Some pictures of my project... The Mustang SHO

[MustangIIMatt]

Here, I thought I was the only person exploring the notion of a SHO transplant into a 65/66 Mustang. I just found this thread only a week ago, darn, someone beat me to it. Anyway, wicked93gs, I appreciate your in-depth coverage and explanation of the many hurdles to face. I've read tons of conflicting info regarding bell housings. Exactly what Aerostar engine was mated to the bell? What years might be the same? I know the SHO will mate to a Ranger/Explorer manual (Mazda built), but unknown if it's the v6 or I4 pattern. I also know it bolts to an Aerostar auto, but again, unknown year and engine. I've read where other bells may work, but nothing confirmed. There must be some kind of standard bell pattern across a bunch of engines in the ford line. Who here has had first had experience?

Facebook

www.facebook.com

There was also a build thread on one of the Mustang forums at one point that went into great detail (it was being put into a fox-body, they finished it to the point of it being a running/driving car) I can't remember which one, Google might help you find it.

 

[GT200Stangman]

Facebook

www.facebook.com

There was also a build thread on one of the Mustang forums at one point that went into great detail (it was being put into a fox-body, they finished it to the point of it being a running/driving car) I can't remember which one, Google might help you find it.

Yep, saw that one too. Looked very interesting. He used an auto from an Aerostar. Those would be way more common than a manual trans Aerostar. I know I can get a fox v8 bell adaptor for the sho, only $220. Might have to go that route, then any srod/t5 will bolt on (almost). The rub is I wont let this be a multi-year project for just the engine. I give it less than a year to fit and run, or I go back to rodding up the 200. The rest of it's downtime will be on a rotisserie for restoration.

 

[wicked93gs]

Its sad, I wish I could have finished this build, but someone stole the drivetrain out from me if you can believe that, and it killed my drive to finish it. As I remember that swap, the clearance to the shock towers was very tight(more so than my current 3.7L swap). As far as bellhousings for the 3.0/3.2 I dont think you should have too much trouble finding an Aerostar bell if you use car-part.com. They were fairly rare, but not even close to the rarity of a 2.4L Jeep Liberty MTX bell and I found several on there for that particular piece.

 

[GT200Stangman]

Its sad, I wish I could have finished this build, but someone stole the drivetrain out from me if you can believe that, and it killed my drive to finish it. As I remember that swap, the clearance to the shock towers was very tight(more so than my current 3.7L swap). As far as bellhousings for the 3.0/3.2 I dont think you should have too much trouble finding an Aerostar bell if you use car-part.com. They were fairly rare, but not even close to the rarity of a 2.4L Jeep Liberty MTX bell and I found several on there for that particular piece.

I'm so sorry to hear what happened to you! But I'm so glad you found my thread to your old post. I will start to archive all that you've logged, but if you don't mind, I could use some clarity on some of your posts. For instance, if the bell was from a 93 Aerostar, what was the engine? was it a manual (assumedly) or an auto that has a bolt-on bell? This will help me when I contact car-part soon. I'm surprised Ford (Mazda) changed the input shaft pilot diameter so much between engines and trannys, like why you had to create a pilot bushing to fit. I'm also curious as to how much heavier the SHO engine was compared to the six when you had them on and off the hoist. When you were dry-fitting the engine, was the trans on it? How close did the T5 shift point line up with the hole in the tunnel? Tons more questions to ask, if you don't mind. I'm happy to carry the torch, and if it actually works in the end, your hard work wouldn't have been for nothing. As a background, I fell in love with my 65, not really realizing how light, nimble and fun it is to drive around. The six is snappy but you can tell it's limitations from the log head and 1bbl. I've owned my 94 SHO MTX since 2000 and quit driving it in 2007. That was such a great engine, every car and 1/2 ton truck should have had that as standard. I miss driving the Taurus, thought about finding a nice rust-free one down south, but really wanted a classic car. Since 2007, it's been rotting away, but it's a complete car with a willing engine to live on in something else. The stang I bought back in 2017 is not only a base coupe, but the drivers door was replaced, so it doesn't have it's original door tag. What better vehicle to do something cool with. It would be literally a one-in-a-million car. I am curious why you chose a Jeep conversion instead of finding a 3.8L mtx late body fox to just drop it all in with no monkeying around?

 

[wicked93gs]

A lot of questions there, and its been a long time, so I am not fresh on a lot of details...but first off:

engine weights

This has been a go-to link of mine for a long time, it gives general weights of a lot of different engines...and while not perfectly accurate, I have found it useful.
Ford Taurus SHO 3.0/3.2 465

The SHO v6 is pretty heavy for a v6...the same weight as a SBF....that particular mustang of mine was a v8, so weight would have stayed the same...power too for that matter. The 200CI I6 weighs in at 390lbs...so you actually end up with a heavier engine going to a SHO engine...that iron block is the main culprit.

I honestly don't remember if it was a MTX or ATX trans...but judging by the picture I posted at the time, it would seem a MTX bell judging by the cutout for the hydraulic TOB.

I also don't remember whether the trans was attached for dry fitment...but that question is pretty to answer anyway...the trans will fit just as easily as it does in ANY vintage mustang t5 conversion...the engine would end up 3/4" further forward because of the longer input shaft on the SN95 version of the T5 I used to make up for the adapter plate though...no big deal since the engine is significantly shorter than a v8 anyway.

As for why I had to turn down a pilot bushing to fit...the SHO engine is a FWD engine, and like most(maybe all?) FWD engines the input shaft is not long enough to require the support of a pilot bushing/bearing.

The Jeep bellhousing was me going off on a tangent for a different project(I converted a SRT4 engine to RWD in a 77 Celica with that particular bell), it was simply me saying, if I could find that bell on car-part, I doubt you would have any trouble at all finding a MTX Aerostar bell, even if you have to have it shipped to you.

As for the 3.8L bell...I don't know if it will fit the SHO engine...but my guess is no. The Aerostar used the old Vulcan 3.0L bolt pattern.

 

[GT200Stangman]

I'm wondering if older years of the Astar's mtx bells had cable instead of hydraulic TOB. I get the desire of hyd to be better for custom applications, but I find the feel horrible. I much prefer the control and feedback of cable. So, all 3.0 vulcans were the same, even in the Rangers? Those are very plentiful in 3.0mtx form. Here, I assumed all v-6 had the same pattern, but I was told the 3.0 was the bastard so to say.

 

[wicked93gs]

Honestly, the best linkage for a clutch is a properly designed mechanical linkage...similar to a stock vintage mustang with upgraded bearings....adapting that to an aerostar bell would be difficult though, and making a custom one would require some in depth knowledge of bell cranks and how they work(nothing crazy difficult there...made a few bellcranks myself, but it would take awhile). That being said...that SRT-4 engine I converted to RWD using the Jeep bellhousing and a Aisin 5-speed MTX from a Chevy Colorado used a hydraulic TOB from a Corvette and the clutch feel was great once I got it worked out. The Aerostar hydraulic TOB wasn't very impressive from what I remember, but I am sure you could adapt any number of hydraulic TOBs with a better feel.

You can use a clutch fork and cable if you like....but to do so you would have to cut an appropriately located window in the side of the bell and properly located a pivot and weld a boss inside to mount the pivot on....that is a lot of work and easy to get it wrong...also keep in mind that in the end your clutch size is going to be limited by the size of the aerostar bellhousing....that plays into finding an appropriate throwout bearing and clutch fork

 

[GT200Stangman]

I'm feeling stumped and confused... I have a friend who's into Aerostars, and has a 92 manual. He sent me pics underneath, and it looks totally different... more identical to the Ranger/Explorer "unitized" transmissions. Even how and where the hydraulic lines attach are completely different. See attached photo. Were the 93's different? I wonder what other years would work?

 

[wicked93gs]

Your friend might be able to answer that better than me, I honestly can't remember where I even found that the 93 bell would work...just that I found that piece of info somewhere in the deep dark corners of the internet....it had to be a MTX bell though...otherwise it wouldnt have had the hydraulic TOB

 

[GT200Stangman]

So far, I believe the trans in question is a TK5 from 86-87, found in Rangers, Bronco2 and Aerostars. These were replaced in 88 with the M5OD (unitized case). Heres a good photo of what the assy looks like on a trans. I will try to find an old gal with a 3.0 and the TK5. Not sure why that 93 had this style trans in it. Should have had the M5OD.

 

[GT200Stangman]

Wicked93gs, i should have a bell housing coming shortly. wasn't cheap but hard to put a price on this project when its done and works good. question, now I have the same trans you did, during your dry fitting, where did the shifter mount end up (on the T5) compared to the stock hole in the tunnel. (I know it is centered versus the original offset, but hows the forward or back?) I'm fine with the original bent shifter lever, so the more it looks stock, the better. I'm hoping this moves the engine forward, maybe enough so I can leave the intake alone. ??? also, regarding the shock towers, what would be the crime in cutting the backs of the stamped steel coil housings off and welding in a flat plate of steel closer to the coils which would make for better clearance to the manifolds?

 

[wicked93gs]

Assuming you used the 94+trans with the 3/4" longer input shaft....it ends up 3/4" further back than most vintage T5 swaps if you use an existing crossmember...if you fab your own you can center it and simply make the motor mounts to move the engine forward 3/4"...so the answer will depend on the crossmember you are using, and whether its slotted for adjustability.

 

[GT200Stangman]

The trans came with it's factory 95 brace attached, but I can fab anything to make it work. Wicked93, a question/favor to ask... do you have the dimensional drawings for the making of the 1" alum spacer? I have the bell housing enroute as we speak. I can reinvent the wheel, but thought I'd ask, as it'd save some time. Did you have a shop fab it up for you?

 

[wicked93gs]

I trace the template out by hand actually, then had it cut on the waterjet at the place I was working at the time, I don't have the file anymore.

You can do this fairly easy just using transfer punches though. What you do is make the plate, then cut a center hole that barely fits around the throwout bearing retainer plate on the T5...slide it on and it is now centered on the T5. flip the Trans so the input shaft is now facing downward and mark the T5 side holes using an appropriately sized transfer punch. Then mark them as such and flip the plate over...now all you have to do is use a centering ring of whatever you can find(or make...its not difficult to find something around that works if you have as much junk as me) to center the plate in the aerostar bellhousing and repeat the process for that side...then you drill out the holes, keeping in mind one side or the other may need to be countersunk depending on interference. It works this way with the T5 and Aerostar bell because they are both easily centered....it is MUCH more difficult by hand when trying something without a convienent centering ring