However, the ones they have all competed in, they are on fairly equal footing. Ford tends to compete more on a global scale while GM is more at home in the States and Canada and Dodge has a strangle hold on the club racing levels and drag racing. Infact, most Top Fuel dragster and Funny Car engines and the door slammers are running engines from 3rd party vendors like Donovan that are based off of the original 426 HEMI design from Dodge. Yes, even your favorite Chevy and Ford drivers are most likely running Dodge engines.

This is what I mean when I say not to hold such a narrow-minded myopic view of brand allegiance. Sure there may be one brand you prefer more over another but limiting yourself to just Chevy or just Dodge or just Ford just hurts you and artificially truncates your world of experience.

Posted by: StoneFox

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl3wbyu


	StoneFox - Do you have any more pictures of your white Stang? I do believe that's the only 4-eyed Mustang I've seen that I like.

I have a few more. They were taken with my old digi cam a few years ago so the pics suck.

The engine was a 351W with TFS heads. You can kinda see what John was talking about how the engine is sitting up higher than a 302 would

With a Torker intake and very small air cleaner using convertable engine mounts it fit under the stock hood with the Demon carb and a 1" spacer with about a 1/16 inch to spare. Notice how the back of the hood is kicked up, I had to get longer bolts and put some washers between the hood and the hinges to make it clear. I thought it looked like shit so i bought a pin on hood

This is what happens when a valve seat shatters at 6500 RPM. I dont know if something got into my engine or if the valve seat just worked its self loose

Posted by: merczephyr

Make sure you read everything there. There will be a quiz tomorrow.

Posted by: 65fairlane

Does anyone know if Grape Ape still has the rolling fox chassis up for fairly cheap sale in Florida? It might be worth looking into when you guys are ready...

Posted by: bl3wbyu

Wow, that certainly will keep me busy for quite a while! Thanks for all the links, John!

StoneFox - Thanks for the extra pictures. It looks nice. Well, except for that shattered valve seat!

Is the valve 'seat' not one-piece with the valve 'stem'? Or is it? I always thought it was one unit...

Posted by: StoneFox

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl3wbyu


	Wow, that certainly will keep me busy for quite a while! Thanks for all the links, John! StoneFox - Thanks for the extra pictures. It looks nice. Well, except for that shattered valve seat! Is the valve 'seat' not one-piece with the valve 'stem'? Or is it? I always thought it was one unit...

The valve seat is pressed into the head and is what the valve closes against. When it broke it took the head of the valve off with it

Posted by: bl3wbyu

Oh, oh. Duh. I get ya, now.

So, now that I've got the right terminology...is the valve 'head' one piece with the valve 'stem'?

Posted by: John

No, no, no. When people say "head" they are refferring to the cylinder head. The cylinder head gets bolted to the block. The only thing the block contains is the rotating assembly and if it is an OHV engine, the cam, lifters and pushrods. The heads have the combustion chamber, valve assemblies, intake and exhaust ports and rocker arm assemblies.

The valve assembly consists of the actual valve which doesn't really have a "head" but you could call the flared end the "head". The valve stem extends through the port and the cylinder head where it goes through the center of the valve spring and gets connected to the valve spring with the retainer clip. As the valve passes through the head, it has to be sealed so it doesn't leak. So there are valve seals where the valve passes through the head. The valve also has a plate mounted to the head called a guide. The guide serves several purposes. Mainly it keeps the valve straight in the hole so it doesn't bend, bind or destroy the seals and seats. The rocker arms can put a tremendous amount of force on the valves. The issue there is that the steel and aluminum that heads are usually made out of is too soft to retain the shape of the opening that the valve seals against. So, to alleviate the problem of the valve destroying the valve opening, hardened valve seats are pressed into the head. The hardened seats are nothing more than steel or an equally hard metal, formed into a rod and then twisted into a ring. Those rings are then hardened. The machine shop then presses them into the head. The the seats are what the valve rests on when not open. They need to be hardened because, when the valve springs snap the valve shut, it will impact the seats fairly hard.

Seats shatter like that for many reasons that range from manufacturing defects to being just plain worn out. In a typical engine, they don't wear out easily but if you do something like use a hotter cam with stronger springs, they can fatigue the stock valve seats which can break. Usually the damage doesn't end up being too bad and it is repairable but, if you punch a hole in a piston with a broken valve seats, then the damage can become catastrophic.

Posted by: bl3wbyu

I think I just wasn't communicating well, because that's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for the clarification, though.

Is there a way to measure the force with which the rocker arms deploy the valves and the force with which the valve springs 'spring' the valve back to the seat? I mean, just how much force are we talking about there?

Posted by: MadScientistMatt

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl3wbyu


	MadScientisMatt - Thanks, I'll try to stay away from the '79. How hard would it be to get a good drag suspension going that would also take some curves fairly well?

The '79 is all right - at least it has a 302. The '80 does not.

Walter Mathis has an excellent guide to Mustang suspensions. I could probably mail you my copy as I don't need it anymore now that the Capri is gone - PM me if you want it.

As a general rule, an all out handling suspension will do better at a drag launch than an all out drag suspension will do if you try to make it handle. You will want to consider your goals carefully here.

Posted by: John

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl3wbyu


	Is there a way to measure the force with which the rocker arms deploy the valves and the force with which the valve springs 'spring' the valve back to the seat? I mean, just how much force are we talking about there?

Yes, there are several ways to measure the force. You will have a hard time doing it on the rocker arm itself so an easier way is to measure the force it takes to compress the spring. You can use a spring scale to do this. There are also special tools out there that will measure the force exerted on a lever to compress the spring. Or you could connect the spring scale to the rocker arm and measure the force it exerts directly.

As far as how much pressure the rocker arm has, that depends on the spring, the kind of spring, the cut of the lobe of the camshaft, how long the rocker arm is, how far from the fulcrum the pushrod and valve stem are located and even the kind of engine. A diesel engine will have valvespring pressures often 3-5 times that of a standard gasoline engine. However, the more radical the cam profile you are running, the stronger your valve spring needs to be. If your valve spring is not strong enough on a hot cam, it will not be able to react fast enough to properly follow the profile of the cam. If that happens, you get what's called valve float. There are many problems with that including reduced power and possible detonation due to the duration and lift of the valve opening being all out of whack. However, the biggest problem with that is that when the rest of the valvetrain catches back up to the cam, it will collide and crash together and if it does badly enough, it will destroy valves and pushrods and springs and even seats and seals.

As far as pressure on the springs, they can range from 50-75 pounds for a stock spring at installed height to over 400 pounds for hardcore racing applications. I have seen springs for the heavy diesels pushing 500-1500 pounds at installed height and I'm told that those pressure can be higher. Keep in mind that the BIG diesels also have larger parts and the springs need to be stout to not only over come the force of friction and be able to move the valve but they also have to be able to overcome the force of inertia implied to the valve by the camshaft to be able to change the direction to open or close the valve. The bigger the valve, the higher the moment of inertia will be. So you need large, heavy, multiple coiled springs to be able to move a large valve or to move a smaller valve faster.

Ain't physics a doozie?

Posted by: bl3wbyu

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadScientistMatt


	Walter Mathis has an excellent guide to Mustang suspensions. I could probably mail you my copy as I don't need it anymore now that the Capri is gone - PM me if you want it.

You sure?! I'd love that! PM sent.

John - Thanks for the info.

Posted by: merczephyr

The whole thing with the "Stay away from '80-81 V-8's" because of the 255 is somewhate negated now days due to the fact of dealing with 25 year old cars. The motors gonna need a rebuild anyway. It's not hard to find the necessary accessory brackets for the 302 in a salvage yard. If the car is cheap enough and solid enough, it won't be much different from swapping in a fresh motor in a 1979 or 1982 302 car.

Posted by: John

Quote:

Originally Posted by merczephyr


	It's not hard to find the necessary accessory brackets for the 302 in a salvage yard. If the car is cheap enough and solid enough, it won't be much different from swapping in a fresh motor in a 1979 or 1982 302 car.

A 255 or 260 is the same block as a 302 or 289. I'm pretty sure all it has is a shortened stroke. I think the bores are the same for all the motors. That being said, I do believe the main bearing journals are not as wide as the 5.0 H.O., the 255/260/289 are not roller cam engines and the heads are left over smog era rejects not worth any time at all. The biggest problem with those engines though is that there is a fairly fat piston at the end of a fairly short stroke. It takes more power to move the rotating assembly and since the engine doesn't make any power to begin with, there ain't a whole lot left to go around. Besides, the 255 and 260 were after thoughts anyway and meant as "economy engines" but the 289/302 got better gas mileage and made more power so the 255/260 quickly went the way of the dodo and were essentially replaced with the stouter but more fragile 3.8L V6. That engine liked to eat head gaskets.

If you got an 80-82 Mustang, a 302 swap should be pie. However, you'll likely need a new transmission and rear because the weaknuts parts behind the 255 will not hold up at all. The only other problems I can see might be suspension components. Aftermarket parts might not match up. All that and honestly, the 79-81 Mustangs were butt ass ugly. The didn't really refine the shape into something that was somewhat attractive until '82.

Posted by: MadScientistMatt

The 255 also had completely different heads - wierd tunnel port deals that won't take normal SBF intake manifolds from what I hear.

Posted by: John

Yeah, not much worth the effort there. It's a shame too because, if they had the same heads and main bearing journals as a 289/302, the 255/260 might actually be a good high revving V8. It would not be unreasonable to see over 7K RPM out of an engine with such a short stroke. Hell, it's probably have to spin that fast just to make any power. But then again, it's be a small block Ford that sounds like a Ferrari! How cool would that be? Especially a twin turbo version!

Man, that would have turned C.A.R.B. on it's ear and dropped Ford's C.A.F.E. ratings through the floor! A 4.2L V8 revving to 7500 RPM and putting down over 300 horses! That's like Jaguar territory with a small black V8, 1 cam and a shitload of pushrods.

Some days I wish I could cast my own engine blocks.

Back to the Forums