yellowoctupus

I was referring to the rods themselves (in the one picture it looked like the non-cotterpinned end was a spoke end, I think I was just seeing the piece of steel with a reflection...). PS. Thanks for the more recent smaller pictures, the others were tough to view even on my 20" screen.

Are those motorcycle spoke bell cranks? Awesome. I made a set of linkages up for my dad in his '40 Chevy P/U out of snowmobile steering tie rods, and they came out surprisingly well. But, interestingly enough, when the engine settled in the mounts finally they needed readjusting.... I guess you still have the stock through the firewall adjustment if you need it. There's interest here (so keep posting!!), but it's not the same number of comments when you have a build post going together. My build post has 27 posts currently, and 5 were from other people. Keep truckin, it's looking good!

Working on the car again...got the front spoiler mounted that my Dad painted for me about a year ago. Sure is weird installing 'bolt on' parts.

Cheapest/ best documented = 5.0 carb'd All of the 5.4's I've seen have had a SUPER high intake manifold, so unless you're planning on dropping some dough on a custom intake or using a 6" cowl hood, that one's out. There's a ton of 4.6 SOHC's out there in from Grandma's Lincoln in every junkyard, but they're a little more complicated to get into place in the Z's engine bay. (compared to the 5.0)

Wow, I didn't even realize I was diggin' in the past. I guess I got caught up the awesome PVC mockup...by the way, did you finish it Dan?

FYI, Make that exhaust come as close to the diff supports as you can (vertically). Your perspective ground clearance disappears as soon as you put your tires back on and lower it to the ground. That's the lowest point in my exhaust (3" under the diff) and it will scrape going over extreme bumps. (Extreme bumps?....ehh..you get the picture.) I also have no lowering suspension mods, etc.

- T45 in my car now, nice and tight, pretty smooth, makes all but the fastest shifts, and that might be just to blame the guy running the clutch. - 1st T45 in my car, no Reverse, popped out of 2nd all the time under load and had to double clutch it to get it into 5th. Oh yeah, it was also pretty notchy. - T5 in my 93 Mustang 4cyl, quite a bit notchy. -(T5 in my 88 S-10, also notchy, yes I know they're a little different, but it was a BW T5 nonetheless) - Ford 3sp (Full synchro)in my 65 Econoline, very smooth. Shifted like a dream even with the whipped out column shifter and 6' linkages to the trans. - Ford 3sp (only 2-3 synchro) in my wife's 65 Mustang 3.3L pretty notchy, especially coming down 3-2, but I think it just needs a rebuild. (C'mon, it's like a million years old...)

I don't know how 'high grade' of steel you need for your motor mounts, if you're doing a cradle, etc, the stock mounts are normally mild, very easy to machine, form weld etc.

I know, I know, quoting wikipedia for technical numbers.... The 92 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m). The 96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 340 lb·ft (461 N·m). The 93–95 F-bodies were rated at 275 horsepower (205 kW) and 325 lb·ft (441 N·m), while the 96–97 cars were rated at 285 horsepower (213 kW) and 335 lb·ft (454 N·m). The 96–97 WS6 and SS F-bodies were rated at 305 hp (227 kW). The 94–96 B and D-body version was rated at 260 horsepower (190 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m).

How would it be sized differently with a remote setup? I've never heard any technical information pertaining to differences in setups, remote v. 'standard'.

Hot side considerations aside, you have a probably twice the volume of air to compress coming from the back of the car forward. If you spool it up before you take off, sure you might not notice, but I can't imagine it being nearly as responsive under normal / aggressive driving conditions. They make some pretty vague claims on their 'The Technology' page. It would be nice if they gave some comparative graphs, or some sort of engineering level evaluation to explain/ put some backing behind their claims (especially if they have such highly guarded patented technology).

TURBO LAGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!

It looks like that will be a pretty cool ride when he gets done with it. The 4.6L two valve heads seem like they run out of breath above 4k, which is where I think the 4V heads would help, but in day to day driving, they're identical on peak torque and just as good. I can't imagine the space constraints of the 4V are worth the hassle. Options for new 5.0's are: Buy one from the factory. Pros: New (if you use their engine manangement, maybe it would have no theft programming to get around), Cons: WAY TOO EXPENSIVE. Mustang 5.0 Wreck Pro: Hipo engine, low mileage as they're still all pretty new Con: Hard to find. Rarely in the wrecking yard as the cars are still worth enough to fix, instead of totaling. From http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/ (and Wikipedia): GT models included a 32-valve 5.0 L engine (4951cc or 302.13 cu. in.) (also referred to as the "Coyote" engine) producing 412 hp (307 kW) and 390 lb·ft (530 N·m) of torque on "premium fuel" (91 octane). Power dropped to 402 hp (300 kW) and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) when using "regular fuel" (87 octane).[54] There is much speculation to the actual output of Ford's 5.0 powerplant. Various dynamometer tests have revealed that Ford Motor Company underrated the engine, according to the tests the engine is closer to a power of 435 hp and 404 ft. lbs tq. F150 5.0 Wreck Pro: More likely to find, will still meet California swap rules (light p/u truck) Con: Maybe has a weird intake(?), like the earlier mod engines (really long intake runners make for a tall intake), slightly heavier with cast manifolds, larger intake. From Wikipedia: A torque-biased variant of the Coyote is produced as an alternative to the EcoBoost V6 in the new F-150 pickup truck. The F150 5.0L receives a lower compression ratio (10.5:1), intake camshafts with less duration, cast iron exhaust manifolds, and revised cylinder heads and intake manifold intended to promote low-end and mid-range power and torque. The engine retains the Coyote's forged steel crank and piston-cooling jets but benefits from the addition of an external engine oil cooler similar to the Boss 302's. The changes result in the engine's peak horsepower dropping to 360 bhp (268 kW; 365 PS) while torque remains the same as the Boss 302 at 380 lb·ft (520 N·m).

Pending no other modifications besides going to the 180° headers (no cam changes or anything tricksy..) do they really sound that much different? I don't have room on my car to do it (4.6 Ford) but would like to hear/see a before and after test regardless. These guys have some good pictures with some history of their use here: http://www.burnsstainless.com/bundleofsnakes-2.aspx

Wouldn't you be taking a hard hit on ground clearance with these 180° pipes? (like the pun? ) Maybe I'm looking at them at the wrong angle; are they designed to fit in front of the oil pan pickup 'hump' ?

EF, that is one cool little company. Did they mention anywhere WHO they sold the technology to? "As of March 2012, the H1 and H2 engine technology has been sold."

Sweet! Glad to hear that's all it was. My Dad still thinks it's funny that his last 69 Mustang has a funny firing order. It was a 302 with a mild 351 cam in it (or vice versa, I really don't remember) which swaps a few wires. Hope the next guy to change wires does it one at a time!

Just some quick data on the 5.0: http://phystutor.tripod.com/stang/engines/50.html (Clicking on 'Engines' at the top of the page navigates you back to other Ford V8's. )

Brian Laine's got a great website, he built an awesome 5.0 240z (maybe as good / better than the JTR??) Laine's V8 Conversion He also has drawings of his mounts online, and sells them as well. There's lots of documented sbf swaps here, with the 302/5.0 and 289's being the most popular of course.

boo sbc... 302's a plenty in the yard in Lincolns....

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/homemade-bellhousing-project/31440/page1/ Depends on just how balls to the walls you are. This guy did an awesome job making his own bellhousing. I'm not sure how it lasted in the long run, but it looks like a serious quality part when he got done.

Have you found a good way to mechanically couple the two assuming the 5r55e's physically robust enough? (Bellhousings, flywheel to input shaft mating, etc?)

Depends on where your weakest link is. I left my weakest link at tires, I'm hoping running high pressure will let them break loose before U joints etc.

D'oh! You crazy Aussies! I should have known, that's probably what Mad Max had tucked under the bonnet of his XB. I would love to get a hold of one of those inline 4.0's for my '65 Mustang. I thought they came in our Explorers and Rangers...as it turns out they're a completely different V6....