5.3l lsx in 65 stang
- Thread starter 1sick65
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
brianj5600
Active Member
The ls motor has the same bore spacing as a windsor. I have heard of people cutting the flanges off Ford headers and welding on lsx flanges. If I explode my 351 I may end up with an ls motor in mine.
hey i like the whole shotgun thing, i get it... it would be like taking factory 302 block and throwing 18lbs at it, right. was that what you meant?
oh and btw that fairmont has like $2500 into the motor and turbo, but wait is that a 9 second time slip to go along with it, oh my amazing. weird how you couldnt touch that with your and actually my favored windsor. some things are just not for everybody and for me going fast on a budget really sounds like fun so your all more than welcome to criticize but please dont sit here and say that i am being unreasonable with what i am saying--
oh and btw that fairmont has like $2500 into the motor and turbo, but wait is that a 9 second time slip to go along with it, oh my amazing. weird how you couldnt touch that with your and actually my favored windsor. some things are just not for everybody and for me going fast on a budget really sounds like fun so your all more than welcome to criticize but please dont sit here and say that i am being unreasonable with what i am saying--
brianj5600
Active Member
It is hard to believe that people think no advancements were made between 1962 when the sbf was released and 1997 when the Ls was released. If I started over it would probably be an L92 headed truck motor with a carb.
mrmustangman357
Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 763
- 3
- 18
dont forget that LS motor needs a standalone electronics package and a manifold for a carb, which can cost $1000 for both to piece together.
plus stock those motors dont come with forged goods and need to be gone through regardless IIRC. i watched the turbo video. that stock motor wont live long under 18 psi i guarantee it
plus stock those motors dont come with forged goods and need to be gone through regardless IIRC. i watched the turbo video. that stock motor wont live long under 18 psi i guarantee it
brianj5600
Active Member
Ignition box is $320 MSD Ignition 6010 - MSD LS1/LS6 Ignition Controllers for Carbureted Engines - summitracing.com
It can use 1, 2 or 3 bar GM map sensor. 2 step, and programable timing by rpm and map sensor.
Here is one with between 130 and 150 passes. Not quite as fast, but no slouch. Dyno on my turbo stock 5.3
It can use 1, 2 or 3 bar GM map sensor. 2 step, and programable timing by rpm and map sensor.
Here is one with between 130 and 150 passes. Not quite as fast, but no slouch. Dyno on my turbo stock 5.3
The Falcon above is my best friends car. We call it the Dirty Bird around here. lol He has a few Falcons and this one had to be different. With the MII front end he can easly put a Ford back in it. He always hated people who put Chevy in Fords too. I give him $hit for it now. However, this car hauls balls, its so light and it will hook in a car wash. 
Not sure what it runs but its fun non the less. This car was built on a budget, right around 10 grand.
Not sure what it runs but its fun non the less. This car was built on a budget, right around 10 grand.
mrmustangman357
Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 763
- 3
- 18
ok i looked on the net and it looks like you can get a good one of these used for~$3K nicely. That leaves you some good cash to put a decent 4l60e, converter, and electronics. this motor looks pretty cool for what it is. a 6.0L LQ4 would be a killer with a hot cam with its bigger bore.
PS: I still think 18 psi +stock bottom end = not so good
PS: I still think 18 psi +stock bottom end = not so good
gonzothegreat
Member
mrmustangman357
Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 763
- 3
- 18
Got to ask, what so special with the lsx engine
they have great durability (6 bolt mains, well designed block, splayed, larger ## head bolts), they have great stock cylinder head design that almost matches aftermarket ford cyl heads, and they are very efficient in using the combustion chamber. Im not saying they don't have their small problems (like piston slap), but the stock design is very competitive with a SBF with boltons. if the motor was $5K I'd say no, but these motors are being sold turn-key, 320 hp for $3K with electronics to get them running with efi. hot rod mag did a buildup of a 6L LQ4 motor (escalade motor) and put a hot cam in it and it made something like 410 hp. They are cool motors in their stock form. in built form, the edge gets very narrow
are they good motors? yes. are they good for your early mustang? your call
running, warrantied, complete intake to pan with accesories- $350 plus shipping
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/_Car...id=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65:3|39:1|240:1318
put a stock z06 cam and an ls6 intake and be in the 350+ hp range NA, not bad for under a $1000
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/_Car...id=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65:3|39:1|240:1318
put a stock z06 cam and an ls6 intake and be in the 350+ hp range NA, not bad for under a $1000
gonzothegreat
Member
they have great durability (6 bolt mains, well designed block, splayed, larger ## head bolts), they have great stock cylinder head design that almost matches aftermarket ford cyl heads, and they are very efficient in using the combustion chamber. Im not saying they don't have their small problems (like piston slap), but the stock design is very competitive with a SBF with boltons. if the motor was $5K I'd say no, but these motors are being sold turn-key, 320 hp for $3K with electronics to get them running with efi. hot rod mag did a buildup of a 6L LQ4 motor (escalade motor) and put a hot cam in it and it made something like 410 hp. They are cool motors in their stock form. in built form, the edge gets very narrow
are they good motors? yes. are they good for your early mustang? your call
Thanks.
wicked93gs
15 Year Member
I'm looking at those pictures of the ls motors and I am thinking there is no way in hell those headers will fit in a stock engine bay....you know how tight a 351w is in a 65-66 right? cant use headers on them, just manifolds....at least on all the ones I have ever seen, that would choke power right down...I'm willing to bet that's why the falcon guy used a MII front suspension....so lets add this up....$2500 in engine and turbo(not sure how you get a LS engine, build it AND turbocharge it for under $2500,thats just barely possible with a neon engine, but lets assume that's true) say $600 for electronics and wiring, another $2000 for the MII suspension, $300 to buy a junkyard aluminum driveshaft and get it cut down....$100 for misc sensors and what not to get the engine to communicate with the gauges....so roughly $5500 for a "budget" swap with no real frills, what can you do with that same amount of money in a 351w?lets do that amazing $2500 engine build and turbo on the 351w, etc etc and you end up with a couple grand extra, do you see where we are going with this? under no circumstance is this going to be cheaper for you....I am dropping in a 4.6L DOHC into my '66 but I am under no delusion about the cost here....its costing me at least $2500 more to use this engine....will it make any more power than a stock 351? sure....will it make enough more to justify the extra expense? hell no, I'm doing it because sadly enough I just love the sound of this particular engine, although this engine does have a lot more potential power than a 302...possibly more potential than a 351w.
In short, the only way to make power on a budget is to stick with a SBF in a 65-66 mustang. Trying to use other engines that make more power and thinking you are going to come out spending less money by the time you are through is just stupid, plain and simple. If you want it to be different that's one thing, but just don't operate under false premises. As for actual advice on it...I would say that the engine will probably fit, but the headers are going to be an issue, if its going to be turbo I doubt you can make it work without a MII suspension. Early mustangs were not meant for huge engines and turbo systems, you need to make some room
In short, the only way to make power on a budget is to stick with a SBF in a 65-66 mustang. Trying to use other engines that make more power and thinking you are going to come out spending less money by the time you are through is just stupid, plain and simple. If you want it to be different that's one thing, but just don't operate under false premises. As for actual advice on it...I would say that the engine will probably fit, but the headers are going to be an issue, if its going to be turbo I doubt you can make it work without a MII suspension. Early mustangs were not meant for huge engines and turbo systems, you need to make some room
brianj5600
Active Member
If the dimensions in the link earlier are correct, the ls is 1/4" narrower. The diagram show the width on the ls measured at the widest part, the plug wires. I don't know how wide the manifolds are. Why does the ls need an MII front end and the 351 doesn't? For someone with just a little fab skills and automotive knowledge it is a good deal. If you have to pay someone else to do it you will not come out ahead. If you look over at the turbo forums, you will see a lot of people using stock manifolds aimed forward for turbo set ups.
wicked93gs
15 Year Member
I personally think theres not enough room for a 351w either....not with a decent set of headers anyway...and yes, you can swap manifolds around...but there are a few things you forget...on a SBF you have the alternator in the way, but lets assume you mount it like a ls, or a 4.6 up top...you still have to get the piping to the turbo(s) and more importantly from the turbo(s) back....under the already crowded header area...over the shock tower/motor mount area, then out of the engine bay....its not going to happen in a 65/66 chasis with a 351w....maybe with a 302, even then its probably pretty close....theres just not enough room for anything but a block hugging manifold on either engine...look at a ruler, 1/4" is nothing as far as exhaust primaries or turbo downpipes is concerned....although alternatively you could possibly route the downpipes under the x-member and scrape on every bump in the road, I mean after thinking about it for weeks, I decided the path of least resistance for any engine thats eventually going to be turbo was a MII setup. Regardless of turbocbharging or a nice set of longtube headers, you will still end up spending more on an engine that has what? 350HP? than taking a 351w(250HP) and warming it up to match the LS output, That being said, I think it would be interesting to see a LS engine in a classic mustang....but then I think it would be just as interesting to see a caddy northstar engine, or a duratec v6, or a falcon XR6 engine, or any of a dozen other engines in a classic mustang, I still don't believe its cost effective for all the small issues you will run into(not to mention big ones....although I will qualify that by saying, if you get a good deal on the engine it may be worth it, at least for the weight savings and the boost in handling it would give you
Hack
15 Year Member
I'm sure the LS motors are good, but I'm already sick of seeing them in classic Chivies. It seems to me every third person with a gen 1 Camaro has an LS something in it. It's like in the 70s and early 80s tons of people put small block Chivies in their old 32 Fords. Blown flatties or old hemis are so much cooler. Me too is boring - it's sure not one of those things that makes you stop and really look a show car over. It's more likely to make you walk away faster.
It's boring in a Chivy and dumb in a Ford. And good luck if you ever go to sell your Chivy in a Ford some time in the future. Talk about hurting the value of the car! Almost anyone who loves Fords will dislike your car. But hey, whatever tickles your pickle.
It's boring in a Chivy and dumb in a Ford. And good luck if you ever go to sell your Chivy in a Ford some time in the future. Talk about hurting the value of the car! Almost anyone who loves Fords will dislike your car. But hey, whatever tickles your pickle.
brianj5600
Active Member
Or an SHO? I was looking forward to seeing that. I agree that a 351w is really too tight in a 65-66. There is not a ton of room in my 67. I am currently changing my T-70 out for a Borg Warner S475. Wanna talk about no room. I also agree that a big down pipe under the cross member could be a problem. Mine will split from 5" into a pair of 3" pipes, one on each side of the motor and under the cross member. I ran it last summer with 2.5" the same way and not tucked very well and never hit it on anything. Most long tubes hang down just as low at the collector. I have had more trouble with long tubes dragging speed bumps when dropping the front tires off it.
Similar threads
