• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

Chevy engine in a Stang?!?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter 69-B2
  • Start date Start date Jan 4, 2009
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Next
First Prev 6 of 7 Next Last

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
9,392
3,539
233
Jan 8, 2009
#101
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #101
DOUBLE STUFF!!!!
 

Strype

Cuthbert catcher
Founding Member
May 11, 1999
61
34
104
Huntsvegas, AL
Jan 8, 2009
#102
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #102
Dunked vs. Not
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Jan 8, 2009
#103
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #103
Gearbanger 101 said:
I can only imagine the initial thought was to bring the engine as far back towards the cowl and away from the front end as possible to keep the weight distribution more even.

Based on the way I've seen most of them handle though, it still didn't do a whole lot of good?

I'd rather swap LT headers in a fox than change spark plugs in an early F-Body.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that was the idea, but I get the impression not all of those engineers and/or designers had ever played mechanic before. Or maybe their human ergonomics software was corrupt.

Strype said:
Dunked vs. Not
Click to expand...

Dunked

P.S. 5 pages FTMFWinnar
 

248a

New Member
Feb 9, 2008
0
0
0
Phoenix, AZ
Jan 8, 2009
#104
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #104
Gearbanger 101 said:
I can only imagine the initial thought was to bring the engine as far back towards the cowl and away from the front end as possible to keep the weight distribution more even.
Click to expand...

NikwoaC said:
I'm sure that was the idea, but I get the impression not all of those engineers and/or designers had ever played mechanic before. Or maybe their human ergonomics software was corrupt.
Click to expand...

I think it's just a 1974 mustang II all over again. When they re-did them for the 4th gen, they never really thought "oh yeah we have to cram that goofy looking LT-1 in there." Too bad the LS1 camaros look like the chrysler concord





...also Double-stuffed double stuffs FTW!!!
 

Attachments

  • 00-camaro-front288.webp
    73.6 KB · Views: 106

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
9,392
3,539
233
Jan 8, 2009
#105
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #105
Dunked!

Cookies should ALWAYS be dunked
 

68stang351

Founding Member
May 16, 2002
850
9
39
Savoy TX
Jan 8, 2009
#106
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #106
248a said:
Too bad the LS1 camaros look like the chrysler concord
Click to expand...

And here I've spent all these years thinking I was the only one that noticed that.
 

248a

New Member
Feb 9, 2008
0
0
0
Phoenix, AZ
Jan 8, 2009
#107
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #107
LaserSVT said:
Dunked!

Cookies should ALWAYS be dunked
Click to expand...

Nevah!

^--Lactose intolerance FTL!!!!
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Jan 8, 2009
#108
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #108
248a said:
I think it's just a 1974 mustang II all over again. When they re-did them for the 4th gen, they never really thought "oh yeah we have to cram that goofy looking LT-1 in there." Too bad the LS1 camaros look like the chrysler concord





...also Double-stuffed double stuffs FTW!!!
Click to expand...

WOW I never noticed that. Ironic. I always thought they were good looking cars. I liked the early Firebirds too, but they got more and more extravagant/spaceship looking toward the end there.
 

Attachments

  • 00-camaro-front288.webp
    73.6 KB · Views: 106

90lxcoupe

20+ Year Stangneter
Oct 7, 2003
3,596
350
134
Jan 8, 2009
#109
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #109
248a said:
Click to expand...

that car is all kinds of confused, it looks like a camaro, and aspires to be an acura juding by the license plate
 

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
9,392
3,539
233
Jan 8, 2009
#110
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #110
248a said:
Nevah!

^--Lactose intolerance FTL!!!!
Click to expand...
*wonders who has the "cookies should never be dunked" CT*
 

Strype

Cuthbert catcher
Founding Member
May 11, 1999
61
34
104
Huntsvegas, AL
Jan 8, 2009
#111
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #111
LaserSVT said:
*wonders who has the "cookies should never be dunked" CT*
Click to expand...

*knows the answer but won't tell*
 

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
9,392
3,539
233
Jan 8, 2009
#112
  • Jan 8, 2009
  • #112
Damn yous!
 

dcurtis

10 Year Member
Jan 19, 2006
688
7
39
Jan 9, 2009
#113
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #113
LaserSVT said:
Dunked!

Cookies should ALWAYS be dunked
Click to expand...

I love the white oreo's in milk What's this thread about again??
 

dcurtis

10 Year Member
Jan 19, 2006
688
7
39
Jan 9, 2009
#114
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #114
248a said:
I think it's just a 1974 mustang II all over again. When they re-did them for the 4th gen, they never really thought "oh yeah we have to cram that goofy looking LT-1 in there." Too bad the LS1 camaros look like the chrysler concord





...also Double-stuffed double stuffs FTW!!!
Click to expand...

I have never seen a chrysler concord but they do kind of look like the camaros, up front any how.
 

Attachments

  • 00-camaro-front288.webp
    73.6 KB · Views: 117

25thmustang

Mustang Master
Sep 5, 2003
2,021
85
99
Montgomery, NY
Jan 9, 2009
#115
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #115
My dads car has a motor from a van in it, I assume being a Ford van thats okay?

I'm not sure where his transmission was originally out of either, probably not a factory vehicle, but you never know?

I would LOVE a Viper spec T-56, but would that be bastardizing?

All things I wonder.
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Jan 9, 2009
#116
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #116
25thmustang said:
My dads car has a motor from a van in it, I assume being a Ford van thats okay?

I'm not sure where his transmission was originally out of either, probably not a factory vehicle, but you never know?

I would LOVE a Viper spec T-56, but would that be bastardizing?

All things I wonder.
Click to expand...

The T56 is manufactured by Tremec, designed by Borg Warner, and was used in the Terminator Cobras (as I'm sure you knew) as well as some Aston Martin cars, Dodge Rams, GM F body cars, and Corvettes, just to name a few.

There are certain boundaries that you can cross, but dropping something into a Mustang that was directly designed by GM engineers to be in GM vehicles with GM insignia on it-I personally think-is going too far.

Sure, there is some gray area, but a LSx in a Mustang is pretty black-and-white.
 

25thmustang

Mustang Master
Sep 5, 2003
2,021
85
99
Montgomery, NY
Jan 9, 2009
#117
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #117
I see your point, I just think the idea behind it is cool. Take a proven engine that makes great power, is light, gets good mileage, and can be bought and swapped cheap, and toss it in the chassis that you like, know, and have. I personally wouldn't do it, but seeing it I would probably like it.

I guess it's the same thing with the big deal when the guy wanted to toss a V8 in his SVO, only know we are crossing brand lines.

What about this scenario for you. I have Acura TL seats that should be going in my car. Completely different brand, not aftermarket, and not even American. Is this a black and white or grey area? I mean, I love the seats, but would I catch some heat for them not being Ford or aftermarket? Is that bastardizing?
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Jan 9, 2009
#118
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #118
Would I do the seats? I don't know. Hell, I don't even like to buy Japanese spark plugs. But I suppose if you had them recovered to match your interior, fabbed the rails to make them functional with the Stang internal/electronics, and the end result looked and felt good, I'd probably compliment you on a job well done. I wouldn't do it to my car, but I wouldn't condemn you for doing it.

But if you just slapped them in there and left the "Acura" embroidery on the head rests, I'd have to laugh and shake my head at you.


Now I know your next statement will be, "they already match the interior and don't have "Acura" anywhere on them. In that case, I don't know. Its your car. Its still not as sacrilegious as the LSx/Mustang junction.
 

LaserSVT

Got FB banned again for saying nards
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
9,392
3,539
233
Jan 9, 2009
#119
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #119
dcurtis said:
I love the white oreo's in milk What's this thread about again??
Click to expand...
Cookies! Duh!
 
R

Rick James

Member
May 13, 2007
172
3
19
burlington new jersey
Jan 9, 2009
#120
  • Jan 9, 2009
  • #120
Oh brother
 
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Next
First Prev 6 of 7 Next Last
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
rear Impact absorbers.
  • Praetorious
  • May 4, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
160
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 5, 2026
Praetorious
P
H
Drivetrain 6R80 to t56 swap
  • Holymoses
  • Apr 25, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
312
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 25, 2026
AeroCoupe
  • Sticky
Free Beta Access: Tool I Built to Hunt Fox Bodies Faster
  • MRaburn
  • Mar 6, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
538
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 7, 2026
FastDriver
G
Fox Tire Size for 16" Pony Wheels on 1984 LX Convertible
  • gw7
  • Jun 24, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
127
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 25, 2026
Qtrhrse23
Q
S
Best place to source power steering parts for a '67? (control valve, ram, hoses)
  • SophiaTatum
  • Jun 15, 2026
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
87
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Jun 18, 2026
SophiaTatum
S
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?