Looking for opinions on 3.8l SC swap.

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 25, 2006

So now that my lx is a back burner project, and not an emergancy DD overhaul, I'm looking in other directions for a powerplant when I get the restro underway. While researching my new T-bird online, I've noticed that these 3.8l SC engines where rated at 210 hp. That sounds about perfect for my fox body application to me, and I was wondering what others thought. What are your thoughts on the quality of the engine, the validity of it's hp ratings, and the possible difficulty of the swap. I'm sure A frame adjustment will be required, but how much? Also assuming that I will swap all or most electrical wiring from a doner. The idea here is for me to have a decently powerful fox that's appointed like a high class luxury vehicle. (Where talking a couple years dedication here, not a quick rub job). Any input would be appreciated.

snake109 · Oct 25, 2006

well as far as reliability i know those sc 3.8's are know for blowing head gaskets. but i see a lot of them sell for cheap with blown head gaskets and the owners dont want to mess with them so if you feel confident to do a rebuild than you can probably pick one up for prety cheap and get the whole drivetrain.

RustBucket · Oct 25, 2006

The Eaton supercharger they used was known to fail as well and the rebuild kits weren't cheap. I was offered a complete T-Bird SC that needed a supercharger rebuild or replacement for $500.00. The car otherwise was perfect.

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 25, 2006

Hmm, doesn't sound too bad. I wonder if after market would be a better super charger solution. Can probably run something better than stock for head gaskets too. This project is free to take forever if need be, so I can probably make that happen. Any ideas on chassis modding?

stykthyn · Oct 25, 2006

a S/C 302 would most likely be cheaper. not near as much fabbing

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 26, 2006

stykthyn said:
a S/C 302 would most likely be cheaper. not near as much fabbing

I think that's a little more power than I'm aiming for on this one. Maybe just an N/A 5.0 set-up like the one in my thunderbird. High restriction exhaust and normal intake. Maybe a little free-er than the t-bird.

stykthyn · Oct 26, 2006

why on earth would you want restrictive exhaust and intakes? you are only killing mileage and performance. you wont be gaining anything.

Shawneebear93 · Oct 26, 2006

stykthyn said:
why on earth would you want restrictive exhaust and intakes? you are only killing mileage and performance. you wont be gaining anything.

True story.

Red_LX · Oct 26, 2006

I think the wiring would be one of the biggest headaches....

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 28, 2006

stykthyn said:
why on earth would you want restrictive exhaust and intakes? you are only killing mileage and performance. you wont be gaining anything.

I would think as long as the car adjusted the fuel trim to match the revised induction, it would use less gas. I was refering to the intake and exhaust setup used on my thunderbird, as opposed to headers and flowmasters and H-pipes and CAI's and such. Something that wont blow a gasket (so to speak) every week or two because it's pumping more power than the driveline can handle. (As higher performance cars tend to do, especially if you can't help but play) Even though my finances are about to increase signifigantly, I still don't think I'm going to be able to afford to give this car the "works" like I might want to. Interior and astetic are gonna be the main goal, as well as reliability and economy. I guess you might say I'm growing up a little.

I say, abusing a car is having 350 h.p. and not using it constantly.
Driving one responsibly is having one with around 200 h.p. and using it constantly.
Driving one safetly is having one around 100 h.p., and having to use it constantly.

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 28, 2006

Red_LX said:
I think the wiring would be one of the biggest headaches....

I did the swap from my 87's wiring to a 93's, and it was a big pain. But, my only real mistake was not replacing the warn out insulation that pretty much all came off, and not properly securing the wiring in a respectable manner. Other than that I got everything else working. Such mistakes will not be repeated. That last time was a real rush job. It was a last resort needed to get something drivable on the road kind of deal. The fact that it went 4 months with only several hundred dollars in additional costs amazed me. Soon I will be cracking into it with the ole multimeter and trying to establish just what the hell killed it anyway. I might be able to just snag a harness from the jy, try it out, then pull every thing and do it right. It would be nice to at least have it running while I save the cash to start rehashing everything. Just in case (Ford forbid) anything crazy happen to the T-bird, and she need be returned to service.

kiddiccarus · Oct 28, 2006

I have a 95 3.8L and I have heard eally bad things about the head and blown gaskets but my car has almost 200k on it and still runs like a champ in stock form as a DD. As long as you do it right and pay attention to the details I think you will be ok. dont put too much stress on it and the heads will remain fine for you.

stykthyn · Oct 28, 2006

Distortion 5.0 said:
I would think as long as the car adjusted the fuel trim to match the revised induction, it would use less gas. I was refering to the intake and exhaust setup used on my thunderbird, as opposed to headers and flowmasters and H-pipes and CAI's and such. Something that wont blow a gasket (so to speak) every week or two because it's pumping more power than the driveline can handle. (As higher performance cars tend to do, especially if you can't help but play) Even though my finances are about to increase signifigantly, I still don't think I'm going to be able to afford to give this car the "works" like I might want to. Interior and astetic are gonna be the main goal, as well as reliability and economy. I guess you might say I'm growing up a little.

I say, abusing a car is having 350 h.p. and not using it constantly.
Driving one responsibly is having one with around 200 h.p. and using it constantly.
Driving one safetly is having one around 100 h.p., and having to use it constantly.

this makes no sense. if you upgrade your intake/exhaust your engine becomes more efficient therefore if you can keep your foot out of it you will actually see better mileage with upgrades. putting restricticve pieces on will only kill efficiency. if you are growing up drive responsibly and safely. it doesnt matter what you drive. your posts are seriously starting to not make any sense whatsoever.

Red_LX · Oct 28, 2006

If you're so concerned about having too much power, put in a "L.O." 5.0 like they had in Thunderbirds and the like....150 hp.

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 28, 2006

stykthyn said:
this makes no sense. if you upgrade your intake/exhaust your engine becomes more efficient therefore if you can keep your foot out of it you will actually see better mileage with upgrades. putting restricticve pieces on will only kill efficiency. if you are growing up drive responsibly and safely. it doesnt matter what you drive. your posts are seriously starting to not make any sense whatsoever.

Let me break it down.
Air fuel mixture equals 14.7/1
14.7 parts air, 1 part fuel.
If you reduce the amount of air in the system, the O2 sensor will see that.
The O2 Sensor's primary task is to maintain 14.7/1 mixture.
The computer will use the information provided by the MAF, the 02, the TPS, and all that other stuff to determine how much air is coming into to system, vs. how much is coming out. If it doesn't see a 14.7 to one mixture, it either increases or decreases the amount of fuel to compensate for the amount of air in the system. That's why when you hit the gas, (opening the throttle plate) the engine is able to increase in rpm. If it didn't adjust the fuel, the throttle would just lean it out and cause it to cut off. Obviously, adding more air flow increases the amount of air and fuel which can be charged into the cylinder per revolution. Increaseing performance. The efficency increase comes from the lowered resistance necessary to draw in and force out that air. But what I was trying to convey is this; If it has 300 horses, I will use most of them, most of the time. People who mod their cars rarely see an OVERALL gain in gas mileage, because that is not why they did the mods in the first place. Yes, I agree with you that if you barely press the gas all the time, like grandma, then a high performance car will yield better gas mileage. But who the hell can resist the urge to dig into all that power? Not I.
You can't have performace and gas mileage at the exact same time. No mod can do that. You either get to go faster, or go farther, not both at once.
For me, it is a hell of alot easier to limit the amount of air and fuel that it is possible for me to burn at one time, than it is for me to limit my desire to use all or most of the power I have availible to me.
But my final point is this, if a car at half throttle with stock equipment yields X=acceleration and y=gas consumption, then a car with increased flow=R is going to yield x+r, y+r, get me? With more power availible, one car will use more gas and accelerate faster at the same throttle position as a stock vehicle.
The only mod company I have ever seen that was stupid enough to claim that their part increases H.P. AND fuel economy is the company that sells the TORNADO, and I honestly don't believe that thing does either one.

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 28, 2006

Red_LX said:
If you're so concerned about having too much power, put in a "L.O." 5.0 like they had in Thunderbirds and the like....150 hp.

Did any T-birds come with the H.O. motor? Mine has the H.O. plate on the intake, but the intake looks to me to be an after market one. (It has a lot of cooling ridges vs. being smooth like I seem to remember them) so I either have an H.O. motor, or that l.o. motor and the H.O. plate installed on an aftermarket intake.

Shinlee · Oct 29, 2006

thing is distortion, it sounds like what your saying about having the abilty to 'go faster or go farther' is a personal deal. you like to go faster i think, but you want good gas mileage too. so, make the car go faster and learn to limit yourself to times to dig into the power as you say to when it seems best for personal enjoyment, and if you can limit it to just those times, then you will see an overall economy increase, as long as most of the time you just drive like a regular person.

have that operation i keep hearing about on your foot...they remove lead or something from it, and it might help your problem

Red_LX · Oct 29, 2006

I've heard that some of the newer Thunderbirds, like '89-up, had the HO in them, but I don't know much about that. I was referring to the '83-88 Thunderbird 5.0's, those were all "standard output."

Distortion 5.0 · Oct 30, 2006

Shinlee said:
thing is distortion, it sounds like what your saying about having the abilty to 'go faster or go farther' is a personal deal. you like to go faster i think, but you want good gas mileage too. so, make the car go faster and learn to limit yourself to times to dig into the power as you say to when it seems best for personal enjoyment, and if you can limit it to just those times, then you will see an overall economy increase, as long as most of the time you just drive like a regular person.

have that operation i keep hearing about on your foot...they remove lead or something from it, and it might help your problem

I very much agree with you that would be the easiest solution to my delima. Because I won't lie, I do like having the power there. What I was saying about performace/economy is that is not possible to accelerate quickly while using marginal fuel. If I could control myself, better economy can be had with mods, so I guess I need to try to control my foot, instead of the working of my engine.

Mike97gt · Oct 30, 2006

the 89-93 t-birds with the 5.0 is the H.O motor.. the 88 and earlier cars had the regular low output motor..

BTW I think restricting the motor to gain mileage is just silly. you will be pushing harder on the loud pedal so any "savings" will go right down the drain. the less power our motor makes the higher load it sees when trying to climb a hill, when the load goes up the mileage drops, watch a car with a instant fuel economy meter that will show you what I mean.

Looking for opinions on 3.8l SC swap.

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.

New Member

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

New Member

New Member

The first widely accepted Tranny

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

New Member

New Member

New Member

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

New Member

it doe snot

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency