5.3l lsx in 65 stang

brianj5600 said:

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.

Click to expand...

it still gets on my nerves that that engine was stolen....so I had to restructure....in all honesty the SHO engine was as tight a fit as the 351 anyway, maybe worse...ah well, the 4.6L I can actually get parts for...

If you have access to the LS stuff cheap..........do it!!! I think it is great to tweak those guys who have a bias.....I'm twisted like that.

There is a guy in town with a show-quality 67......with........a 440 in it. It rocks!

Different isn't necessarily bad.............just different. If people never tried it then we would all be driving bland slow boxes. I get it...........good luck with the build and keep us posted.

you have to be kidding, theres no way you are going to fit a turbo lsx in there any easier than a 351w....oh, and unless you are shooting for more than 600HP, theres no reason to replace anything other than pistons in a 351w, maybe rods, as for the rest of the engine....in a turbo application stock is fine, up to 600HP anyway, possibly more....I learned my lesson in wasting money in turbo builds with the 4 2.4L neon engines I built, throwing money at head work is a lot less effective than throwing money at the block to take more boost, and if you think you are going to get away with a oil feed/return for $50 that doesn't leak you're smoking crack...another area I have planty of experience....the only thing that ever worked right for me was SS lines and an aluminum oil pan with the return WELDED in. that being said, in all honesty carbs and turbo just dont go together for best efficiency...stay EFI, you get so much better control...take the $400 from the carb and spend it on Megasquirt....a v3.0 board with a MSII chip would be ideal, you are also forgetting the cost of wideband ($250 for the AEM unit, it works awesomely and comes convienently packaged in a gauge) so again....you aren't getting it done any cheaper,1/4" is just not any more room to run stuff...that only translates into 1/8" per side. there's a ton of stuff you just don't need to do if you are going turbo as far as engine prep....my suggestions on engine prep whether its an lsx or a 351w would be, rebuilt, forged pistons and rods....good head gaskets...and that's it, the turbo will take care of the rest...take my advice here...I wasted so much money on stupid things on my first 2.4L turbo build....porting, polishing, stainless valves, 3 angle valve jobs, cams, etc etc, it was stupid....later engines of mine made a lot more power with a ton less invested...the main reason being that the first engine I built had pretty primitive fuel controls(like a carb as a matter of fact, same basic idea) spend the money where it will actually have an effect...EFI and more boost, I do approve of the mII front suspension though, it makes it so much easier for turbo, my 4.6L will eventually be turbo...low boost,stock internals, aiming for something like 450HP, however I've decided that can come later, I have enough challenges getting it in and running

FWIW, OP is building this car on a $6K total budget. All of it.

He has more skills than most of us, but six dimes is nuts.

Got high hopes for you, but don't think it'll happen with that budget. Just because of all the things you can't see yet, and the 1k in fuel system you need on top of all you've thought of already. 600 HP non inter cooled will be pretty tough. So an IC or meth will cost ya. But good luck either way.

CraigMBA said:

FWIW, OP is building this car on a $6K total budget. All of it.

He has more skills than most of us, but six dimes is nuts.

Click to expand...

I was confused and made a mistake. I thought OP was this guy:

1966 MUSTANG FASTBACK

Ron is building the LSx powered, C5 front, torque arm rear on the $6K budget. OP is pipe dreaming.

so you're going turbo.....other than being different have you given a reasonable reason to use a LS1? I personally think it would be neat to see, but I'm a very practical guy, its not going to be cheaper, and you will never get much respect simply because you went and put a chevy engine in a classic mustang....the message this sends to other mustang owners is that you don't think a SBF is good enough for you, it makes you seem like a LS1 snob(not necessarily what I think, but it is the message you are sending). Go for it though, but keep all your reciepts and a log of your time and add it all up for us afterward...after all time is money too.

wicked93gs said:

and you will never get much respect simply because you went and put a chevy engine in a classic mustang....the message this sends to other mustang owners is that you don't think a SBF is good enough for you

Click to expand...

Well said

a engine is an engine, with a built sbf there likely really isn't even a stock part that ford built in there! maybe the block? ? ?

1sick65 said:

its a truck arm rear suspension-

Click to expand...

Your right, and I knew that. There is a four page thread on corner carvers regarding Ron's project. I don't know why I wrote torque arm, but it was obv. wrong. I apologize.

289coupe66 said:

if you wanna put an lsx in your 65 stang just give me the stang and i'll buy you a lsx for your gay chebby

Click to expand...

ill take the lsx454

thank you for fighting the hate and I hope you dont mind i saved your photos as reference for my build.If your still active on the forum i would like to ask you what suspensions you went with.