Has anyone put a 4.6 in a 1967 mustang

[Black_67stang]

Wow! Great looking work Dave

[Rickmaan]

Originally Posted by DaveSanborn

While anything is possible, I don't understand why you'd want to keep the shock towers. It's one of the weakest links of the entire car and is 50 year old suspension technology.

Install a modern motor and keep a POS front suspension? Why?

Well, to toss my 2 cents into the debate, not everyone believes the original suspension is a POS. And I firmly believe that just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't any good. From my stand point, I have a hard time understanding why someone would go to the expense and labor to replace a 50 year old suspension with a 40 year old suspension, unless the sole objective is to get rid of the shock towers to install a bigger engine. It's not like welding in an MII set up will automatically get you race car handling or a drastically improved ride quality that you couldn't get from the oem set up. Both suspensions are out dated by todays standards, and both are based on economy car designs, at least when they are in the stock configuration. It has been proven on the race track many times that the oem style suspension with just a few easy mods is a very capable design and can corner as well as most modern cars.

It's easy to dismiss the original suspension because of it's age but consider this, how often does a geniune technological advancement occur in the suspension field? I don't mean a change in geometry applied to an existing design, but a bonafied new idea? And from that idea how long for it to become widely used in the auto industry? If you look at the majority of the cars in production today you'll see the basic suspension designs in use are nothing new at all and in fact most race cars with the best, leading edge suspension technology still use an SLA design. That being the case, it's not a far leap to consider the age of the oem suspension design to be an advantage since the shortcomings of the factory system and chassis have long ago been figured out and become common knowledge.

The main reason new cars handle better while still riding better is as much a function of better chassis technology as it is the suspension (not to include the old suspension just being worn out). Better methods of isolating the suspension movement from the passenger compartment (due to modern materials as much as anything else) combined with improved shock valving give the modern car a compliant ride, while a more rigid chassis structure allows the geometry dialed into the suspension itself to be better at maintaining the tire contact patch which increases the handling capabilities while using reasonably good riding spring rates. A lot of these "modern car" improvements can be applied to our 40 year old cars in the form of easy bolt on kits.

[wicked93gs]

+1 I will agree from a performance standpoint the original design has more potential, the reason I did it is to gain room for a bigger engine(without notching the towers(which seems like it would force reloaction or adaptation of the UCAs)...the rack and pinion was a nice bonus, I didnt opt for coil overs(though I could still add them) and I already had disk brakes before the swap, tubular control arms are nice...but no stronger than boxed factory pieces

[eleanorclone]

The car i want to put the engine in has been painted with body color under the hood. I dont want to repaint anything. Also i dont want to cut this car up by cutting out the shock towers.

[Black_67stang]

Then you will not be putting a 4.6 in it period. IMO a fuel injected 5.0 is just a better idea. Easier to make power out of (wihout going forced induction), light, and fit without an issue.

[wicked93gs]

yep, there is no way it will fit without at the very least notching the shock towers, whih will require welding and re-painting...a fuelie 5.0 is a better choice for the money spent, has a larger aftermarket and is nice and compact...however there are other engines that may fit to be considered...completely custom swap, but the 4.2L? v8 from a Lincoln LS v8 makes 300HP(or is it 280) and its possible it could fit, of course I dont even know if a LS is RWD...in which case you would have to adapt the engine to RWD and to whatever tranny you plan to use....there are also several Land Rover V8 DOHC engines that make big power(all the engines I will list have ties to ford, so you may consider them ford engines)...then there is my personal favorite...the Volvo XC90 v8...makes 311HP/325Tq out of a 4.4L...the engine is made by Yamaha(same as the old Taurus SHOs) however it is a FWD engine layout...then of course you could use a 3.5L V6...Ford's new Ecoboost engine...350HP twin turbo monster(they use it in the new Taraus SHO and Lincoln MKX)

[SpitFire]

If you want a 4.6 in a mustang, you should go to this website.

[68DOHC]

I did this a couple years ago and it is a sweet ride. In order to keep the ground clearance I split the trans tunnel to get the T45 "up". Everything is measured from the shifter in the stock location. Replaced the front end with a Heidt's piece (if you do it, mount it 1/2" farther forward than the instructions read to gain you a little extra space). I used the stock 1996), radiator/evaporator/harness/computer, exhaust manifolds and h-pipe, hydroboost unit, power steering/brakes, added a new "Old Air Products" a/c unit, Explorer rear. The motor now has 10:1 compression. Had to modify the oil pan, add a baffle and a remote filter.

After all the work, it runs quiet and smooth, and all of the late model stuff works perfect. It is a blast to drive.

[wicked93gs]

no reason to move the spindle centerline forward 1/2"(you'll end up with wheels not correctly centered in the wells) the engine fits fine with the heidts x-member if you use a mark viii pan...no reason to split the tunnel either...you can achieve a 3.5 degree angle with no cutting(t45) and a 2.5 degree angle(possibly 2 degrees) if you notch the stock tranny x-member(I actally achieved 2.5 degrees without cutting, but the t45 was touching the stock crossmember, so I notched it, however my engine is lower than most...mainly because I used a mark VIII pan...there is maybe 1/8" clearance between the pan and the rack

anyway, thats all beside the point, he doesnt want to hack up his car in any way, if you want an old mustang that will fit a 4.6L your best bet is a mustang II...I think it would be cool to see a king Cobra II clone with a 4.6L cobra engine

[Rickmaan]

Originally Posted by wicked93gs

... if you want an old mustang that will fit a 4.6L your best bet is a mustang II...I think it would be cool to see a king Cobra II clone with a 4.6L cobra engine

Now that's probably the most unique suggestion I've seen on this forum.

While I admit to thinking the MII is a widely under-appreciated part of Mustang history, and I actually like the styling of the car, I don't think a 4.6 is going to fit in it. I remember reading about the engineering difficulties Ford had to deal with in order to get the 302 in the car. When the car was still in the design phase it was not planned to have a V8, they designed the car to use just the 4 cyl and V6 engines that were the only choices in the '74 model year. The 302 was added for the '75 model only after the '74 was released and received a flood of complaints from enthusiasts about the lack of a V8 option and several unfavorable reviews in the press about the car being overweight and underpowered.

Although the car doesn't have shock towers to interfere with the width of an engine at the heads or exhaust manifolds, the engine room still isn't very wide or very long, especially low in the car between the inner fender wells. The available space to fit a block between the frame rails and squeeze exhaust pipes in there around the engine mounts really limits what will fit without some major surgery. I've heard of 351W's being swapped in, but I've never seen one in person and the 4.6L is physically larger than a 351W anyway.

[buening]

Well since everyone else is throwing in their pocket change, I'll give my two cents. With a 4.6 dropped in the classic, you've just added quite a bit of weight with little to no horsepower gain that a SBF could have given you. I don't have the exact numbers but I believe the mod motor is a few hundred pounds heavier than a 351w. If you are all about the wow factor, then go for the mod motor (or if you have a spare mod motor).

I will say one thing, the mod motors respond VERY WELL to boost so if you plan on boosting it then I'd go for the mod motor. Not gonna touch the suspension argument though

[wicked93gs]

wrong...my 4.6L weighed in right at 460lbs...same as a stock SBF...a 5.4L weighs in at 560lbs..the 6.2L v10 weighs close to what a big block weighs, so even with a v10, depending on what engine came in the 67-68 there could possibly be no weight gain...from the engine anyway....the T45 I have though probably weighs more than a 4 speed by about 50lbs, IMO as far as practicality goes...stick with a SBF, especially if you care about re-sale value, there is no real reason to o modular....I went modular more because I love the raspy sound of the modular 4v han or any other real reason....and because i like taking on projects that end up as headaches

[67 Evil Eleanor]

Nothing like a Supercharged 5.4 in one of these old rides. Upon reading thru this, anything can be done. With the modulars there are several other considerations that have to be overcome. A brain to run this engine, where to mount the alternator, coolent and oil hose relocation, etc. Heres a photo of a 5.4 S/C in a 67.

[wicked93gs]

sure there is...a twin turbo 4.6L in a classic , but then, I'll never take the parasitic loss from a S/C when I can just as easily go turbo and have more power at the same boost level, but that's just me, I'd rather my torque be in the midrange rather than the low end

[eleanorclone]

I've decided to cut the towers. Will the shock tower notching kit NPD sells work.