MHISSTC Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Correct. You can currently only run the 2005-2010 Mustangs in CMC2 and only with the 3-valve engine. Any of the other early Mustangs can still run in CMC2 with any of the allowable engines and modifications listed on pages 16 and 17 under section 8.5 Engine. The '94-'04 SN95s have the greatest amount of flexibility as they are allowed to run the carbed or fuel injected 5.0, the SOHC 4.6, and the DOHC 4.6, while the foxes are limited to just the carbed or fuel injected 5.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Think of it like this.... The update backdate rules w/ regards to motors follows the modle groups. 79-04 are in one group and 05-10 are in another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Think of it like this.... The update backdate rules w/ regards to motors follows the modle groups. 79-04 are in one group and 05-10 are in another. Glenn is almost right. Regarding my recent inquiries on the topic, the 4.6 has not been blessed in the '79-'93 fox Mustangs even though the Early/Late division would seem to indicate that is a possible combination. If you look a little deeper at the Classification Tables, there is no Early Ford through '93 listed with a 4.6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I think there is a size issue w/ the 4.6 and it fitting in a Fox. That is what I was told. Since you would not be able to cut on the chassis to make it fit, it wouldn't work/be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 I think there is a size issue w/ the 4.6 and it fitting in a Fox. That is what I was told. Since you would not be able to cut on the chassis to make it fit, it wouldn't work/be legal. I think it depends on the route taken to drop it in. Most folks don't consider it worthwhile to "upgrade" a 5.0 to a SOHC 4.6 from a Crown Vic, so what they usually end up doing is also going the full DOHC or DOHC with supercharger route along with a bunch of other modifications like a T56 to go with it. I really can't remember if there are modifications that need to be made to the hood or the transmission tunnel to make the T45 fit either right now. There's a lot of spotty information out there right now on the topic and it appears the difinitive website dedicated to the 4.6 swap in a fox topic is no longer available in it's previous form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Why a Crown Vic? If the parts are specific to a Crown Vic, they are not CMC legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlingle Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Mod motor was used across several platforms. Many use Explorers to source their PI head swaps. Crown Vics, Mark 8s, Explorers, Expeditions and Mustangs all had the same motors to my understanding. Edited July 22, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 And not all those parts are legal, just those who's part numbers are the same as the Mustang part number or where the rules have pointed out that it is allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 SOHC 4.6 in a Crown Vic = SOHC 4.6 in a Mustang GT just like 5.0 H.O. in a Lincoln Mark VII = 5.0 H.O. Mustang GT and mostly like 96 5.0 Explorer long block = '93-'95 Mustang Cobra long block with stamped steel rockers instead of roller rockers If I remember correctly the Mark 8 and early DOHC Cobra engines, while of the same basic long block design, had slightly different components...like a forged crank in the Cobra while the Mark 8 unit was not forged. There has been a lot of cross-platform sharing of engines at Ford over the years. Some of them are identical, some are the same with different accessory drives, and some are the same long blocks with different intakes, exhaust, and accessories. Others are merely the same basic design with completely different components. I found the best thing to do when shopping for engines and parts is to not trust what anyone tells you, but to actually educate yourself by looking up parts numbers for yourself and knowing what you are looking for. The best example is the multitude of "GT-40" or "Cobra" upper intakes listed on Ebay. If you know what you're looking at, now days you'll see a lot of mislabeled Explorer upper intakes with the name plate taken off. They have a slightly different external appearance, but are cast aluminum intakes that are internally identical to the fox Cobra Intake, which were originally based on the tubular GT40 upper intake design...hence the tendency for sellers to call them GT40 intakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 If the brand new 5.0 can fit into a fox then the 4.6 should be a breeze. I wouldn't care if a T45 fit into a fox b/c they are crappier than a T5. I'd just switch to a T5 or a Tremec. I have always thought that putting a 5.0 in a 99-04 Mustang is the most rediculous rule allowed in CMC. The excuse that it is cheaper so therefore must be better for the series is crap. If you want to run a 5.0 then run a 79-98. If you want to run a 99-04 then run the 4.6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I think there is a size issue w/ the 4.6 and it fitting in a Fox. That is what I was told. Since you would not be able to cut on the chassis to make it fit, it wouldn't work/be legal. I'm not sure who told you that. Chevy guys, maybe? Nothing needs to be cut on a Fox chassis to fit a 4.6L, whether it's SOHC or DOHC (an exception is a 2003-2004 Cobra engine in a Fox, but that's not allowed here). However, engine mounts will likely need to be fabricated or modified, as there are no OEM Fox K-members for modular engines. Also, the vacuum boosters need to be replaced with Hydroboost units to clear the wider engines. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I think there is a size issue w/ the 4.6 and it fitting in a Fox. That is what I was told. Since you would not be able to cut on the chassis to make it fit, it wouldn't work/be legal. I'm not sure who told you that. Chevy guys, maybe? Nothing needs to be cut on a Fox chassis to fit a 4.6L, whether it's SOHC or DOHC (an exception is a 2003-2004 Cobra engine in a Fox, but that's not allowed here). However, engine mounts will likely need to be fabricated or modified, as there are no OEM Fox K-members for modular engines. Also, the vacuum boosters need to be replaced with Hydroboost units to clear the wider engines. Mark I think you pointed out why it cant be done legally. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 If a 99-04 motor won't bolt into a fox then how can a fox motor bolt into a 99-04? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) If a 99-04 motor won't bolt into a fox then how can a fox motor bolt into a 99-04? Conversion Motor Mounts for installing a 5.0 small block in 1998 - 2004 V6 Mustangs. Or you can swap in a '94-'95 K-member. Edit: corrected crossmember to read K-member. Edited July 23, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 If a 99-04 motor won't bolt into a fox then how can a fox motor bolt into a 99-04? With a 1994-1995 (5.0L pushrod) K-member. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) I think you pointed out why it cant be done legally. Thanks. No modifications to the Fox K-member are needed for a 4.6L swap, and aftermarket engine mounts are allowed, so what's the problem? Mark ON EDIT: Maybe this is the problem you're having, although you didn't quote it: Also, the vacuum boosters need to be replaced with Hydroboost units to clear the wider engines. 7.32.2 The brake master cylinder and brake booster must be OEM stock and unmodified. Any year SVO Mustang master cylinders/boosters are allowed for Early Ford vehicles. Edited July 23, 2011 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I think you pointed out why it cant be done legally. Thanks. No modifications to the Fox K-member are needed for a 4.6L swap, and aftermarket engine mounts are allowed, so what's the problem? Mark OEM type replacement solid mounts are allowed. This means mounts that are of the OEM mounts dimensions, but are made of a solid of non-rubber material. There is nothing "OEM replacement" about those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 Which then begs the next question: Are all of the '99-'04 cars with the pushrod 5.0 using the '94-'95 K-member with OEM type replacement engine mounts and not the V6 to pushrod 5.0 mounts shown above? If you have to go out and find a '94-'95 K-member to use a pushrod 5.0, it sounds like it would just be easier to use the whole car that it's already installed in. Also, I think the Hydroboost units qualify as "OEM stock and unmodified" since they came on the Cobras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 OK, so a guy who owns a blown-up 4-banger Fox Mustang and a crashed-but-running 4.6L Mustang would be told to get bent if he wanted to combine his inventory and join the fun. Got it. I guess if you are already getting a few dozen cars to show up for the class in your region, you don't need to worry about growth. The whole idea of "you can run this engine and this chassis but not this engine with this chassis even though this chassis is kinda the same as that chassis" is making my head spin with all of the possible legal and illegal permutations, and I'm sure that I'm not alone based on what I have read in this thread and others. There must be a better way... Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Also, I think the Hydroboost units qualify as "OEM stock and unmodified" since they came on the Cobras. Hydroboost units came on all 4.6L Mustangs (GTs and Cobras) from 1996-2004. All 1994-up V6 Mustangs still have vacuum boosters, as do 2005-up 4.6L and 5.0L Mustangs (2005-up confirmed from doing a Google Images search; I have owned and worked on all other types over the last several years). Vacuum boosters came on all 5.0L pushrod Mustangs (Fox and 1994-1995 GTs/Cobras). I have owned these as well. If a Hydroboost swap into a Fox Mustang is not allowed, and the OEM booster must be retained (if the definition of OEM applies to that specific platform and is not broadly used for an entire manufacturer), then a 4.6L swap into a Fox will not fit unless the engine is shifted several inches forward, resulting in a bad weight distribution and violate the engine location portion of 7.11.2. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 OK, so a guy who owns a blown-up 4-banger Fox Mustang and a crashed-but-running 4.6L Mustang would be told to get bent if he wanted to combine his inventory and join the fun. Got it. I guess if you are already getting a few dozen cars to show up for the class in your region, you don't need to worry about growth. The whole idea of "you can run this engine and this chassis but not this engine with this chassis even though this chassis is kinda the same as that chassis" is making my head spin with all of the possible legal and illegal permutations, and I'm sure that I'm not alone based on what I have read in this thread and others. There must be a better way... Mark If you want those to be legal, ask for a rules change. Be ready to answer the following questions: Do they move the motor rearward? Do they lower the motor? You also act as though the Ford combination in question is the only one w/ this delima. The V6 4th gens require a V8 K-member. It can't be just any V-8 4th gen K memeber, it must be for the LT1 or LS1 that you intend to run. You also need the LT1 of LS1 motor mounts since the V6 stuff is totally different. The cost of the car you start w/ is something everyone should consider. The chassis was free, but its gonna cost me $5K to put this motor I have laying around in it. Sounds like the $1K chassis I passed up on that will allow this motor to just bolt-in was a better deal. From the way you look at the rules, we should allow folks to run whatever they want since "its what they have laying around". You really need to just suck it up. As for the "this and that" of the Ford chassis and motor combo's.... I agree w/ you. The F'ing door is wide open w/ Fords and what they are allowed to update / backdate with. The GM's don't have any of that. So understand when the rules are written to limit the install of a 4.6 in a V6 SN-95 or a Fox chassis due to to lack of legality an aftermarket motor mount, that it is just the line drawn in the sand. It could have been drawn in a place where the date code on the block must be correct to the date the chassis was built. But the rules writers at the time felt it would help car count is we allowed "bolt-in solutions" that use OEM parts. No matter where the line is drawn, there will always be someone who feels as though they are being excluded. This time it seems to be you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I am an outsider looking in and have to be real honest with you. I believe you are making it very complicated on what is and is not allowed. To me its real simple, either allow: 1. Only what came on the car from the factory for that year model 2. Ford in a Ford, Chevy in a Chevy. 2. INTENT The intent of the Camaro Mustang Challenge (CMC) racing series is to provide National Auto Sport Association (NASA) members a racing series featuring production V8 pony cars. Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries intended to limit expenses, thereby providing the drivers with fun, exciting, and challenging yet approachable racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I am an outsider looking in and have to be real honest with you. I believe you are making it very complicated on what is and is not allowed. To me its real simple, either allow: 1. Only what came on the car from the factory for that year model 2. Ford in a Ford, Chevy in a Chevy. 2. INTENT The intent of the Camaro Mustang Challenge (CMC) racing series is to provide National Auto Sport Association (NASA) members a racing series featuring production V8 pony cars. Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries intended to limit expenses, thereby providing the drivers with fun, exciting, and challenging yet approachable racing. Lets be clear. I agree w/ you. Also understand, I am the keeper of the rules, not the maker of the rules. The rulebook is there. Read it, understand it, and accept it before you build a car. I did all this before I built my car (long before I was a Director). I had issues w/ the rules, but I accepted them since my options of cheap racing we very limited. Add to the fact that I wanted to do it in a 4th gen, and the list is pretty short. You guys want to change the rules, submit a rules change request for the 2012 Rules rewiew that is coming up in a couple months. We ask for input each and every year. We welcome your input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Also understand, I am the keeper of the rules, not the maker of the rules. You lobby for or against changes in the rules and ultimately vote on those changes, as do all directors. So framing yourself as not being part of the problem isn't exactly true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Also understand, I am the keeper of the rules, not the maker of the rules. You lobby for or against changes in the rules and ultimately vote on those changes, as do all directors. So framing yourself as not being part of the problem isn't exactly true. The rules under question here are rules that have been in place long before I was. This thread has derailed. It has evolved to the point of attacking every comment I make and not the topic at hand. I'm out. You guys wonder why more Directors are not more forth coming w/ information and the "reason why" things are the way they are explanations. Consider that there is more to the rules and the history behind many of them than most of us know. This includes myself. Try to have a little faith that there is good reasons for the rules being the way they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.