1969 302/4.6 swap

[6902Stangs]

Hey all! It's come down to this: I've been cheating on my '69 Sportsroof with my '02 GT...sad. It's time to get back down to my real high school sweetheart and part with the newbie. Since the '02 spoiled me, I'm going to drop a 4.6 5-speed in place of the 302 C4. Has anyone here done that, or know of anywhere I could read on it? I've searched and come up empty so far. Also in the plans are 4-wheel power disc brakes, and rack-and-pinion from the 4.6 or aftermarket...we'll see how it works.

 

[69PaleHorse]

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=536634

reenmachine does these swaps all the time. I can't imagine there would be much difference between the 67 and the 69 mechanics for this swap.

 

[70vert]

Assume you've thought this through already

but I'm the guy who chimes in and says "what's wrong with a pushrod?" Can get a great bang for the buck with a 302 or 351w based stroker and IIRC, even the 351 stroker is lighter than the mod motor, with more HP and TQ to boot. But if you're doing it just to do it, more power to ya.

Hey all! It's come down to this: I've been cheating on my '69 Sportsroof with my '02 GT...sad. It's time to get back down to my real high school sweetheart and part with the newbie. Since the '02 spoiled me, I'm going to drop a 4.6 5-speed in place of the 302 C4. Has anyone here done that, or know of anywhere I could read on it? I've searched and come up empty so far. Also in the plans are 4-wheel power disc brakes, and rack-and-pinion from the 4.6 or aftermarket...we'll see how it works.

 

[reenmachine]

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=536634

reenmachine does these swaps all the time. I can't imagine there would be much difference between the 67 and the 69 mechanics for this swap.

I'll chime in since I was mentioned. Yes, I did the swap and loved the results.

That being said, the car I built next -- pushrod engine.

The one I built after that -- pushrod engine.

The one I'm about to start -- you guessed it. Pushrod engine.

It is a MUCH bigger job than you think.

 

[D.Hearne]

I'll chime in since I was mentioned. Yes, I did the swap and loved the results.

That being said, the car I built next -- pushrod engine.

The one I built after that -- pushrod engine.

The one I'm about to start -- you guessed it. Pushrod engine.

It is a MUCH bigger job than you think.

Truly words from the Wise!!

 

[67efivert]

4.6 engines are fun if thats what u want to build then go fo it but from my past experince do alot of rearserch before starting the project

 

[bnickel]

there's also no way to just "drop-in" a 4.6 into a 69 stang, lot's of mods are required for this swap in addition to losing the shock towers and changing the entire front suspension. a pushrod motor is a much easier swap and retains the shock towers and allows the stock or stock style front suspension.

if you had a 71-73 stang then the 4.6 would probably be an easier swap since that car was designed to swallow a boss 429 with no mods.

 

[6902Stangs]

I can see from the project that Reen did on the 'vert it's quite a project, no doubt ...still reading it all. My rear end would be leaf springs and disc brakes, and the Heidt's kit up front. My major reasoning for dropping in the 4.6 is that I drive about 4-500 miles a week, and while I loved doing that in my fairly stock '69, after 4 years of it I didn't like the constant carb adjustments and lack of power for less gas mileage than the modular setup...spoiled I guess. It also manual drum brakes and the loose, sloppy '69 power steering. I'll look into other options that would make a pushrod more reliable and maybe keep me from popping the hood and manually closing the "electric" choke when it's cold out. I appreciate the quick feedback from everyone! Back to studying the site...

 

[reenmachine]

Pop a Mass-Flo EFI system on a 5.0 crate motor and go. Plenty of power and torque, easy swap, and all of the reliability/streetability of the 4.6 or any new car.

 

[bnickel]

Pop a Mass-Flo EFI system on a 5.0 crate motor and go. Plenty of power and torque, easy swap, and all of the reliability/streetability of the 4.6 or any new car.

or a stock 5.0 efi engine, even. if you get the mass air 5.0 from 89-up you can make all the mods you want to it. if you want mileage, then build a 10:1 or 10.25:1 compression 5.0 with a mild cam and aluminum heads and back it up with a 5 speed or AOD and 3.25 geared rearend and you'll get very good mileage out of it. i was able to get 24mpg on the highway the old engine in my 69 GT. it was a stock compression 69 351 4v, with a mild cam 600 carter carb and mallory conversion in the stock dizzy, running 3.25 gears and through an FMX trans (no overdrive) if i can get that out of a carb'd 351w then you could get at least that and more out of a mild 5.0 with efi.

 

[D.Hearne]

My major reasoning for dropping in the 4.6 is that I drive about 4-500 miles a week, and while I loved doing that in my fairly stock '69, after 4 years of it I didn't like the constant carb adjustments and lack of power for less gas mileage than the modular setup...spoiled I guess. .

I used to drive my 89 Ranger back and forth to work on a 50 miles round trip with a 331 topped with a six pack carb setup. No carb adjustments were made for over a year. The secret is using an EFI cam and electronic ignition. The 331 had a Ford Z303 roller and the igntion was a points distributor fitted with a Pertronix II fired with a Mallory Promaster coil. Power ? it ran 13 second 1/4's, topped in at 140 mph. No overdrive and as long as it was driven conservatively, it would knock down 16 mpg. Keep your foot in it, putting it thru the twisty back roads at 3 am, it would still get 12 mpg.

 

[67efivert]

i know eveeryone on here is trying to steer u away for it but i like the 4.6 stuff and it can be done without removal of the shock towers looks for rossmach on modularfords he has a 4v in a 67 and the outside dimensions of the 2v and 4v are the same
on the opposite note i will agree the 5.0 with efi and a 5 speed will give u good mileage my vert with 3.40 gears and a t5 has gotten 25 on the highway but usally gets16-18 with me driving it

 

[xoxbxfx]

i know eveeryone on here is trying to steer u away for it but i like the 4.6 stuff and it can be done without removal of the shock towers looks for rossmach on modularfords he has a 4v in a 67 and the outside dimensions of the 2v and 4v are the same
on the opposite note i will agree the 5.0 with efi and a 5 speed will give u good mileage my vert with 3.40 gears and a t5 has gotten 25 on the highway but usally gets16-18 with me driving it

I have a 66 with a 4.6 and a MII front suspension so there are no shock towers... Its going to be a tight fit with notching the towers and you wont get the valve covers off without pulling the motor.

However long you think the swap is going to take, triple it. The wiring is a PITA. My 66 still doesnt run because of the wiring hell I have been going through. I hope you know electrical wiring really well. You need to pick up a Helms wiring manual for whatever year motor you have. You will need to disable PATS by using some type of programmer like a Diablosport Predator or SCT Flash tuner. The swap really is hard and not worth it in my eyes. I bought a ditched project with a 4.6/t3650 and MII suspension or I would not have messed with it.

 

[6902Stangs]

Well, thanks you you jerks I realize the 4.6 swap looks like it'll take longer than I'd like on this project...down the road though, it'll happen. In the meantime I found a complete, running 1985 5.0 Cougar with about 130k to possibly serve as a donor of many parts, and I am now embarking on this site to see if it's worth getting. Hope you guys wrote up on this already!

 

[Rusty67]

I think the 85 EFI setup was still a speed density setup. The MAF setup is far more common and a little more forgiving when it comes to built motors.

 

[NasaGT]

i know eveeryone on here is trying to steer u away for it but i like the 4.6 stuff and it can be done without removal of the shock towers looks for rossmach on modularfords he has a 4v in a 67 and the outside dimensions of the 2v and 4v are the same

I beleive the 4v mod heads are much larger than the 2v mod heads. This makes the 4v motor wider than the 2v motor.