How impossible would it be to put a Lightning motor and tranny in a 66 stang? They seem available at a reasonable price.
This can't possibly work
- Thread starter eric n
- Start date
NorCal66
New Member
Lightning is a S/C 5.4 modular?
Massive shock tower fabrication...or completely removing them and finding a new setup for front suspension? Anything is possible with enough money...but that would probably be a toughy.
Massive shock tower fabrication...or completely removing them and finding a new setup for front suspension? Anything is possible with enough money...but that would probably be a toughy.
oboebrian
Founding Member
It would involve a MII front end, and a tall cowl hood (unless you're doing a custom front end and can lower the engine and all the fun stuff that goes along with it). There was a couple people out there doing it, one in particular was a 64.5 white convert.
DarkBuddha
Founding Member
It ain't the cost of the motor that is the problem... getting it to fit and getting it wired, and getting the fuel system right... that's where it gets expensive.
Personally, I love the idea of late model motors in early model cars, but I've been thinking about it more and more, and I'm not sure there is a lot of incentive. What is the draw? Dependability and good power? You can get that from a traditional pushrod motor. Better economy? Well, a good well-tuned carb'd push rod motor is capable, and have you actually looked at the EPA fuel efficiency ratings on late model GTs, Mach 1, Cobras, and Lightnings? Or even the damn Focus SVT???
GT: 17 city / 25 highway
Mach 1: 17 city / 26 highway
Cobra: 17 city / 24 highway
Lightning: 13 mpg city, 17 mpg highway
Focus SVT: 21 city / 28 highway (and its a freaking 4 cyl!)
And these are ratings as if your grandma was driving the damn things.
Now, I admit the kind of performance you get from these cars is very impressive, but 17 miles per gallon (with grandma drivin') ain't. I just have to wonder if a well-built carefully thought out push rod motor couldn't provide similar performance and get still reasonable mileage. With modern head and cam designs, and fuel injection retrofits, I think it should be completely possible.
Just a thought...
Personally, I love the idea of late model motors in early model cars, but I've been thinking about it more and more, and I'm not sure there is a lot of incentive. What is the draw? Dependability and good power? You can get that from a traditional pushrod motor. Better economy? Well, a good well-tuned carb'd push rod motor is capable, and have you actually looked at the EPA fuel efficiency ratings on late model GTs, Mach 1, Cobras, and Lightnings? Or even the damn Focus SVT???
GT: 17 city / 25 highway
Mach 1: 17 city / 26 highway
Cobra: 17 city / 24 highway
Lightning: 13 mpg city, 17 mpg highway
Focus SVT: 21 city / 28 highway (and its a freaking 4 cyl!)
And these are ratings as if your grandma was driving the damn things.
Now, I admit the kind of performance you get from these cars is very impressive, but 17 miles per gallon (with grandma drivin') ain't. I just have to wonder if a well-built carefully thought out push rod motor couldn't provide similar performance and get still reasonable mileage. With modern head and cam designs, and fuel injection retrofits, I think it should be completely possible.
Just a thought...
Hack
15 Year Member
I disagree. I think that economy is very impressive. I get less than 20 with my I6. Most older performance 8s get less than 10.DarkBuddha said:It ain't the cost of the motor that is the problem... getting it to fit and getting it wired, and getting the fuel system right... that's where it gets expensive.
Personally, I love the idea of late model motors in early model cars, but I've been thinking about it more and more, and I'm not sure there is a lot of incentive. What is the draw? Dependability and good power? You can get that from a traditional pushrod motor. Better economy? Well, a good well-tuned carb'd push rod motor is capable, and have you actually looked at the EPA fuel efficiency ratings on late model GTs, Mach 1, Cobras, and Lightnings? Or even the damn Focus SVT???
GT: 17 city / 25 highway
Mach 1: 17 city / 26 highway
Cobra: 17 city / 24 highway
Lightning: 13 mpg city, 17 mpg highway
Focus SVT: 21 city / 28 highway (and its a freaking 4 cyl!)
And these are ratings as if your grandma was driving the damn things.
Now, I admit the kind of performance you get from these cars is very impressive, but 17 miles per gallon (with grandma drivin') ain't. I just have to wonder if a well-built carefully thought out push rod motor couldn't provide similar performance and get still reasonable mileage. With modern head and cam designs, and fuel injection retrofits, I think it should be completely possible.
Just a thought...
The early 94/95 lightnings had roller 351w's, which would be a fairly straightforward swap. The transmission, I have no clue, but i'm sure if you really wanted to, its probably not much more than slotting and reworking the tunnel, plus driveshaft mods.
My 2001 Lightning ran a 13.3 @ 103 mph right off the showroom floor, and got 18mpg on the highway I think thats very impressive for a 4700 lb pickup truck. Stuffing a 5.4 S/C into a vintage stang would be a challenge, the motor is considerably taller than a 4.6l, I dont think the wiring would be too awful bad, I rather enjoy adapting FI motors into early cars. I can imagine it would be real fast, especially with a chip and 6 lb crank pulley.. if you could keep from blowing the spark plugs out of the heads...For those that dont know thats a very common problem with the lightnings.
Budda's point is that you won't actually get those numbers when you drive the car in real life.
For reference, a relatively stock 92 Mustang GT with and automatic with 150K on the clock will average 22mpg in real world driving. The Focus SVT will only average 24.5 with Grandma driving on a perfect balance of highway and driving. Now take into account the obvious aerodynamic advantage and the six speed trans and things don't look all that great for a Focus. The new GT should average 21mpg. That is actually lower than the old pushrod engine mentioned earlier, and I have heard that most folks are getting high teens in these cars.
Now the best retort to that is the 4.6 is making about 40 more horsepower than a stock 5.0, and it's pulling a slightly heavier car with different gearing. There are a lot of different ways to look at this situation and a lot of different factors.
IMHO, a modern pushrod engine with variable cam timing, variable geometry intake system, and direct injection would be as good as an overhead cam motor in regard to fuel efficiency, power output, and emissions. Basically, take the simplest and smallest mechanical package(ohv) and apply the best electronics and fuel delivery available somewhat like what Ford did to the 5.0 in 1986.
For reference, a relatively stock 92 Mustang GT with and automatic with 150K on the clock will average 22mpg in real world driving. The Focus SVT will only average 24.5 with Grandma driving on a perfect balance of highway and driving. Now take into account the obvious aerodynamic advantage and the six speed trans and things don't look all that great for a Focus. The new GT should average 21mpg. That is actually lower than the old pushrod engine mentioned earlier, and I have heard that most folks are getting high teens in these cars.
Now the best retort to that is the 4.6 is making about 40 more horsepower than a stock 5.0, and it's pulling a slightly heavier car with different gearing. There are a lot of different ways to look at this situation and a lot of different factors.
IMHO, a modern pushrod engine with variable cam timing, variable geometry intake system, and direct injection would be as good as an overhead cam motor in regard to fuel efficiency, power output, and emissions. Basically, take the simplest and smallest mechanical package(ohv) and apply the best electronics and fuel delivery available somewhat like what Ford did to the 5.0 in 1986.
Wow, thanks for all the intel. As I suggested by my title, it's not exactly going to be easy. In my case, It ain't gonna happen. Just to keep the thread going with info from people who seem to know. What if I went out and got a big block 69 or 70??? Would that make a significant difference in making it fit.
I know that the wiring and such would still be big giant work. But would that simplify things considerably?
I know that the wiring and such would still be big giant work. But would that simplify things considerably?
1320stang
Founding Member
What's the difference in width between a 5.4 Mod motor and a 427 SOHC motor?
At the FE Nationals, we had a guy in from California with a '65 Mustang with a Cammer motor in it. Here's a link to it from Popular Hot Rodding's website. AFX Mustang
I had asked him if he'd put a MII front end in it, he said, no its stock with the exception of a set of coil over shocks. I never did get to examine the car very closely, we only had 9 Cammer powered vehicles there along with 5 original T-bolts.
At the FE Nationals, we had a guy in from California with a '65 Mustang with a Cammer motor in it. Here's a link to it from Popular Hot Rodding's website. AFX Mustang
I had asked him if he'd put a MII front end in it, he said, no its stock with the exception of a set of coil over shocks. I never did get to examine the car very closely, we only had 9 Cammer powered vehicles there along with 5 original T-bolts.
12sec67
Active Member
i haven't heard of one yet in an older mustang, but i sure would love to have my buddy's lightning 11 second set up in my car.... damn- it would run 9's in a 3000 lb car 
if i could get traction.
i have seen it in a magazine...86 mustang - but the engine was about 2 inches out of a 3" cowl hood- it looked bad ass!
if i could get traction.i have seen it in a magazine...86 mustang - but the engine was about 2 inches out of a 3" cowl hood- it looked bad ass!
DarkBuddha
Founding Member
Like I said, I just wonder if it might be possible to build a push rod motor that can provide the same kind of performance and economy. A lot of development and testing has been done since our Mustangs rolled off the assembly line. Overdrive transmissions are relatively easy to swap, fuel injection is now becoming a simple thing to do, head designs with fast burn chambers are available, roller cams and more efficient valve train hardware are available, and all of these are fairly reasonably priced. My real point is that for all the effort and money it would require to retrofit a modular motor into a classic Mustang, it may be possible to build a easy fitting push rod motor that can produce similar results. Right?Hack said:
BTW, when I drove my Mach daily to college, 60 miles round trip, and drove it very conservatively, I averaged between 20-22 mpg. This was with a 302 2v w/single exhaust, single point distributor, FMX, and 3.0 rear gears. So I know it is possible to get decent mileage out of a good old fashioned V8 with no special mods.
66P51GT
New Member
FYI... the Lightning was on the Car & Drivers list for worst measured gas mileage for several years at 10mpg. Mind you, I'm sure they were flogging it pretty hard.
Things are moving too slowly for me...I had hoped to have had pictures of my completed beast by this point. Having considered a mod motor in my '66 'vert, after looking at the cost, weight, and such, I decided to go with a pushrod motor...331 B50 block w/ forged bottom end, AFR 185's, Kenne Bell Blowzilla/Flowzilla @ 12psi, etc...looking for 600 hp, great drivability, and reasonable mileage on those rare occasions when I'm not standing on it!
I think that the mod motor is cool because they are relatively rare in the old cars...Year One had a beautifully constucted '65-6 2+2 at the Nashville show in April...Cobra mod motor w/ KB S/C swapped for the factory blower...Martz suspension...killer vehicle
My ultimate: aluminum block windsor bored/stroked to 427 or so; AFR 205's; serious cam, modern manifold + carb => power, torque, tunability, and NOT all the electronics and idiosyncrasies of new cars that make you crazy...but that's just me...
I think that the mod motor is cool because they are relatively rare in the old cars...Year One had a beautifully constucted '65-6 2+2 at the Nashville show in April...Cobra mod motor w/ KB S/C swapped for the factory blower...Martz suspension...killer vehicle
My ultimate: aluminum block windsor bored/stroked to 427 or so; AFR 205's; serious cam, modern manifold + carb => power, torque, tunability, and NOT all the electronics and idiosyncrasies of new cars that make you crazy...but that's just me...
Hack
15 Year Member
I believe that many 8s can get 20-22 driven gently on the highway. I'm sure my 6 would get over 20 on the highway at a reasonable speed.DarkBuddha said:
However, I don't believe that any kind of spirited mixed city and highway driving will result in over 20 mpg, unless the car is a total dog. I think many people measure their mileage once on a trip and then say that's their mileage.
but then I've been wrong more than once.
im still trying to fathom WHY put a mod motor in there? So expensive, so many modifications.
You could easily drop an EFI 5.0 and a T5 or AOD for HALF the cost and make the same power.
You could easily drop an EFI 5.0 and a T5 or AOD for HALF the cost and make the same power.
DarkBuddha
Founding Member
No, I think you've got it about right... heavy on the pedal will get you crappy mileage in any car, vintage or new. This is part of my point. 17 city / 25 highway isn't that impressive if you've got soft-pedal it all the time. That really isn't much better when my lame 30 year old inefficient 2v 302 single exhaust poor aerodynamics could pull 20-22 when soft-pedaled. (I drove the Mach to college daily for 4 years, so I'm not talking about some random "once on a trip" measurement).Hack said:I believe that many 8s can get 20-22 driven gently on the highway. I'm sure my 6 would get over 20 on the highway at a reasonable speed.
However, I don't believe that any kind of spirited mixed city and highway driving will result in over 20 mpg, unless the car is a total dog. I think many people measure their mileage once on a trip and then say that's their mileage.
but then I've been wrong more than once.
I will admit that if both vintage and new were driven lead-footed, the new Mustang would probably perform better and average better mileage. Still, add fuel injection, roller cam, fast burn heads, headers, duals, overdrive, to a vintage car and I bet it would be pretty competetive, performance- and mileage-wise.
One tip for anyone who wants better mileage... lay off the pedal, drive smoothly (all of the time), and tune your car every week. Check the timing, check the plug gap, wires, points, idle mixture, fluids, filters, etc. I always tuned for the highest vacuum reading, and I did it every Sunday without fail. No way any car is gonna get decent mileage without tuning and regular driving to make sure its all working right.
Budda pretty much hit the nail on the head...
Gas mileage for any car is seriously effected by your right foot. On old cars the tune up makes all of the difference in the world. On new cars, the electronic brain box takes care of most of the hard stuff.
If you don't mind a bit of wrenching every other weekend, a traditional carb and point distributer setup can provide pretty good fuel economy.
Gas mileage for any car is seriously effected by your right foot. On old cars the tune up makes all of the difference in the world. On new cars, the electronic brain box takes care of most of the hard stuff.
If you don't mind a bit of wrenching every other weekend, a traditional carb and point distributer setup can provide pretty good fuel economy.
Similar threads
