3V or 2V or 4V engine? All MIGHT fit w\o cutting, but the 2V should fit with some room to spare, it's the narrowest of them all. I don't remember how much wider a 2V is than a 390 though; seems like they should be pretty similar.
__________________
The squirrels in my head have spoken.
Cobra 5.0L & AOD swap, here we come.
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?
Here's a couple file photos I have of mod motors.
The first shows the size difference between a SBF and a 4.6 4V.....
This photo shows a 5.4 in a 65-66....
Lastly, a '67 getting prepped for a 4.6 install....
__________________
"The danger of communication is the illusion that it has occured"
That middle photo is the '99 Cobra 4.6 and NOT a 5.4L engine...
The two-valve will fit with minor trimming of the towers for exhaust manifold clearance and the use of special motor mounts by DVS Restorations...
Anything else 3V, 4V, 5.4L will require removal of the shock towers.
As for why to keep the shock tower, they were an original design element of the chassis and are structural. Adding a MII crossmember, while upgrading many areas, should really be reinforced for big engines and big power. Plus, that 50 year old suspension technology still works with some nicely upgraded components. You don't always have to throw the baby out with the bath water you know...
A two valve will fit but you'll be "influencing" the shock towers with a big hammer. The 4V will fit but you have to cut the towers back, ala old drag racers tricks.
Given the choice between original suspension and Mustang II shown above, I'd go with the original with a good aftermarket rack steering system. Cutting the towers out completely is not a good thing in my opinion. Just because it fits doesn't mean it's better - and that goes for every modification.
Send me an e-mail to dave@dvsrestorations.com and I can send you an article on how to cut the towers back. If you are trying to keep your towers complete, the 4.6 is not the way to go.
That middle photo is the '99 Cobra 4.6 and NOT a 5.4L engine...
I believe you. That photo is one of many and as I remember taken at the 45th show. There was a red first generation vert there with a 5.4, but maybe I didn't get a photo of it... although I thought that this was the one.... I dunno, pictures of other peoples cars all start running together after a while.
Can an original suspension be upgraded to work better? Sure it can! No argument from me.
My point was why go through the trouble to "modernize" the car by only upgrading the engine (with the 4.6), but still try to retain the stock style suspension? A better approach (IMO) would be to modernize the entire vehicle, not just the engine.
An example..... "Can I swap a 4.6 mod motor into my '65 and still use my Toploader transmission"?
I'm sure there's a way to make it work, but why would you want to? Wouldn't a 5 or 6 speed be a better idea? That was the only point I was making.
__________________
"The danger of communication is the illusion that it has occured"
the suspension load is still mainly on the frame rails, with or without shock towers, the ONLY substantial metal in the original shock tower setup goes straight down to the rail...the same load path a mustang II setup takes, the ONLY difference between the two setups is triangulation provided by the export brace that the mustang II setup lacks...which in effect connects the firewall to the frame rails via the shock towers....if you use a mustang II front suspension you can add in this missing support simply by running some roll cage tubing on the outside(or inside, but outside provides a cleaner engine bay)of the fender aprons from firewall area up under the apron at the original shock tower location, then down to the frame rail...this will tie them together...then fr a it of extra stiffening(at this point better than stock) would be to add an export brace(custom)that ties into the tubing where it runs under the fender aprons
in effect...a mustang II setup without additional bracing is about the same as a stock setup without an export brace...or rather a bit stronger...since the massive crossmember ties the frame rails together much better than the stocker which is small and bolt-in
p.s. I dont really think people can give an honest opinion on a MII chasis strength setup vs stock unless they have performed the install, otherwise its just second hand info
__________________
66 mustang coupe,Heidts Mustang II front end 4.6L DOHC mod motor, T45 transmission, 8.8" disc rear end, twin turbo system in progress, and a ton of other crap
I will second running a piece of channel under the outside edge of the fender aprons. It will add alot of stiffness to the front end.
The M2 front end kit that I used has a huge crossmember. I also double railed my front frame rails from just in front of my sub frame connectors to just behind my crossmember.
Install a modern motor and keep a POS front suspension? Why?
Well you could put in another POS vintage (pinto!) front suspension, that loads the front uni body in ways completely outside the original design intentions.
__________________
-------------------------------
What's a bolt on
I will add that a performance suspension based off the stock design will outperform a Mustang II type suspension...or at least an unmodified MII suspension, but for the last time, the stock mustang II suspension and the MII suspension load the unibody in the same way, with the exception of the triangulation provided by the export brace(which as I stated earlier can be duplicated easily enough)...all loads go to the frame rail...the shock towers sit on the frame rails, as do the new Spring caps...the fender aprons carry 0% load...they are flimsy 1/16" sheet metal that flops like a fish without the shock towers there(anyone who has done this install will confirm this, all loads end on the frame rails), and if we are being honest the export braces were never there to connect the firewall and the frame rails...they were added by the factory to keep the shock towers from sagging together over time, so even the amount of triangulation they provide is fairly questionable in my opinion...the mustang II setup is not the best handling wise, but it is the most cost effective method for getting more room, adding front discs, rack and pinion steering and coil over shocks
__________________
66 mustang coupe,Heidts Mustang II front end 4.6L DOHC mod motor, T45 transmission, 8.8" disc rear end, twin turbo system in progress, and a ton of other crap
Well you could put in another POS vintage (pinto!) front suspension, that loads the front uni body in ways completely outside the original design intentions.
LMAO....
The endless debate between the OEM and MII suspension is starting to kick off again. I'm not going to argue with anyone, but the aftermarket MII "style" suspensions have improved and been re-engineered to the point that they cannot be compared to the Pinto design. The Pinto didn't have tubular UCA/LCA's and it still used strut rods.... whatever, I'm not going to argue the point.
To illustrate an earlier suggestion for triangulating the front end, I chose to take the easy way out and run supports on the inside of the fender aprons. My situation is a little different as the whole car rides on a one-piece 2x3" boxed frame.
__________________
"The danger of communication is the illusion that it has occured"
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Has anyone put a 4.6 in a 1967 mustang
