CMC2: 5.0 swap in a 2000 mustang V6?

[j dawes]

anybody done it? if so, got pics/details/suggestions/warnings? i'm not doing this myself, but i think somebody may be attempting this for cmc2. and just to narrow the discussion, with several 5.0 engines sitting around the shop, there is no desire to purchase a mod motor in either 2, 3, or 4 valve form. thanks in advance! jon

[King Matt1548534716]

Talk to Kurt Borton at Mid-Coast Performance. He built a 99-later Mustang that has been running with a 5.0L in CMC for the past two seasons in Ohio-Indiana. You can use the pushrod engine K-member in the newer cars and bolt the rest of it together. You may have to slot some mounting holes, etc., but it's not hard to do. He's running a Fox-style computer, wiring, air intake and FEAD.

 

www.midcoastperformance.com

[j dawes]

great! just the info i was looking for. thanks matt

 

jon

[stevepoe]

but i think somebody may be attempting this for cmc2

 

Good luck with that ..with the current rules allowing the 05 mustangs and newer camaros that are legal in cmc2 a sn95 with a 5.0 is probably not the best car for cmc-2. why not Just cmc?

[Al F.]

Matt...can you ask whoever did this the issues they might have had getting the older k member onto the newer frame? I was under the impression that the 5.0 k member did not bolt up to the later frame without some work.

[b_tone]

Matt...can you ask whoever did this the issues they might have had getting the older k member onto the newer frame? I was under the impression that the 5.0 k member did not bolt up to the later frame without some work.

the 94-95 k member will bolt into any 96-04 car without modification.

[j dawes]

but i think somebody may be attempting this for cmc2

 

Good luck with that ..with the current rules allowing the 05 mustangs and newer camaros that are legal in cmc2 a sn95 with a 5.0 is probably not the best car for cmc-2. why not Just cmc?

 

steve: honestly. . . i don't really know. i guess the benefit of the big brakes. i'm assuming the intent is to get the hp up to around 260 with 93-95 cobra bits, but i'm so new at all this i don't even have the tags taken off of me yet!!!! personally, i'd LOVE to run an S197 in CMC2, mostly cause it's the first car i ever drove on a track and i just like the darn thing... someday maybe.

jon

[TurboShortBus]

All K-members from 1994-2004 are interchangeable. Just get the correct one for your particular engine (5.0L 1994-1995, 4.6L 1996-2004). It's easy to put a 5.0L in a mod-motor car, or put a 4.6L in an pushrod car (I put a 2004 Cobra engine in my 1994 GT; all it needed was a 1996-2004 K-member). But, keep in mind that a 4.6L tranny won't bolt up to a 5.0L, so get the right tranny to go with your engine.

 

1979-1993 I-4 2.3L, V6 3.8L, and V8 5.0L K-members will not interchange with 1994-2004 K-members. There are slight differences between the unibodies.

 

IIRC, the I-6 K-members (early 1980s) will not accept 5.0L engines.

 

Also, keep in mind that a stock, non-Cobra 5.0L will need some speed parts to make 230 rwhp (GT-40 iron heads, Cobra intake, etc.), so you might spend a few bucks there, but a 5.0L is far easier to swap head gaskets than a 4.6L. By comparison, a stock 1999+ 4.6L SOHC should need zero speed parts to make this number, since they came with 260 hp at the crank. It might become a question of engine weight, and how much you want over the nose. 4.6L SOHC aluminum heads are NOT as light as you might think (as an apples to oranges comparison, 4.6L DOHC aluminum heads are 68 lbs EACH, fully loaded, and the camshafts are hollow), and there's a lot more material in their blocks as compared to a 5.0L.

 

Mark

[King Matt1548534716]

Also, keep in mind that a stock, non-Cobra 5.0L will need some speed parts to make 230 rwhp (GT-40 iron heads, Cobra intake, etc.),

Want to bet?

[TurboShortBus]

Also, keep in mind that a stock, non-Cobra 5.0L will need some speed parts to make 230 rwhp (GT-40 iron heads, Cobra intake, etc.),

Want to bet?

 

Well, what have you done to that 225 hp monster to make 230 to the tires? lol

 

I suppose it also depends on which dyno you're on, which correction factor is used, blah blah blah.

 

If a stock, 225 hp-rated engine will make 230 hp to the tires, then I guess a stock, 260 hp-rated engine will need one hell of a restrictor plate!

 

Mark

[j dawes]

Also, keep in mind that a stock, non-Cobra 5.0L will need some speed parts to make 230 rwhp (GT-40 iron heads, Cobra intake, etc.),

Want to bet?

 

most positively and definitely not being sassy or sarcastic here, but if a motor from the factory, brand new, makes 225 max at the crank, how can it make more than that at the rear wheels without something changing? educate me here please.

[cmc35]

Also, keep in mind that a stock, non-Cobra 5.0L will need some speed parts to make 230 rwhp (GT-40 iron heads, Cobra intake, etc.),

Want to bet?

 

I have to second a couple of other comments on this one.

 

My SN95 GT, with a stock 5.0, factory computer, etc will NOT make 230 rwhp. I'm installing GT40 heads, 1.7 rockers, 65mm TB, etc. to get competitive. I have heard the SN95 can get to ~215 hp at sea level, and that's great, but in Colorado I'm stuck with 182hp. I barely got the car to 195hp in Texas.

 

(this is NOT a platform diatribe: I love my Mustang. okay?)

 

-chris

[King Matt1548534716]

most positively and definitely not being sassy or sarcastic here, but if a motor from the factory, brand new, makes 225 max at the crank, how can it make more than that at the rear wheels without something changing? educate me here please.

We are allowed to change a ton of things that affect power at the rear wheels. Underdrive pulleys, removal of all smog equipment, removal of air conditioning compressor, differences in compression ratio, far less restrictive exhaust, among other things. There are other factors as well, relating to the way an inertial chassis dyno works. Lighter wheels and driveshaft and anything that reduces friction in the drivetrain, including the transmission and final gear ratio, all have an effect on the power shown on a Dynojet, so even the same engine can show different power numbers depending on those factors.

[tacovini]

230 all day long...year after year...it can be done 100% legally.

Personally, I haven't needed the Cobra parts...but sure, they make it easier to get there.

[Al F.]

Guys remember the series was started when 302s and 305s where the only motors out there. Cobra parts are a very recent thing. Mustangs have been making 230 for years without them.

 

Like Todd said, the Cobra parts make it easier to get there, but they are certainly not necessary.

[supermac]

Does Adam G. run any Cobra parts? Because I would be willing to bet he has the sweetest CMC motor in the whole country. I would love to have his torque curve.

[cmc35]

Todd and Al,

 

I hear you but...

 

Todd watched my car dyno and it was a joke. I followed all the suggestions: underdrive pulleys, removed A/C and smog, removed all of the heater core stuff, set timing at 14deg, installed an X-pipe. The car has a T56, with a 3.55 rear end. Wheels are fairly typical CMC, based on looking at avatars and pictures.

 

Moved to Colorado, dyno'd 182hp. Since then have installed 1.7 roller rockers, removed the mechanical fan (did not install an electric fan, car runs cool.)

 

As I said before, I'm not whining; I'm just offering a different set of info. And I'll take any and all help.

 

The good thing is there should be a few more Mustangs in NASA-RM CMC in 2008, so we'll be able to swap tips. Of course, one of these new guys will probably blow me away anyway...

 

-chris

[tacovini]

You're absolutely correct, Chris. I've seen you go thru a lot of things in hopes of the magic 230/300.

 

The only difference that I could see to be another differentiator (from my car to yours) might be that my motor is a "fresh" FoMoCo factory reman motor. Have you ever gone thru your Bondurant motor at all? Fresh valve springs/ valve job? Leakdown? It could be that the motor is tired and it's <> "given her all she's got, Captain!"

 

Don't take this the wrong way, Chris...but I'm sure you know those Bondurant cars were run hard and put away wet out in Arizona during their hayday. Wintertime may be the right time for a Texas Tune Up!!!

 

-=- Todd

[TurboShortBus]

Chris,

 

I know what you're saying...my 5-speed 1994 GT 'vert was a high 15 second pig when it was bone stock. Very weak. True, it was heavy, but it still should have made something better than 88 mph.

 

Have you done a compression or leakdown test to make sure that the bottom end is tight? How many miles are on that engine?

 

Mark

[Pat Stone1548534713]

You guys are full of it. I put two different good running stock 5.0 in my sn95. No way they made 230hp. The best pull with light driveline, light wheels, all the good stuff and tuned to 12.5 air ratio at sea level was a pathetic 206. You will never get me to believe you are making the numbers with a "stock" motor, no way. I talked to all the guys at the local ford dealer and Mike Donahoe who's been running a 5.0 for many years and he had to do many things to get even close to the numbers. Keep on dreaming.

 

PS

[tacovini]

Instead of dreaming, count this (no sheep).

 

It's a speed density car.

I don't know what to tell you except that the motor was picked up from the Ford Dealer and installed into my car. I can provide the name of the Ford mechanic in Pleasanton, CA who brought it over and helped me put it in before I moved to Texas.

 

In the warmer weather, she's a tick under 230/300.

 

"This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around."

 

-=- Todd

[Pat Stone1548534713]

That's a dyno sheet from Richard Pryors computer. No way a stock 302. Maybe a GT40 motor. I have never seen a 302 make the torque number like that with a stock cam. Was this motor in your car at the 06 Nats? Didn't Griffiths car just walk away from you in the film I saw. How much power was his car making if your car is making these kind of numbers and you had nothing for the green monster? That's a scary thought. Come on Todd. I'll take the number of those Ford mechanics in Pleasanton. Maybe if they tune my car I can get into the 230's and 300 plus on the torque side. OH YEA.

 

PS

[Mike D1548534719]

I remember Todds car back in 1997 made those numbers ,he is right about the motor and what has been done, He had the heads off after the 12 hour enduro at thunderhill in august 2001 wear a slew of hot shoe drivers got to get a chance to drive a cmc mustang, a couple of valves got bent . I installed a replacement ford small block In late 1998 for the 1999 season it was a 1986 roller engine , A friend of mine did a good 3 anglevalve job and the numbers were 223 hp and 286 tq, I over heated the motor twice and the numbers went down to 210 hp and 276 tq thats all it takes to lose power A stock good sealing engine makes good horsepower, but if you just happen to get one of those loose engines the bolt on`s will help make it up.

 

Mike D

[Bignose10]

I have always been under the impresion speed density cars make more power when left close to stock. Only reason a mass air car makes more power heavily modified is the ability to tune the ECU. MAF on a 5.0 is a huge restriction.

 

PS what do you guys shift at if you dont mind me asking.

[Holster Maker]

Chris, I bet your motor got hot once or twice in AZ, if you didn't freshen it. Like Mike D said.

It's probably ready for freshening. At least CT/LD tests as stated. It should be way over 200 rwhp.

 

Curious, when you took the fan off, did it run cooler?

(I know you said "runs cool")