Hoping to go Modular

302 coupe said:

hey guys, I want to swap in an engine with miniscule displacement, but incredible external size, thats really heavy, expensive, complicated, and maxes out at about 350 flywheel horses n/a. Whats the best way to go about this? Oh...and I'm on a budget.

Click to expand...

350 flywheel? A 2V maybe, but certainly not a 4V. Many are approaching 425-450rwhp with the right build and yes, this is N/A. It will cost you a feaking bundle though.

302 coupe said:

I regularly outrun 03-04 cobra's at the track with my very simple and cheap outdated 302/C4, even running unported ford iron heads.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.

Click to expand...

And what is the weight of your coupe? I have seen several coupes with the 03/04 setup and they are flat out nasty.

I agree, in a classic a mod motor would be good for The Cool Factor, but not practical.

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I've built both, and pushrod wins hands down. 60's technology is outdated, I agree, but when it outperforms the new stuff, well, theres not much to argue about. 4.6 swaps are pointless, maybe with the exception of show cars. I regularly outrun 03-04 cobra's at the track with my very simple and cheap outdated 302/C4, even running unported ford iron heads.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.

Click to expand...

What is it you run at the track BTW? Yeah N/A its easier and cheaper to build a pushrod motor but when boost comes into play its another story.
So please post your times and trap when you killed all the cobras.

LMan said:

Heres why you might not want to do this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/arthurdent/4.jpg

Same HP, twice the size, 1/3 again the weight....

Click to expand...

I won't compare the '60s carbed cars, since they had different gas and a different power rating system, but same horsepower?

I could swear that Ford typically got 200-220 hp from the HO 302 that they put in Mustangs in the late 80s and 90s. With the modular OHC 4.6 Ford gets 300 horsepower.

So the smaller 4.6 is rated almost 1/3 more (edit: this should say 50% more. I'm an engineer, but my math is poor!) than the old pushrod. Why do you say it's the same hp? I think you're comparing apples and oranges (an aftermarket performance build not intended to last 100,000 miles or run on 87 octane on the 302 with a factory build 4.6 that will last a long time on pump gas).

I tried to stay out, but even in a classic Ford forum we have to admit the new technology works.

For those who were confused (WRONG) about the griggs suspension...especially if you said you "talked" to griggs about it and got this or that information...:

From a reply I received to my question about the GR350 suspension..

Jeff:

The GR350 front or rear suspension system is not based on anything except the proper geometry required for the application, packaged into an old car. We did design it to accept some of our proven components from the GR40 system for cost purposes, but without compromise to the geometry required to satisfy the needs of the early Mustang. We also included the use of Fox, or SN95 power steering components and spindles/hubs for cost and availability reasons. But, to say the GR350 kit is based on a Fox platform would be an error, especially as it is a true SLA system.

The GR350 system, like the GR40 system is based on my years of chassis building and tuning of professional level tube framed oval track and road race cars, and my having developed a proven math model common to all successful chassis I ever encountered. Further, anyone that drives one can tell you it does not perform or behave anything like either a Fox platform or a vintage Mustang or Shelby. Now the GR350 and GR40 cars do behave similarly, however, again, in our design parameters the interchange of parts between Gr350 and GR40 systems was secondary to excellence in performance.

We are in the final stages of developing the new 2005+up system (dubbed the GR50 system) and it will use this same geometric model. It also will share many of the same components to minimize cost increases, but be optimized to suit the packaging and dimensions of the new platform.

To summarize my response to your question, the GR350 system is not consciously based on a fox platform; so in this regard you are correct. However you are incorrect in saying it is a "new suspension" as it follows the basic proven math model I have used for over 25 years in many different front engine rear drive cars, many of which were not even Fords.

I hope this settles your argument. Thank you for the interest.

Bruce Griggs
Griggs Racing Products
www.griggsracing.com
707-939-2244 Ext 202


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Foster [mailto:.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:48 AM
To: engineering@griggsracing.com
Subject: Information Request Submitted from Website Form

I know this is quite juvenile - but I was hoping that you would answer a quick question to help settle an argument that I am having with some online friends.

Some people are saying that the GR-350 suspension is "based on" the fox body mustang suspension. I contend that, while griggs used the mustang platform for development, it is basically a new suspension that happens to use a few OEM parts and that the SLA suspension is simply NOT based on the fox bodies modified macpherson strut suspension.

I know you are busy, so if this question is too asinine to deserve an answer
- I understand

Jeff

Here's another treat for those who want to see how a 4.6 fits in a 65-66. This has to be an EXPENSIVE build

www.untamedfastback.com

I was quoted by these guys for a 4.6l with a 5speed and a mustang II front suspension installation for about $10k.

http://www.themustangshop.com

Thats a good point. There are less expensive ways to fit a modular. If you want a suspension that has the sole purpose of fitting and engine and not handling, you can save some money, thats for sure.

dawtips - You can buy a new mach1 engine for about $6k. That leaves quite a bit of money left over for the suspension.

bnickel - still waiting for you to eat crow regarding how wrong YOU are.

Elvis has left the building..