Yeah, guess its been done again.  Amazing how that 4 cylinder takes up more room than a V8. 

Raymond_B wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

Yeah, guess its been done again.  Amazing how that 4 cylinder takes up more room than a V8. 

Yeah, but in it's defense there's a lot of turbo stuff going on. 

True, but you could package a twin turbo V8 in about the same space and make 1,000HP for probably close to the same money. 
 

Raymond_B wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

Raymond_B wrote:

Yeah, but in it's defense there's a lot of turbo stuff going on. 

True, but you could package a twin turbo V8 in about the same space and make 1,000HP for probably close to the same money. 
 

I'm not so sure about that...
 

I laid it out once.  The battery has to go in the trunk, low mount AC compressor and EPAS for steering, headers empty towards the radiator support where the turbos mount, downpipes go back over the headers and down and out, air intakes in the valance, intercooler box on top of the manifold (could to air/water or air/air), and EFI is a given.  The engine doesn't have to be that special (8:1 compression, cam can be tame, etc.)  If you keep the tuneup safe you could even do it on a stock block, at least for a while.  There's a handful of them on the web making anywhere from 800-over 1,300HP.  Cost has a lot to do with your ability level as a fabricator, etc., but that;s true with the Ecoboost swap too. 
 

Like all new cars, I can’t deal with all that impossible crap under the hood.
SBF rules for simplicity and serviceability.
YMMV

MS wrote:

They sell lots of Mustangs that already have that engine in them. Why stick a four in a classic?   I get it is a neat engine, but what do you really gain by adding all that complexity?

I guess I am just stuck in a never-ending downward spiral of having an appreciation of these cars pretty much as they were built, with exception of changes that could have been done back when ‘ol Shel was messing with them.  I have learned to some extent to not try to impart that appreciation onto others!  The best thing about old Mustangs is there is a different way for everybody to build theirs.

DITTO!!
6S6
 

TKOPerformance wrote:

BILLY WALTON from GEORGIA wrote:

I have always wanted to put a SVO drivetrain in a 65-66 mustang.

See, that I can see.  The 2.3 SVO engine was a very simple engine.  Tons of aftermarket support, already connected to a T5 trans, and used the EECIV injection that's easy to understand, transplant, and work on. 
 

 

I already had the t-5 from a turbo SVO car in my car.
 

I would be interested in hearing more about the swap. I thought I remember reading earlier on that the 2.3 ecoboost was a lil wide and the towers had to be modified. I would be interested in finding out if they really had to do much trimming and welding. I saw a post on facebook FE engine page theres a fellow who threw in a 427 big block in a 1965 Mustang coupe and he reported he didnt have to do much modification to the shock towers.  I realize to completely different beasts but 427 big Block is a decent size.

MS wrote:

They sell lots of Mustangs that already have that engine in them. Why stick a four in a classic?   I get it is a neat engine, but what do you really gain by adding all that complexity?

I guess I am just stuck in a never-ending downward spiral of having an appreciation of these cars pretty much as they were built, with exception of changes that could have been done back when ‘ol Shel was messing with them.  I have learned to some extent to not try to impart that appreciation onto others!  The best thing about old Mustangs is there is a different way for everybody to build theirs.

I could not agree more. Absolutely spot on...
Only upgrades I've done on mine are for safety (ie - seatbelts) and reliability (ie - electronic ignition).
I much prefer the simplicity of these old things.

The only reason to make that swap is because you want to!

lowercasesteve wrote:

The only reason to make that swap is becauseyou can

 
Hey Steve fixed that for you!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/478324655612625/permalink/4295747097203676/ FESwap In 1965 Mustang Coupe. I like this swap gotta love the sound of the big block. Such a shame early 65-66 Mustangs didn't come with them as an option. That Big block 390 does look pretty mean in that early Mustang. I would definitely dress the engine nicer probably something like a stock 390 in later Mustangs.
What do ya guys think of this ride? https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=H2BmYaXwbTY

Last edited by True74yamaha (12/18/2021 4:21 PM)

True74yamaha wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/478324655612625/permalink/4295747097203676/ FESwap In 1965 Mustang Coupe. I like this swap gotta love the sound of the big block. Such a shame early 65-66 Mustangs didn't come with them as an option. That Big block 390 does look pretty mean in that early Mustang. I would definitely dress the engine nicer probably something like a stock 390 in later Mustangs.
What do ya guys think of this ride? https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=H2BmYaXwbTY

I saw one of these swaps a few years ago.  It was a 428.  Yes. an FE can be installed in an early Mustang.  One does, however have to trim back the shock tower an inch or so on each side.  that's it.  iron manifolds fit too.  Tubular exhausts require getting rid of the whole shock tower.

I did not get a ride in it, but the owner said it was a screamer.