Heavy car, what to swap in?
 

The car is a 1976 Ford Gran Torino sedan. It is currently powered by a 351M (5.8L) V8 engine, 2-barrel non-feedback carb, FMX transmission (3-speed, non lockup), and drives a 2.75:1 rear gear on 215/70R14 tires.

My current plan is to find a late 80s-early 90s Ford product with an EFI 302 V8, AOD transmission, see how that runs. Then maybe bump the axle ratio to 3.00 or 3.25 to help with the overdrive (since the AOD is 0.67 it is quite deep to run with a 2.75 gear)

But I'm also thinking about a few other options. If Uncle Sam mandates 15% to 20% Ethanol in fuel, I'm going to want a 1996 or newer engine to cover that. I could use a 96-01 Explorer 302/4R70W combo, since that was the last vehicle the 302 went into.

If I'm switching to a 4R70W, why not use the Romeo 4.6L V8 from the Crown Vic? I could even leave the rear gear as is at 2.75 since stock Crown Vics came with 2.73!

On that same line of thinking, why not use the 4.0L Cologne V6? I could use the pushrod version (if it's not knocking) or the SOHC version (if the timing chain isn't making godawful noises.

Essex V6's are available in 3.8L and 4.2L sizes and will bolt up to AODs or 4R70W's depending on year.

Vulcan V6's are 3.0L but would require using an A4LD or 4R44W transmission (and those sound VERY weak for a 4000lb car but when you think about it a 3400lb short wheelbase Aerostar isn't far off).

The stock engine, when new, put out the following numbers:

351M 2V engine...152hp @ 3800rpm...274tq @ 1600rpm

The replacements, when new, could do this: (used 1999 data when possible)

'00 3.8L Essex (Mustang)...193hp @ 5500rpm...225tq @ 2800rpm
'99 5.0L EFI (Explorer)...215hp @ 4200rpm...288tq @ 3300rpm
'99 4.6L Romeo (CV/GM)...215hp @ 4500rpm...285tq @ 3000rpm
'99 4.0L OHV (Explorer)...160hp @ 4200rpm...225tq @ 2750rpm
'99 4.0L SOHC (Explorer)...205hp @ 5000rpm...250tq @ 3000rpm
'99 3.8L Essex (Mustang)...150hp @ 4000rpm...215tq @ 2500rpm
'99 3.0L Vulcan (Ranger)...152hp @ 4750rpm...192tq @ 3750rpm
'96 3.8L Essex (T-Bird)...140hp @ 3800rpm...215tq @ 2400rpm
'91 5.0L EFI (T-Bird)...200hp @ 4000rpm...275tq @ 3000rpm

I looked at the 43hp difference between the '99 and '00 Mustang engines and thought it was great until I looked at the rpm required to make it.

The 302 EFI engines are closest in performance and this car with the worn-out-pushrod-probably-all-bent-lifters-ticking-accelerator-sticking 351M still has no trouble getting up to speed and it keeps going. I refused to take it over 75 before and I had plenty of pedal left and it was breathing easy. So I would think a lesser powered engine would spend more of it's acceleration time in a more efficient mode as opposed to lugging around. But I don't want to wind it out. The SOHC V6 and 00+ Essex are out, and I want to scratch the Vulcan...but...

...I've never owned a bad one. All the Aerostars I had, the Taurus, Rangers I've borrowed, all those 3.0L's ran perfect. The rest of the vehicle might have been garbage but those motors are terrific. I'm really tempted to put a 3.0L Vulcan in this Torino. Sure it makes 25% less torque at double the rpm. Sure the horsepower rating takes an extra thousand rpm to pull. But how often do I summon all 152 horses? Virtually never!

What do you all think? This car's shipping weight with the heavy 351M and FMX is 3980lbs. The A4LD weighs 48 pounds less than the FMX. The Vulcan V6 has to weigh significantly less than an M-block (575). I'm still trying to find a weight for the 3.0L engine. If it is similar to the Duratec 3.0L, it's 325-360lbs depending on accessories mounted. That saves me roughly 250 pounds and gets me close to 3700 for the whole car with that engine combo. A few choice parts here and there...

...wonder if an aluminum CVPI driveshaft would work?

...think a 7.5" Ranger axle would hold up vs the stock 9" monster?

...leave out the AC components because I can't afford to fix it anyway?

...USB power port off the cig lighter for a 3rd Gen iPod Nano in place of the heavy stock radio/bracket/wiring harness, and wire up an RCA jack for the in-dash speaker (would leave room for a mini tach and a vacuum gauge in the remaining radio hole)

No reason this vehicle can't weigh 3400lbs like an Aerostar with some careful planning. And I'll never be carrying 7 passengers. And it's not near as tall although the frontal area is about the same.

Any other ideas? No weird aero mods or anything, I won't even put wheel skirts on it like the Broughams. But anything mechanical/swap related I'm willing to think about. Wish a 4BT Cummins diesel could fit under the hood but it's too tall (I already measured it)

I would put a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis powertrain in it. A 10 year old parts car that runs well in driveable condition should be relatively cheap. Then again, have you considered just buying another vehicle? As a person who drives old vehicles, I know that they're not expensive to insure and register, and property taxes are cheap (If the vehicle isn't already exempt). I have my old cars, and have fun driving them, but I do have a newer daily driver that I put the bulk of my mileage on.

-Jay

If your really thinking of swapping in another drivetrain i also recommend one from the CV/GM you should have more than enough room under the hood , just keep in mind that the 4.6 SOHC is physically wider longer and taller than a 460CI big block.

Don't use an Essex, the head gaskets are terrible, and the bearings crap out real soon after the first time you get a speck of coolant in the oil.

I'd vote EFI 302. But that's only because I can get a complete engine and transmission for under $100 at my local pick and save. They have at least 15 of them there that haven't been touched. Last time I was there I saw a nice LTD that had the rear end smashed all to hell with a really nice looking 302 just waiting to be yanked.

If you put in a FI engine, what would you use as a computer to run it?

-BC

Pull the ECU and wiring harness when you yank the engine.

Too bad, because if he does that, then he's boxed in on certain parameters - i.e. automatic vs. manual transmission, weight of the vehicle, rearend, etc... These are all programmed into the ECM. Or, at a minimum, he'll have to have someone reprogram the ECM (which can't always be done, depending on the ECM). Most OBD I computers are non-flashable.

I was going to suggest gearing the vehicle VERY tall - i.e. keep the 2.75 rearend and put in an overdrive with a lockup converter (provided his selected engine had sufficient low end torque). But if he is stuck having to match the rearend ratio that the original vehicle came with, that isn't an option for him. Of course if he doesn't doesn't do a lot of highway driving, exceedingly tall gears might not benefit him.

-BC

Depends on the vehicle. Pretty much all OBD1 vehicles ran a cable for the speedometer so all he needs is the gear appropriate for that differential. If he still has the factory transmission it is likely that the same speedo gear from before will go into the new transmission.

Also, depending on the year, he might be able to swap transmissions with no problems because back when transmissions were all hydraulic the ECU had nothing to do with it. Again, this depends on the year of the donor car.

Might check on the flashable or not. 80's and early 90's GM TBI ecus were flashable if you pulled the rom and stuck it into a programmer. Not exactly as easy as plugging into the OBD2 port but easy enough.

BMW 2.4L I-6 Turbo-Diesel from a mid-80's Mark VII Lincoln or BMW 524TD.

PS If you find a Mark VII get the ZF 4-Spd Auto as well.

if you stay with a gas engine I'd go with a 5.0 efi. If you want to stay auto go with the AOD that will help a ton if you want to switch to a manual go 5 speed there will be little advantage to using a 4 speed without an overdrive.

An old 4 speed might have an add on aftermarket electrical OD available though that will give a better ratio. Or practically gives you 6 gears to play with because they often work on 3rd and 4th.

Now that's extremely interesting for me. How does something like that work? Got any examples or brand names I should look up?

That would be perfect for my Buick. I don't want to replace its transmission but I do want it to do better than its 3 speeds with non-overdrive high gear.

I would absolutely not change it to a standard transmission. No cutting holes in the car, not allowed.

I just need to be sure the vehicle I pull the engine/trans out of has column shift so I can have both linkages and can fabricate what's needed. If I get an AOD transmission it'll be easier, if I end up with the A4LD or 4R44 or 4R70 I might need to do some fancy work to make it go right.

No diesels. And sticking with a Ford motor of some sort. I think now that staying with a V8 will be easiest to fit and will sound correct as well. I'm off to fueleconomy.gov to find all the 302/AOD combinations and see which one gave the highest mileage as far as year and car/truck/suv goes.

And evidently I need to use a mechanical speedometer vehicle, too. Junkyard time for determining that maybe. I'm not changing out the cluster in something like this.

If I were using a 67-72 Ford pickup, though, the 96-03 Taurus clusters fit nicely in the dash.

Look here for a start...
https://www.gearvendors.com/index.html

HC - I replaced the stock TH350 tranny in my Buick with a M400. With your car being somewhat larger I'd recommend a T700R4. If you go either of these routes, make sure the tranny you get is 1987 or newer. There were refinements introduced in the 87 model year that made them more durable. Rusty had his stock TH350 replaced with a T700R4.

-Jay

Jay, I really don't want to replace my Buick's transmission, and you may laugh at the reason why. One of my favorite things about the car is the way shifting from P->D feels; I don't want to change that.

Looking at the price on that unit, though, I guess I should either just enjoy the 3 gears or accept a change in feel.

As somebody who owns 2 vehicles that have undergone that change, there is no different feel. On Rusty I was able to go to the parts department and order a gear indicator with overdrive, on the Buick I just adjusted the linkage to compensate. Here's how the Buick is setup:

P = P
N = N
D = OD
L2 = 3
L1 = 2

1 is all the way at the far end, beyond L1 on the indicator.

I believe that later models of your car had the T700R4, so you may be able to go to a junkyard and take the gear indicator from a later model car if it really bothers you. As someone who's fairly anal, my Buick's setup does not bother me.

-Jay

No, it's not the indicator I'm worried about. It's the feel of the linkage and the feel of the transmission's detents. It doesn't feel like any other column shifter I've ever used...there's a certain springy/smooth feel that I can't describe. My 1987 Cadillac's column shifter felt dead by comparison, as if it was shift-by-wire (it wasn't). In fact, so does my 2002 GMC's (which is also not shift-by-wire).

I told you it's weird.

Over the years I've had 3 different model transmissions in my Buick. The original TH350, a M200 pulled from a parts car I bought for $200, and later I put a M400 in it when that finally died. All of them shifted the same, however, if it is the feel of the transmission detents you are referring to, you can certainly "test drive" the feel of the shifter before the tranny is pulled from the junk car.

And my experience with the EFI 302 has been that they are an extremely rugged engine. In my '85 Lincoln Continental, I got over 400k miles before it started to wear out. With proper 3k mile oil changes, who knows how far it would have gone!

With the AOD transmission in my '85 Lincoln Continental, I was able to get in the low 20s for MPG pretty consistantly.

@ JoeBob... That's the same engine and tranny combination that was in my great aunt's 88 Lincoln Town Car. I easily got mid 20's mileage on the highway in that car, and it was HUGE!

Looks like the highest 2007-adjusted EPA ratings for a 302/AOD powered vehicle are a tie between:

1986-1987 Lincoln Continental (sedan, RWD)
1987-1988 Ford Thunderbird (coupe, RWD)
1987-1988 Mercury Cougar (coupe, RWD)

16 city, 24 highway, 19 combined

So that works for me as the standard output 302 with speed density is probably the cheapest and least desireable 302 out there. Most other 302/AOD combos seemed to deliver 15 city, 22 highway on the 2007 estimated cycle.

Original estimates for these vehicles (vs the 16/24 modern rating) are 18/27 for the coupes and either 17/27 or 18/26 for that sedan. Exactly where I want to be with this rig. If I can drive moderately and average 22-24mpg in mixed driving (but again, mostly highway since I live in the sticks), I'll be very happy and won't have to buy something else to drive to keep the miles off my monstrous gas guzzling 70s intermediate behemoth.

That impound auction in Waco seems to have 87-88 Birds and Cats about every third auction. I'll keep watch for one with a 302 and major side or rear body damage as a sign that it was likely running before the wreck. That or a DUI/DWI impound is always good for a runner! I don't think I'll get lucky enough to find a Continental from that era, not like it matters, I'd rather not deal with excessive electronic garbage. The T-Birds and Cougars don't have digi-dashes as often as the Lincolns. The ones that haven't been crushed yet and still work are generally garage queens anyway.

Looks like you have done your research and have decided on an engine/trans combo good job , keep us posted.

I've got a question for you folks, and it involves exhaust and welding.

If I move to an EFI or even a 83-85 TBI setup, I'm going to need to change up the exhaust system. For example, the 1985 Thunderbird uses 3 cats, 2 pre-cats feeding into a Y-pipe and then into a main cat. And that requires oxygen sensors. Upstream and downstream so I'd think at least 3 sensors. 1988 models are the same way (for the EFI 302) but also have an air tube on top of that. How the heck am I gonna put all that stuff in my Torino? The computer is expecting x number of signals, and I'm not so sure the precats will fit well, unless I put them further back, then they'll be heating up the footwells. Can one converter work, because I'm pretty sure my cat is good and I suppose I can have an exhaust shop weld in 2 bungs, but wouldn't I then need 3?

I'm seriously considering using a 1980-1982 302 with a 2-barrel carburetor and a non-electronic AOD. I'm pretty confident in my ability to lean it out to the point where level ground highway cruising can get me close to 25mpg. This would be easier if I were using a GM motor, I'm much more experienced with Olds 307s and Chevy 267-305-350 engines. Even the Pontiac 301 in my last Delta 88 had no trouble getting me 20mpg with a 3-speed auto and no lockup. I can only imagine what that car could do with a 200-4R behind it.

Anyway, back to this swap, I found a 1986 302 from a Grand Marquis with an AOD behind it and the seller is more than happy to sell it to me with no intake. I need to hop over to a Ford board and see how hard it'll be to put my 2150 carb on a 79-82 2-barrel 302 intake and put that on the '86 engine. Ford used carbs on the 302 engines through at least 1986 in trucks, so I think it ought to work.

For the running of the 3 O2 sensors just put them in close to the factory locations. One cat should be perfectly fine. I would still go with the FI swap for best economy/power. With that 2 bbl carb as long as it mounts to the intake manifold , the intake manifold will line up to the heads alright and you should have a decent runner. As I said I still think you should go with the full FI setup and roll with it like that, as long as you get the whole doner car as you were planning you will be alright and not have any issues with the swap.

The more I drive this car with the 351M in it, the more I think it's going to need the torque to move well. But. And this is a big but. 1972 and 1973 Torinos were offered with a straight six. This particular six was a 250cid unit and had the Windsor bellhousing pattern, which would allow use of an AOD automatic. I could also use the 240cid truck six which also has the Windsor pattern for the transmission. The 240cid sixes used no timing belts or timing chains. They had gears. Last forever, too. It's the same as the 300cid six in the 80s vans and trucks and all sorts of industrial applications. What's more interesting is I found a 240cid six in running condition for $200. If it had the power to move half ton pickups, base Torinos, full-size sedan, and Econoline vans back in the day, then it'll have enough power to move my car. As much as I love a V8 sound, I like the eccentricity of a straight six MORE. So with that update, I'm off to find out more about the engine mounts and ignition systems to see how difficult it would be to put a 240 or 250 in my car.

Sounds like a good deal. Take a look at your rear end though. Switching to a smaller engine with an OD tranny may require switching out your rear end as well.

I've always heard that an inline engine had more torque than it's V counterpart (I guess this is more for the 6 cylinders)

I know jeep had a strong and very reliable inline 6 (the 4.0 liter) and the dodge diesel is an inline 6 (I know, apples and oranges)

I'd say the inline 6 should do you fine.

you could maybe go for a 626 4-cyl engine? thats 140 hp..
couldnt you buy a mazda 626 with a v6 ford engine in it?

A GM (Buick) 3.8 in a Ford product? Why not just put a Ford 3.8 in? It will make mating the engine to a Ford transmission a lot easier, unless you wanted to put a GM transmission in as well.

2003
Main article: Mazda 6

The 626/Capella was replaced with the GG platform Mazda6 (called the Atenza in Japan) in 2002. The Mazda6 is now sold across the world in 3 different body styles: 4-door Sedan, 5-door Hatchback and 5-door Wagon. World sales have been good for the 6 despite a slower take off in North America, and resale value has proven to be far stronger than the 626's.

Few would disagree that this is a vast improvement over the 626 in terms of interior room, styling, or powertrains. Mazda's new 4-cylinder engine is a much-improved 2.3 L. Inline-4 engine with 160 hp (119 kW); the V6 is a 3.0-liter 220 hp (164 kW) unit from the Ford Taurus, but with reworked cylinders, valvetrain components, and variable valve timing. Though not the fastest with either engine, the 6 is still the most agile of its peers by a long shot, thanks in part to its new double-wishbone front suspension. Wagon and 5-door hatchbacks were added for 2004, and the Mazda6's platform served as the basis for the 2006 Ford Fusion, Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ and Mercury Milan.

The first Mazda6 rolled off the Flat Rock, Michigan assembly line on October 1, 2002, one month after production of the 626 ended.
[edit] References


Model Years Engine Power Torque
Europe 1998–2002 1.8 L F I4 100 hp (75 kW)
Base 1998–1999 2.0 L F I4 125 hp (93 kW) 127 lb?ft (172 N?m)
2000–2002 2.0 L F I4 130 hp (97 kW) 135 lb?ft (183 N?m)
V6 1998–2002 2.5 L KL V6 170 hp (130 kW) 163 lb?ft (221 N?m)

Model Years Engine Power Torque
European 1993–1997 1.8 L F I4 104 hp (78 kW) 127 lb?ft (172 N?m)
Base 1993–1997 2.0 L FS I4 118 hp (88 kW) 127 lb?ft (172 N?m)
V6 1993–1997 2.5 L KL V6 164 hp (122 kW) 160 lb?ft (217 N?m)

What does all that Mazda crap have to do with an engine swap for a 76 Gran Torino? Surely you are not suggesting that the OP put a Mazda engine in such a heavy car.

its just an idea I'm more trying to suggest that those engine might fit ford models... I don't have a clue what that old ford is btw.

The most famous Gran Torino is the Starsky & Hutch car.

https://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/u..._and_hutch.jpg

ok well my mazda idea might work in a taurus but would make no sense cause the engine is the only good thing about the car

If that car has a 351 Cleveland (which, IIRC, was spoken of with reverence in my younger days), why change it at all? Take the money you'd spend converting that car, use half of it to fix the car up nice as-is, enjoy it for what it is...take the rest and buy a cheap used small car or an older model modest bike to drive everyday.

Yeah, for some reason the inline 6 engines have completely different (and better) torque characteristics than the v-configured engines. It should do fine, even with a tall rearend ratio.

-BC

modssss!??!?!

Most of the inline engines, especially back in the day, were long stroke engines. These tend to be higher torque engines than today's higher revving, short stroke engines.