Non EFI 5.0HO in my 65

[65-Fstbk]

As part of my I6 to V8 swap I was going to go with a 289 but wanted a roller cam. I have decided to go with a late model 5.0L as they came with roller cams and forged pistons from the factory. I do want the motor to be somewhat period correct so I am going to run the motor carbuerated.

I have a 5.0HO from an 89GT and am going to run the following setup.

Hoping bore is still good so I can crosshatch and re-use the stock pistons
I have a set of M-6049-J302 aluminum heads (old but good as I understand it)
Heads c/w gold crane rollers
Carb will likely be a 600-650
Thinking of Comp Cam 270HR
Tri-Y shorty headers
Magnaflow exhaust
Hooked to a T5 with 3:55's in the back
Nothing too crazy but enough to get and go when needed.

Retrofitting the 5.0L will include
Plugging the rear dipstick hole and using the 289 timing cover, standard rotation high volume water pump
Deck machining for the aluminum heads
Will retain a 50oz balancer
Will the cast crank be ok or should I switch to forged?


Any opinions or suggestions for this set-up?

 

[92armyGT]

I had a 67' coupe that I did the conversion to. In staed of plugging the dip stick tube, I would just get the older style oil pan, and get the correct oil pick up for it. I would also go with the 600 CFM carb I had the 650, I know I should have had it de jetted, but I didn't and it ran like crap. As far as the motor, how many miles are on it, if it is a high miler, I would take it in to get punched to .030 over and get new pistons for it. For the build, have you changed the front and rear suspension yet? If anyone tells you the I6 gear will work, they are dead wrong. I have see a V8 conversion go bad with the I6 front, a 65' coupe lost both front wheels on cruise night. The rest sounds good, I hope the build goes well, I had to sell mine because of the Army.

 

[2+2GT]

a 65' coupe lost both front wheels on cruise night.

That's strange, considering the 289 only weighs 85 pounds more than the 200. I've had passengers that added more weight to the suspension than that. Shoot, adding air conditioning to a 200 would easily add 50-60 pounds to the front end. Hadda be something else going on with that car.

As for the 5.0 conversion, if you get the conversion style harmonic balancer, and use the stock 65 timing cover, brackets, pulleys, etc., you could put together an engine that looked entirely stock for 65, of course you'd know what it was every time you stomped the gas.

 

[golf4283]

That sounds like a solid setup and is close to what I have in my '66. for the intake I suggest a Weiand Stealth. It has an awesome powerband and doesn't look out of place under the hood.

 

[65-Fstbk]

I had a 67' coupe that I did the conversion to. In staed of plugging the dip stick tube, I would just get the older style oil pan, and get the correct oil pick up for it. I would also go with the 600 CFM carb I had the 650, I know I should have had it de jetted, but I didn't and it ran like crap. As far as the motor, how many miles are on it, if it is a high miler, I would take it in to get punched to .030 over and get new pistons for it. For the build, have you changed the front and rear suspension yet? If anyone tells you the I6 gear will work, they are dead wrong. I have see a V8 conversion go bad with the I6 front, a 65' coupe lost both front wheels on cruise night. The rest sounds good, I hope the build goes well, I had to sell mine because of the Army.

Yikes that doesn't sound good.

I am replacing the whole front end over to V8 gear. So far my parts include:

Pitman arm, drag link, idler arm, tie rods (Granada swap on front), 620 coils + new perches, new MOOG LCA's, MOOG rebuild kit for UCA, 1" sway bar. Will also be doing the shelby drop on the UCA's.

Here's a shot of how it looks at the moment. I6 and glass is coming out soon and then off to be media blasted.

 

[D.Hearne]

I would also go with the 600 CFM carb I had the 650, I know I should have had it de jetted, but I didn't and it ran like crap. .

You have a LOT to learn about carbs. The difference between a 600 and a 650 has more to do with it than the jets. Read, study and read more.

 

[D.Hearne]

As part of my I6 to V8 swap I was going to go with a 289 but wanted a roller cam. I have decided to go with a late model 5.0L as they came with roller cams and forged pistons from the factory. I do want the motor to be somewhat period correct so I am going to run the motor carbuerated.

I have a 5.0HO from an 89GT and am going to run the following setup.

Hoping bore is still good so I can crosshatch and re-use the stock pistons
I have a set of M-6049-J302 aluminum heads (old but good as I understand it)
Heads c/w gold crane rollers
Carb will likely be a 600-650
Thinking of Comp Cam 270HR
Tri-Y shorty headers
Magnaflow exhaust
Hooked to a T5 with 3:55's in the back
Nothing too crazy but enough to get and go when needed.

Retrofitting the 5.0L will include
Plugging the rear dipstick hole and using the 289 timing cover, standard rotation high volume water pump
Deck machining for the aluminum heads
Will retain a 50oz balancer
Will the cast crank be ok or should I switch to forged?


Any opinions or suggestions for this set-up?

Sounds like a good solid conservative build. In addition to the Stealth suggestion for an intake, also consider Ford's A321, Shelby "Cobra", Edlebrock's old F4B (these are all different varieties of the same intake) Or a Performer RPM (or the Air gap) The stock crank is good to 7500 rpms as are the stock rods, if you change the rod bolts to ARP's. I'd suggest the 5.0's accessory setup instead of a 289's. The 289's same side inlet/outlet radiator will not cool as well.

 

[65-Fstbk]

Sounds like a good solid conservative build. In addition to the Stealth suggestion for an intake, also consider Ford's A321, Shelby "Cobra", Edlebrock's old F4B (these are all different varieties of the same intake) Or a Performer RPM (or the Air gap) The stock crank is good to 7500 rpms as are the stock rods, if you change the rod bolts to ARP's. I'd suggest the 5.0's accessory setup instead of a 289's. The 289's same side inlet/outlet radiator will not cool as well.

Thanks for the info. Someone had told me to be careful when bolting a T5 to a mildly built 5.0L. Normal driving is fine but when the need for speed itch comes around the T5 can cause a cast crank to fail. My hope is that this setup will give me a good street motor thus it's mostly about bottom end torque. If all goes well the motor will be done pulling before 6K so the 7500 sounds like the stock crank should be ok.

I'll post more pics and progress (highs and lows) as the project progresses. Thanks again.

 

[dcstang67]

Someone had told me to be careful when bolting a T5 to a mildly built 5.0L. Normal driving is fine but when the need for speed itch comes around the T5 can cause a cast crank to fail.

I dont know who told you that, but it sounds like to me. People have been bolting on parts to their stock 5.0's for years and never have any problems with there engine because of the transmission. The cast crank is fine with a T5. Ford used this setup for about 15 years of production on trucks and cars.

 

[2+2GT]

+1 on the

All 289/302/351 had cast crankshafts, and crankshaft failure has simply hasn't been a problem, regardless of which transmission was used.

Truth is, is perfectly possible for a 302 to destroy the T5, if you abuse it.

 

[D.Hearne]

Thanks for the info. Someone had told me to be careful when bolting a T5 to a mildly built 5.0L. Normal driving is fine but when the need for speed itch comes around the T5 can cause a cast crank to fail. My hope is that this setup will give me a good street motor thus it's mostly about bottom end torque. If all goes well the motor will be done pulling before 6K so the 7500 sounds like the stock crank should be ok.

I'll post more pics and progress (highs and lows) as the project progresses. Thanks again.

I've seen two early 50 oz cranks fail (82-85, both behind automatics) but the later ones are good stuff. I've been pounding on a later 50 oz crank for years with a Toploader 4 speed in a truck.

 

[jonfor]

Thanks for the info. Someone had told me to be careful when bolting a T5 to a mildly built 5.0L. Normal driving is fine but when the need for speed itch comes around the T5 can cause a cast crank to fail. My hope is that this setup will give me a good street motor thus it's mostly about bottom end torque. If all goes well the motor will be done pulling before 6K so the 7500 sounds like the stock crank should be ok.

I'll post more pics and progress (highs and lows) as the project progresses. Thanks again.

i heard the exact opposite from my friends who are mechanics: they said a stock crank is just fine, but the T5 is made of glass.

 

[D.Hearne]

I had a transmission guy ask me once, back when I first did the V8 swap in my 89 Ranger, why I chose a Toploader 4 speed over a T-5. I told him the T-5 was a POS. He told me the T-5 was a good transmission, I rebuild them all the time............................................"there's your sign"

 

[65-Fstbk]

Ok I'm convinced...so much so that now you have me worried about blowing the T5

I'm sure it'll all be good. For those of you who have had experience with this...what clutch setup to use. I'd like go go hydraulic I think.

 

[65-Fstbk]

That sounds like a solid setup and is close to what I have in my '66. for the intake I suggest a Weiand Stealth. It has an awesome powerband and doesn't look out of place under the hood.

I like the look of that manifold and being a dual plane it works better for low end torque. Do you know if it will fit M-6049-J302 heads?

 

[Loup-garou]

(snip)
For those of you who have had experience with this...what clutch setup to use. I'd like go go hydraulic I think.

Hydraulic is good, but if you're going with the 5.0 and the T-5, you might also look at a cable setup. The rig that MustangSteve sells has problems with Tri-Y headers and heat damage - but your specs show *shorty* Tri-Ys. Those might work okay.

If you're so inclined, ask about that setup on Steve's FYI Ford Forum.

Best of luck with your build; I'm cooking up something very similar.

 

[68stang351]

That's strange, considering the 289 only weighs 85 pounds more than the 200. I've had passengers that added more weight to the suspension than that. Shoot, adding air conditioning to a 200 would easily add 50-60 pounds to the front end. Hadda be something else going on with that car.

As for the 5.0 conversion, if you get the conversion style harmonic balancer, and use the stock 65 timing cover, brackets, pulleys, etc., you could put together an engine that looked entirely stock for 65, of course you'd know what it was every time you stomped the gas.

Yeah, had to be something else going on with that car. I had my all my stock 6 cylinder stuff on my car with a 351w and a T5 for a couple of years while it was my daily driver with no problems, however I'M NOT RECOMMENDING TO DO THIS!!!!!! It was kind of scary until I replaced all the front suspension and rear end with new V8 spec parts along with Granada discs.

As far as the question on clutch setups, I'm running a Ron Morris cable setup that has been on for about 7 or 8 years now without a single hiccup. Everyone here seems to run Mustang Steve though. I think I'm the only one on here running the Ron Morris cable, lol.

 

[D.Hearne]

Ok I'm convinced...so much so that now you have me worried about blowing the T5

I'm sure it'll all be good. For those of you who have had experience with this...what clutch setup to use. I'd like go go hydraulic I think.

Well here's one ray of sunshine for you................the 94 GT Stang my son bought 5 years ago before he went into the Marines has a T-5. He sold it to a friend who's beat on it ever since and it's still holding it's own. That car has got to have close to 200K miles on it now. That's the one and only T-5 success story I know of. That Toploader I swapped into the Ranger? It's a 68 transmission and it just recently had the 3rd and 4th gear blocker rings go south after 40 years. You can still shift it, just not fast. It's been retired for now, it'll get a rebuild when I have time.

 

[mustangford289]

Crank

+1 on the

All 289/302/351 had cast crankshafts, and crankshaft failure has simply hasn't been a problem, regardless of which transmission was used.

Truth is, is perfectly possible for a 302 to destroy the T5, if you abuse it.

I believe many 289's had nodular cranks or were at least Brinell tested.

 

[D.Hearne]

I believe many 289's had nodular cranks or were at least Brinell tested.

ALL 289's had cast cranks. The ONLY factory steel forgings in a small block Ford were the 69-70 Boss 302's.