Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: thunderbird "mustang II" conversion
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 18 of 18
  1. #16
    Swifster's Avatar
    Swifster is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sterling Heights
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1964 Studebaker Commander
    Posts
    440

    Again, I would agree. Use the T-Bird stuff. My other suggestion would be to look at the 4.6L SOHC with the 3 valves per cylinder (same engine as in the new Mustang). It has the same HP rating as the older DOHC engines (300), but should also be narrower. Any improvements that work on a new Mustang (engine wise) would work on your T-Bird.
    ---Tom

    1964 Studebaker Commander
    1964 Studebaker Daytona

  2. #17
    Mike P's Avatar
    Mike P is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SW Arizona
    Car Year, Make, Model: 57 Ply, 68 Ply Valiant, 83 El Camino
    Posts
    3,768

    Just a few thoughts

     



    Few years back I had a 61 Bird with the factory 300HP 390 (only engine available in 61). Eventually put a 63 Tri-power set-up on it and bigger exhaust which really made it a fun car.

    I really liked the way the car felt going down the road and the only changes I would have made were the addition of disc brakes and sway bars.

    The big drawback on the 61-3 Birds from a performance standpoint is the weight. These old birds usually weigh well in excess of 4000 pounds. I have seen the HP figures on the 4.6s but have not come across torque numbers, and torque is the force that actually gets the car moving. Before I started taking the car apart and making any major moods to it I would check and see how the torque figures compare between an FE and the 4.6. Remember these engines are in a lot lighter car than the bird is and the lighter the car the less engine you need.

    I'm not saying the 4.6 won't work, but I really wonder if it would produce the amount of torque required to move the big boat around like you would like it too. At a minimum, I suspect you'd want to use a lower rear end gear and OD tranny.

    Admittedly, I'm pretty much into doing things the "old fashion" way but if it was me I think I would build an FE. Depending on exactly what I wanted the car to do and how deep my pockets are; 390, 428, 427 or stroker versions of these, and then check into using aftermarket FI on it.

  3. #18
    4 cam tbird is offline Registered User Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Lincoln
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1994 Ford Thunderbird
    Posts
    2

    Dad is a Ford Master Tech in Electronics and is really looking to put a newer fuel injected motor in something. He already has the engine and the 4R70W tranny from a 98 Mark VIII along with all the associated wiring, picked up the whole set up for $450 with around 60,000 on the car it came out of. The SOHC 4.6L's are the same width as the DOHC engines. All the extra width of the head extends to the inside making the intake manifold narrower. Plus, in a hot rod, you want it to look cool, and the 4V motor looks much much neater than the 2 or 3V motors. I have even read in one place that the SOHC was a tad wider and a friend with another 94 T-bird commented that he though the valve cover on his SOHC was slightly closer to the shock tower on his car than that of the DOHC I have in mine. As far as weight goes, the Mark VIII's are on the verge of being 4000 lbs. They aren't much under it. So i don't really see the extra weight of the old Bird being much of an issue. With 4.10's it still should be a high 14 second car if it were ever taken to the track (I'm sure it won't be) and get 23-24 MPG cruising along at 80 MPH.

    The motor is a done deal, its going in there. The topic here is definitely the suspension.
    Last edited by 4 cam tbird; 08-01-2005 at 12:13 PM.
    1994 Ford Thunderbird w/DOHC 4.6L and many other mods - FOR SALE!
    2004 Ford Lightning
    Wanted 68/9 Fastback Torino

Reply To Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink