Can I make a 5.0 handle?

[stykthyn]

Riiiight....because I know nothing of engines with pushrods?

no I'm not saying that at all, its just the stance you take in every thread involving a pushrod motor or anything that's not ford that matter. you repeatedly state your preference for the mod motors.

I wouldnt condone it in a show car or a daily for that matter, in a race car as long as you can flat foot the loud pedal it doesnt matter in my book. fast is fast.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

no I'm not saying that at all, its just the stance you take in every thread involving a pushrod motor or anything that's not ford that matter. you repeatedly state your preference for the mod motors.

Yes, I generally prefer the smooth idle and seamless efficiency of a Modular mill, but my preference usually gravitates to the entire car said engine is wrapped in, not to the engine alone. Mod motor cars still utilizing the Fox4 chassis also come with some major updates in suspension, brakes, chassis and interior design. The ones utilizing the S197 are light years ahead even further still. If they still sported an updated version of the 5.0L or 5.8L I’d still like them better than the original Fox. Subjections of the looks aside, it’s the entire car itself that bodes superiority, not necessarily the power plant in question.

In any case, I don't discount the thought of a good pushrod engine. If it were my money, and the goals stated initially were mine, I would have gone with a stroked 351, with aluminum heads to offset the weight difference between the two engines, then added an aftermarket K-member and A-arms to lighten the whole deal up front. He would easily be able to eclipse the 400rwhp mark without completely killing the bank (although he'd still be over his initial 10K goal with suspension components and car cost included in the deal) or straining the engine.

Aside from hatred for bowtie parts in a Ford car, I wouldn't think he'd save any money at all going that route. He'd first and foremost need to buy and engine. Sure, there are deals to be had on used LS1's, but if we're throwing used parts into the mix, why not suggest a used 331, 347 or 351 based stroker as well? There are plenty of them in the classifieds? With the LS1, he's still responsible for the induction and ignition system as well as customizing an exhaust system to work as well. A custom K-member is going to be a necessity and he's still responsible for a transmission. And all this and we haven’t even started to modify the power output of the engine yet. I wouldn’t suggest a Modular engine either, since it’ll do nothing to keep the weight down in the front end and would be an absolute wiring nightmare for a novice. Not to mention pushing one into the 400rwhp range in N/A form isn’t going to be easy and it certainly wouldn’t be cheap! I’ve learned over the years that sticking as close to the original platform in question is always going to pose the least amount of expense or trouble should small issues arise. It’s the little odds and ends with these "custom" set ups that kills you, not necessarily the main components themselves.

 

[1993 2.3LX]

What kind of weight dist does a stock notch 5.0 have? Once I get to the point I plan on getting a tubular K member so I can push the engine back 1 in to improve balance. I wish money were no object but since it is I might just end up sticking to a 5.0 until I get everything else finished. After all else is done then I will pull the engine and rebuild it with a strong bottom end and some good bolt ons (Heads, intake, cold air, headers)

 

[Gearbanger 101]

What kind of weight dist does a stock notch 5.0 have?

Truth be told, it’s probably a little worse than the hatch backs. It’s true, the Notch's are lighter, but all of said weight removed from the car, was done so at the rear end where its needed most. This takes an already problematic weight distribution issue and makes it worse. As you're aware, this can be improved upon with the use of lightened front end components and by setting the engine back a little. Ideally, you want to try to shoot for as close to a 50/50 weight distribution as possible for a track car, so look into lightening front end components and shifting weight to the rear of the car (battery relocation, etc) any way you can.

 

[1993 2.3LX]

Truth be told, it’s probably a little worse than the hatch backs. It’s true, the Notch's are lighter, but all of said weight removed from the car, was done so at the rear end where its needed most. This takes an already problematic weight distribution issue and makes it worse. As you're aware, this can be improved upon with the use of lightened front end components and by setting the engine back a little. Ideally, you want to try to shoot for as close to a 50/50 weight distribution as possible for a track car, so look into lightening front end components and shifting weight to the rear of the car (battery relocation, etc) any way you can.

That is exactly what I was thinking. I want a tubular K member with coilovers and tubular A arms. I would for sure put the battery in the trunk and get a carbon fiber or fiberglass hood. The weight for the notch is 2775 and for the hatch is 2834. Truth be told I might be better off going with a hatch. That would give me a 59lb head start getting the weight to the rear.

 

[1991notchbackLX]

That is exactly what I was thinking. I want a tubular K member with coilovers and tubular A arms. I would for sure put the battery in the trunk and get a carbon fiber or fiberglass hood. The weight for the notch is 2775 and for the hatch is 2834. Truth be told I might be better off going with a hatch. That would give me a 59lb head start getting the weight to the rear.

I'd highly advise against taking any of those weight figures as fact. I've seen full interior coupes weigh over 3200 and hatches with a ton of weight removed weigh in at 3100. Weight is one of the most talked about issues with mustangs, and every single person has a different stance or dfferent number for their own car. Those two numbers you posted are extremely low, like race car weight low. There's no way to tell unless you put your car on a trusted, calibrated scale.

 

[1993 2.3LX]

I kinda thought that too. I got the figures off KBB. I wish I could come up with factory numbers on both.

 

[bgoins]

edmunds.com has the weight and other specifics of fox-bodies. great and free website. i say do the MM Road and Track Box, H/C/I on stock short-block. depending on how cheap u get the car for, u might even be able to afford a Cobra brake upgrade. if u are good at finding cheap used parts u might squeak in under 10k.

 

[bgoins]

here's the link. check it out

1993 Ford Mustang specs, auto safety at Edmunds

 

[Shaolin Crane]

yeah it shouldnt be hard to find a decent 4-5k LX and throw all the goodies at it. or hell, buy a roller for under a grand and then build up the suspension and drive train. might be the easiest way if you arent in a hurry.

exactly what i did check out my build thread http://forums.stangnet.com/783625-project-dedicated-service.html im at around 12k so far, but i also included those number with the dart 347 i have in the works

 

[Shaolin Crane]

An HCI 302 with gears and suspension mods would be a ton of fun on a track day.

P.S. I'm not sure MM is the absolute best out there, Griggs makes some pretty sweet stuff too.

woah woah woah, i thought he said he wanted to keep the budget reasonable, griggs stuff i awsome but is twice as expensive and is ONLY for race use as they care strictly about weight savings so they are not as strong as the MM stuff when it comes to street use

 

[1993 2.3LX]

exactly what i did check out my build thread http://forums.stangnet.com/783625-project-dedicated-service.html im at around 12k so far, but i also included those number with the dart 347 i have in the works

Awesome, thanks for the link! I cant wait to see it when it is done. I love all the suspension mods. That is exactly the kind of think I would like to do. I heard the GT has a wider front track than the LX cars. Is that true and does it help a lot in the handling department?

 

[stykthyn]

the 5.0 has a wider track than the 4cyl cars, although either k member will hold a v8

 

[1993 2.3LX]

But does a GT have a wider track than a LX?

 

[Gearbanger 101]

But does a GT have a wider track than a LX?

No

...and to be quite honest, I thought the K-member was the same for a 4-cyl car and a V8 car too?

 

[stykthyn]

I dont think its the same(I could be wrong), but the 4 cyl K is the same as the early fox k members and it's 1/2" thinner than the 87-93 5.0 K members.....I read that here somewhere. If I can find the thread I will post the link.

 

[1993 2.3LX]

I might be wrong but I don't think the K member is the same for 4cyl and 8. When I had my 4cyl and was considering a swap that is one of the things I was advised to change.

 

[stykthyn]

what part of florida are you in?

 

[1993 2.3LX]

what part of florida are you in?

Bout 60 miles above you. I work in Graceville.

 

[stykthyn]

sweet, maybe one of these days I will get my car finished and we can meet up