Hoping to go Modular

DukeGnarley · May 31, 2006

stangonline said:
The single biggest issue with mod motor vs. 302/351w motors is cost when you are looking for 400-450hp. I can't argue that one. However, when you get above the 500hp mark, the gap isn't quite as wide. You will spend a lot building a strong 302 based motor - and even then, it will be super strong and probably not destroy itself from just the HP - BUT IMO "IMO", the longevity of such a motor will not match a mod motor of equal horsepower.

that's when you move up to the 351. After about 500 hp, the 4.6 will hold up better than a 302, I'll agree with you there. but cost? I'm not so certain. just the cost of engine vs. engine you may be correct, but a 4.6 in a classic takes an additional few grand just to make it fit.

stangonline · May 31, 2006

Thats mainly what I was getting at. Yes, it does cost a few bucks just in fabrication to fit a mod motor. Thats why I like the griggs setup for the mod motor - the cost is high, but you can order it setup for mod motor, plus, it's front steer, and comes with the entire rack and pinion setup, which some people pay $1500+ for a R&P rear-steer setup. Those extras start adding up and makes the griggs setup seem a little more reasonable.

stangonline · May 31, 2006

bnickel said:
ummm yeah, i'm already a member at CC and yes the griggs front setup is based on the fox suspension, yeah it's all custom parts and has upper a-arms added but that doesn't change the fact that is still BASED on the fox suspension, which is still based on the 78 fairmont platform, period. i'm not saying the classic mustang suspension is any better but for 10 grand i want more than something based on a 78 fairmont. the point is that there is a lot that can be done to the classic mustang suspesnion system and get almost the same results as with the griggs for a lot less money. will it be the equal of the griggs? probably not but it can get damn close.

Umm.. go look at the pictures - you are wrong. It uses an SN spindle - thats about the only thing that is fox/sn. Coilovers..not on a fox, upper control arms...not on a fox...tell me, where is the fox body suspension pivot? - the strut, which extends to the top of the shock tower. Where does the griggs pivot? - upper ball joint. How much more different does it have to be to convince you? I've got a hyundai here that had a BMW emblem on it - I want to sell it to you, because...it's basically a BMW.

DukeGnarley · May 31, 2006

bnickel said:
ummm yeah, i'm already a member at CC and yes the griggs front setup is based on the fox suspension, yeah it's all custom parts and has upper a-arms added but that doesn't change the fact that is still BASED on the fox suspension, which is still based on the 78 fairmont platform, period. i'm not saying the classic mustang suspension is any better but for 10 grand i want more than something based on a 78 fairmont. the point is that there is a lot that can be done to the classic mustang suspesnion system and get almost the same results as with the griggs for a lot less money. will it be the equal of the griggs? probably not but it can get damn close.

Sorry, but there's no way the griggs is based on the fox suspension. the griggs uses a SLA front and a 3 link (if i remember right) rear setup, the fox uses a mac strut front end and a terrible 4 link rear end (quadrabind). the only thing you could say is that the griggs suspension was originally designed for the fox.

I do however agree that a modified stock setup in a classic can give you some very good results. Does it compare to the griggs setup? I can't say. For most people, if not everyone, a modified stock setup will get the job done and cost a whole lot less.

stangonline · May 31, 2006

DukeGnarley said:
Sorry, but there's no way the griggs is based on the fox suspension. the griggs uses a SLA front and a 3 link (if i remember right) rear setup, the fox uses a mac strut front end and a terrible 4 link rear end (quadrabind). the only thing you could say is that the griggs suspension was originally designed for the fox.

I do however agree that a modified stock setup in a classic can give you some very good results. Does it compare to the griggs setup? I can't say. For most people, if not everyone, a modified stock setup will get the job done and cost a whole lot less.

I agree, most people don't need it..and on the street, you would reallllly have to make an effort to utilize even part of its potential. I have other motivations for using the griggs setup as well. Larger wheels are an issue with the stock style suspension and I want 17x9 275s on the front. Most people are limited to 245s, not because they like them, but because any wheel wide enough to accomodate a larger tire - hits the upper ball joint - not to mention has wierd backspacing. It would also be nice to swap on any of the late model wheels if I wanted. Brake selection is also killer with the SN spindles. Lots of good reasons...it's just so damn expensive

Hack · May 31, 2006

Garrettn said:
I am 18 years old and next year will be going to college. I hope i can drop a 4.6 SOHC or DOHC to replace my 289 with a C-4 for more fuel economy and power. I understand that this will be incredibly hard but i have spent over two years working on it and would hate to give it up. My question is what all do i need to swap to modular and what would it cost. i know i need a crate engine, new tranny, Mustang II front end, and i need to cut off the shock towers in the engine compartmen tot make room.

I'm not sure why you mention fuel economy. You would have to drive a LOT of miles to pay for this type of modification by saved gas. Lets say gas costs $3 a gallon. If you get 20 mpg versus 15 mpg and drive 10,000 miles, you will save roughly $500.

I think mod motors are cool and I think the idea of the project is a great one. However, IMO it's one of those things where if you have to ask, you shouldn't try. This is especially true if you only have the summer to finish and you plan on driving it during the school year.

I don't mean to be a downer, but my advice is to do what you need to keep the car reliable. Then drive it and be happy. Focus on school; getting good grades so that you can get a good job. Then with your good job you'll have money to buy the tools and garage you need for future projects like putting a mod motor in a classic. Also, every year you wait the mod motors get more performance options and building one gets less expensive.

302 coupe · May 31, 2006

stangonline said:
Read:

Hey guys, I know its the year 2006, but my mind is stuck in 60's technology, and I'm afraid to try something new, just because I already know about the 60's era parts. Oh...and if I can't find it in my garage, I cant afford it.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm some ignorant poor redneck...sorry to disappoint you.

I've built both, and pushrod wins hands down. 60's technology is outdated, I agree, but when it outperforms the new stuff, well, theres not much to argue about. 4.6 swaps are pointless, maybe with the exception of show cars. I regularly outrun 03-04 cobra's at the track with my very simple and cheap outdated 302/C4, even running unported ford iron heads. I might consider a mod swap when I can't keep up with the new "muscle", but thats not likely to happen any time soon. And even in a totally street/cruiser car, the 4.6 still has no advantage.

stangonline · May 31, 2006

302 coupe said:
You seem to be under the impression that I'm some ignorant poor redneck...sorry to disappoint you.

I've built both, and pushrod wins hands down. 60's technology is outdated, I agree, but when it outperforms the new stuff, well, theres not much to argue about. 4.6 swaps are pointless, maybe with the exception of show cars. I regularly outrun 03-04 cobra's at the track with my very simple and cheap outdated 302/C4, even running unported ford iron heads. I might consider a mod swap when I can't keep up with the new "muscle", but thats not likely to happen any time soon. And even in a totally street/cruiser car, the 4.6 still has no advantage.

I never said you were a poor redneck. I can at least see both sides - you seem to be of the opinion that mod motors are worthless. They make great, smooth power - plain and simple. Unfortunately, they are usually attached to a 3600lb+ car.

10secgoal · May 31, 2006

I say do it. If that's whatyou want. They love boost ! And the blocks are stronger. Do it for that, or the shock factor. the reasons you mentioned aren't really worth it uless tat is just what you want.

bnickel · May 31, 2006

stangonline said:
Umm.. go look at the pictures - you are wrong. It uses an SN spindle - thats about the only thing that is fox/sn. Coilovers..not on a fox, upper control arms...not on a fox...tell me, where is the fox body suspension pivot? - the strut, which extends to the top of the shock tower. Where does the griggs pivot? - upper ball joint. How much more different does it have to be to convince you? I've got a hyundai here that had a BMW emblem on it - I want to sell it to you, because...it's basically a BMW.

ok i'll say it again, the gr 350 kit is based on a fox body design, granted it is a mofied fox body design but it's still rooted in a fox body design. there are all kinds of aftermarket kits to add upper a arms to otherwise completely stock fox body suspensions. nothinh new there. the whole gr 350 kit is basically one of griggs gr 40 kits adapted to a classic mustang chassis. it uses a k member that is similar to the griggs fox body k member, sn 95 spindles and fox body rack, the lower a arms are very similar to a fox body design if not in looks at least in geometry. if you were to remove the upper a arms and adapt the stock mustang strut assembly what would be left with? basically a stock style fox body suspension. no matter how you look at it the griggs kit is still based on a fox body suspension...period, modified fox body suspension, yes but still based on a fox body suspension. go ahead and go ask someone on CC if they think the griggs gr 350 isn't based on a fox body suspension design.

i'm not saying the gr350 suspension design isn't better than a classic mustang design but i am saying it isn't worth the money to me and many other people for what is essentially a modified fox body design that isn't all that great either.

stangonline · May 31, 2006

For the love of all that is good and holey...I too, will say it again.. "YOU ARE WRONG". It's not a macpherson strut suspension - it uses sn95 spindles and a mustang rack, but thats the only thing it has in common with your fox suspension. The geometry is COMPLETELY different. PERIOD. Griggs may have developed it based on what they learned from the mustangs modified macpherson strut suspension, but it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The fact that they developed it "for" (not based on) a fox body platform means nothing. It's an SLA (short-long arm) suspension. Here is a link for you, which is appropriately named "Late Model Mustang Suspension Basics". I give up.

I'm not going to go to CC asking stupid questions - you are welcome to. They have been known to fabricate new anuses for newb questions like that.

bnickel said:
ok i'll say it again, the gr 350 kit is based on a fox body design, granted it is a mofied fox body design but it's still rooted in a fox body design. there are all kinds of aftermarket kits to add upper a arms to otherwise completely stock fox body suspensions. nothinh new there. the whole gr 350 kit is basically one of griggs gr 40 kits adapted to a classic mustang chassis. it uses a k member that is similar to the griggs fox body k member, sn 95 spindles and fox body rack, the lower a arms are very similar to a fox body design if not in looks at least in geometry. if you were to remove the upper a arms and adapt the stock mustang strut assembly what would be left with? basically a stock style fox body suspension. no matter how you look at it the griggs kit is still based on a fox body suspension...period, modified fox body suspension, yes but still based on a fox body suspension. go ahead and go ask someone on CC if they think the griggs gr 350 isn't based on a fox body suspension design.

i'm not saying the gr350 suspension design isn't better than a classic mustang design but i am saying it isn't worth the money to me and many other people for what is essentially a modified fox body design that isn't all that great either.

rbohm · Jun 1, 2006

jeff, even griggs racing(yes i talked to them about the gr350 suspension system) will tell you that their suspension for the classic mustangs is based on the fox body suspension. yes they do eliminate the strut, but the suspension is still based on the fox body. it does however have far more adjustability than the factory suspension systems do. but for the money i would rather mod the classic suspension in much the same way that historic and opentracker mod theirs. they get excellent results with budget operations, and modified stock parts proving you dont need high dollar suspension systems to get great handling. about the only change to the suspension system i might make to my 66 coupe beyond stock is the installation of a martz chassis four bar rear suspension.

again i will say, mod motors are neat, and can make alot of power, and modern suspensions are good for what they are, and aftermarket suspension systems are also very good. but why spend the money on a daily driver? it is a waste of good money. look at the cost. an early 2v mod motor runs around $2500. want a four cam? try better than $5000 for a run out motor. for $5000 you can buy a new dart block, and new top of the line aftermarket cylinder heads, intake, stroker rotating assembly, and decent cam kit, and assemble a very healthy 393w motor, that can handle as much or MORE power than any mod motor block can. you then save a bunch of money by not having to swap the suspension over to a mustang ll style or griggs style suspension because your mod motor only have a rear sump oil pan option, where as a windsor based engine can have a front sump pan if you choose.

with the right mods, any car can be a very good performing daily driver in all driving regimes, and you dont have to spend the money on the newest stuff. you just have to know how to tune the suspension, and build the engine.

LUCAFU1 · Jun 1, 2006

im not sure how many people here hand around mod forums but the prices everyone is saying are crazy. there a place in phx that sell the terminator engine from ford for $7-8k. if you were on a budget there is a place in FL that sells early lincoln 32V engines complete w/ trans and harness/pcm for $1100 shipped! thats with the TEKSID BLOCK. I was so close to selling off my parts for my 5.0 EFI build but i need room so i didnt. it can be done for cheap (kinda). you just have to research and look. I love modular motors, especially the one in my cobra.

Route666 · Jun 1, 2006

stangonline said:
An aluminum 302 or 351? Who has one of those for a daily driver? Im just comparing factory options.

The same person who has an aluminium mod motor in a classic Mustang...

stangonline · Jun 1, 2006

rbohm said:
jeff, even griggs racing(yes i talked to them about the gr350 suspension system) will tell you that their suspension for the classic mustangs is based on the fox body suspension. yes they do eliminate the strut, but the suspension is still based on the fox body. it does however have far more adjustability than the factory suspension systems do. but for the money i would rather mod the classic suspension in much the same way that historic and opentracker mod theirs. they get excellent results with budget operations, and modified stock parts proving you dont need high dollar suspension systems to get great handling. about the only change to the suspension system i might make to my 66 coupe beyond stock is the installation of a martz chassis four bar rear suspension.

again i will say, mod motors are neat, and can make alot of power, and modern suspensions are good for what they are, and aftermarket suspension systems are also very good. but why spend the money on a daily driver? it is a waste of good money. look at the cost. an early 2v mod motor runs around $2500. want a four cam? try better than $5000 for a run out motor. for $5000 you can buy a new dart block, and new top of the line aftermarket cylinder heads, intake, stroker rotating assembly, and decent cam kit, and assemble a very healthy 393w motor, that can handle as much or MORE power than any mod motor block can. you then save a bunch of money by not having to swap the suspension over to a mustang ll style or griggs style suspension because your mod motor only have a rear sump oil pan option, where as a windsor based engine can have a front sump pan if you choose.

with the right mods, any car can be a very good performing daily driver in all driving regimes, and you dont have to spend the money on the newest stuff. you just have to know how to tune the suspension, and build the engine.

I believe that early in the GR40 suspension development, they used a revised suspension geometry and a strut/coilover setup in a more "mustang-like" design. However, their SLA setups are now different. I have to call that they would say the GR-350 is based on a fox mustang suspension.

bnickel · Jun 1, 2006

stangonline said:
I believe that early in the GR40 suspension development, they used a revised suspension geometry and a strut/coilover setup in a more "mustang-like" design. However, their SLA setups are now different. I have to call that they would say the GR-350 is based on a fox mustang suspension.

listen dude, we can argue this until we're blue in the face but i will tell you that it is you who are wrong and not I. the griggs gr350 suspension is based on the fox body suspension and geometry from the spindles down, above the spindles yes you would be correct, it is nothing like a fox body, but the point remains that the entire system is based on a fox body design, albeit a modified fox body design but it is still based on a fox body design...period. end of story.

stangonline · Jun 1, 2006

Can you not understand that just because they started with a mustang suspension - doesn't mean that is what it is now. Your argument is that the griggs suspension is faulted because it somehow carries with it inherent flaws that existed in the fox body suspension.... 1 - different cars. 2 - DIFFERENT suspensions (sla vs mac strut).

Using your logic, mustangs are based on Model-Ts. You must accept that through the evolution of something through technology, it becomes something else. Wow, it has lower control arms and spindles, so it must be a fox body mustang style suspension. Ignorance is bliss - they say.

Someone help me here - this guy is killin me!

bnickel · Jun 1, 2006

stangonline said:
Can you not understand that just because they started with a mustang suspension - doesn't mean that is what it is now. Your argument is that the griggs suspension is faulted because it somehow carries with it inherent flaws that existed in the fox body suspension.... 1 - different cars. 2 - DIFFERENT suspensions (sla vs mac strut).

Using your logic, mustangs are based on Model-Ts. You must accept that through the evolution of something through technology, it becomes something else. Wow, it has lower control arms and spindles, so it must be a fox body mustang style suspension. Ignorance is bliss - they say.

Someone help me here - this guy is killin me!

i'm not arguing the fact that a modified fox body suspension with upper a arms is better than a stock fox body suspension, obviously you get a much better camber curve but the problem is that this only a fix or patch for a crappy stock suspension system. adding upper a arms to a mc pherson strut front suspension does not make the ultimate suspension or even a great one for that matter. the fact is that even this suspension system has drawbacks aside from the fact that you have to cut the car to pieces to install it. you are facing the same drawbacks with this system that you are with a mustang II unit, the factory sheetmetal frame rails were not made to support the entire suspension and the engine as well. that is just one thing. there are plenty of things you can do a stock classic suspension for a lot less money that will get you the same results as using the griggs system.

by you're way of thinking the griggs system will allow you to go out and race with ferraris or lotus' but it's not possible. you seem to think that the griggs sytem is the be all end all of mustang suspension systems but it's not. is it a viable alternative to a stock system as long as tyou have the money for it? sure, but that it doesn't make it the best choice. personally i would much rather design my own system from the ground up like Preston over at CC, than use the griggs system. of course his car is basically a silhoutte with nothing about the car even close to stock.

stangonline · Jun 1, 2006

bnickel said:
i'm not arguing the fact that a modified fox body suspension with upper a arms is better than a stock fox body suspension, obviously you get a much better camber curve but the problem is that this only a fix or patch for a crappy stock suspension system. adding upper a arms to a mc pherson strut front suspension does not make the ultimate suspension or even a great one for that matter. the fact is that even this suspension system has drawbacks aside from the fact that you have to cut the car to pieces to install it. you are facing the same drawbacks with this system that you are with a mustang II unit, the factory sheetmetal frame rails were not made to support the entire suspension and the engine as well. that is just one thing. there are plenty of things you can do a stock classic suspension for a lot less money that will get you the same results as using the griggs system.

by you're way of thinking the griggs system will allow you to go out and race with ferraris or lotus' but it's not possible. you seem to think that the griggs sytem is the be all end all of mustang suspension systems but it's not. is it a viable alternative to a stock system as long as tyou have the money for it? sure, but that it doesn't make it the best choice. personally i would much rather design my own system from the ground up like Preston over at CC, than use the griggs system. of course his car is basically a silhoutte with nothing about the car even close to stock.

Cheezus.. It' not a modified fox body suspension - its an SLA suspension that uses a couple OE mustang parts. Get that through your skull and get back to me. I'm done here.

stangonline · Jun 1, 2006

Ok, I'm not done. If I give you proof - will you admit to being wrong? If you do that, we can still be mustang friends, lol.

Hoping to go Modular

DukeGnarley

Member

stangonline

Member

stangonline

Member

DukeGnarley

Member

stangonline

Member

Hack

302 coupe

stangonline

Member

10secgoal

Active Member

bnickel

stangonline

Member

rbohm

LUCAFU1

Route666

Active Member

stangonline

Member

bnickel

stangonline

Member

bnickel

stangonline

Member

stangonline

Member

Similar threads

Hoping to go Modular

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency