Skip to main content
Topic: Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon (Read 1217 times) previous topic - next topic

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Please don't tell me to use a 302 or 351 im a chevy guy but absolutely see the benefit of the fox body platform and you dont see tbirds anywhere unlike fox mustangs...really loking for suspention swap advice what fits what don't

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #1
start here with erics site
http://www.coolcats.net/index.html

then come back over here and go to the section your asking questions about and dont forget to use the search function.
and i'll even give you the link,
http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/forumdisplay.php?25-Suspension-Steering

coming in with a high altitude tells us you came here with pre-disposed opinions, you were told wrong.
starting off with "cringe" means you have had poor experience here in the past.
instructing us on how we can be at your service is not really all that out of the ordinary of RTP Nc area folks.

nothing wrong with chevy, after all the 302 was designed by them.

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #2
Quote from: jcassity;464602
start here with erics site
http://www.coolcats.net/index.html

then come back over here and go to the section your asking questions about and dont forget to use the search function.
and i'll even give you the link,
http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/forumdisplay.php?25-Suspension-Steering

coming in with a high altitude tells us you came here with pre-disposed opinions, you were told wrong.
starting off with "cringe" means you have had poor experience here in the past.
instructing us on how we can be at your service is not really all that out of the ordinary of RTP Nc area folks.

nothing wrong with chevy, after all the 302 was designed by them.


I'm originally from jersey lol... Didnt mean to come off as described was just afraid of the purist flaming me for putting a chevy in it .this is my first  foxbody car and ive serched to alot of conflicting results so I was looking for input from experienced tbird people but thanks for the search advise and the link i hope it serves me well ...lots of misinformation on the web

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #3
We had a guy that liked the caddilac 500 motor. He didn't get too much crap.

The tbird is a fox chassis, meaning most stuff will fit with minor modifications.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #4
hell, i fully support you here.  one of the things im building is a 1950 ford pickup on top of C4 corvette chassis parts.  I may go big block ford, i may go LS, i may even go Hemi if the mood hits me the right way that day.

I own a bunch of fords, and a few chevys, and i will say this, the LS engines are really an engineering marvel.  GM did their homework on what worked well, what didnt on several different popular small blocks, and rolled it all into a beautiful small block.

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #5
Just don't road race an LS motor...lots of oiling issues.  Other than that they are cheap, abundant, and build good power.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang coupe that beat your mom's LTD

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #6
Quote from: jcassity;464602
nothing wrong with chevy, after all the 302 was designed by them.

Scott, would you care to 'splain that one??

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #7
Quote from: jcassity;464602
nothing wrong with chevy, after all the 302 was designed by them.

GM had a 302 of their own, due to comply with a race sanctioning body's rule, but in no way was it anything like the Ford 302, nor is it true that GM designed or built the Ford 302.

Ford started using the 302 in 1968 I believe, but the basic design of the block predates that by nearly a decade, if memory serves me right.

The Windsor design could be quite powerful, the Saleen S7 used a 351w that was bored/stroked to a 427, with Cleveland heads. It was good for over 500 horsepower, and later on they did a TT setup and got well over 700, I believe..

But no, the ford 5.0 has nothing to do with GM. ;)
'84 and '87 Mustangs
'98 Explorer 5.0
'06 Lexus
'06 Explorer EB 4.6

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #8
Yea the chevy 302 was built for trans am series . if my fogy memory serves me correct it was a 327 block with a 283 rotating assembly great lil motor high reving but ive do e the gen 1 sbc thing i really want to play with this turbo ls stuff .I built a 302 years ago for a customer of mine in a 86 f150 all edelbrock stuff full performer package cam heads intake carb it made 298 to the wheels with a aod and 38 inch mud tires and a 410 gear was kinda cool I dont dislike ford motors i was just brought up on bowties you know you like what your dad lokes lol

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #9
Unless, you factor in that the same guy that worked at ford and built the 302, later moved onto gm and was head of a new engine project, which later became the ls motors...

Ever wonder why its the first chevy motor to use a ford spaced exhaust pattern? Or why the Chevy v-8 bell housing shares all but one bolt with a ford?

Personally, if you are starting from scratch, up to about 400hp cost wise isn't that much different. In already have a 302 (or three) so I'm not gonna bother with converting everything over to use a ls motor. If I ever get around to it, 400 hp will be plenty for a street car.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #10
Quote from: Haystack;464631
Unless, you factor in that the same guy that worked at ford and built the 302, later moved onto gm and was head of a new engine project, which later became the ls motors...

Ever wonder why its the first chevy motor to use a ford spaced exhaust pattern? Or why the Chevy v-8 bell housing shares all but one bolt with a ford?

Personally, if you are starting from scratch, up to about 400hp cost wise isn't that much different. In already have a 302 (or three) so I'm not gonna bother with converting everything over to use a ls motor. If I ever get around to it, 400 hp will be plenty for a street car.

 

Not claiming to be a expert on ford anything not the guy who designed the sbf 289 302 was an engineer in the late 50s early 60s i dont the he had a 50 somthing years working at ford and than gm the ls was released to the public as a 97 model year ...I dont think you rite on the bellhousing thing either you can still bolt any gm rwd trans to a ls with no adapter and I know for a fact you can't just straight bolt a c4 c6 aod ford t5 to it . and you can't put a 302 header on a ls anything ...kinda weird stuff you coming up with man. It would have been way easier for you to say hay dumb ass build the 302 you already got .just sayin no disrespect

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #11
AFAIK most everything presented here about Ford & Chevy having same this, that and designed by a set of siamese twins is bullshit...  The 396 became a regular production engine in '65, was first Chevy with equally spaced exhaust ports... Sooo in interest of cooling & flow, Chevy had known for years it was better to to have exhaust ports separated from one another...

Ford's 302 ancestry traces back to the 221 that was designed in '60/'61 for the new '62 Fairlane... Till that point Ford had no V8 engine that would fit in the chassis & why Falcon didn't have a V8 engine option(avail approx mid '62) till Fairlane debuted... Other than both being V8, about the only shared traits between the F & C small blocks are that Ford did use the stud rockers pioneered by Chevy... AND Pontiac, their new V8 for '55 also used stud mount...

By mid '62 the little 221 had grown to 260 cubes(smallest V8 to be available in Falcon & 1st gen Stang) and by mid '63 up to 289... Apparently Ford had the foresight to design the small blocks with enough bore spacing to allow growth, which happened within approx 1½ years... Production blocks are pretty much limited to a .060 overbore at 4" which is size of 289 & 302 piston(Ford only recommends .030)... The little 221 was woefully underpowered, rated at I believe 145Hp gross, in todays net figures that may have been 115Hp... The 260 was answer in Fairlane(still anything but a fireball), but was underpowered in the full size Fords that used the 292 Y block through '62... For '63 the base V8 in full size was the 260 but when the 63½ Galaxie Fastbacks debuted the base V8 became 289... The 64½ Mustang was introduced with similar V8 engine availability as Fairlane, the Falcon 170 6cyl was base engine... Lineup changed with introduction of true '65 models...

As already mentioned 302 became available for '68 models, 1968 was also last year of 289 production... The Windsor plant that built 289 shifted to 351 for '69... Previous to '68, Cleveland built all the 289 and continued to do so with 302... For whatever reason Ford dropped the 352 FE, for '67 & '68, so had no mid size V8, engines jumped from 289/302 to the 390... The 351 came on scene in '69 to fill that void...

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #12
As for the rumor that GM based their LS design on Ford, or else out and out copied the 5.0....


LMFAO!

They may have used some design influences of the 351c, and it's nothing more than sheer coincidence that the bore spacing is close enough to be called identical, but face it, as long as it's been, if it were true, we'd know it by heart.

I was even told by a chevy guy that Ford designed the LS, but then sold the blueprints to GM as they were going with the modular engine. SMFH.

Maybe these guys ate paint chips as kids, or sumpin'.

He wants to put (insert engine brand here) into his car.

Who gives a fuck? not me.

You...do you. Go fast, enjoy it. ;)
'84 and '87 Mustangs
'98 Explorer 5.0
'06 Lexus
'06 Explorer EB 4.6

Cringe ...please don't flame ls swap coming soon

Reply #13
I have a 6.0L LQ4 in my 1984 Thunderbird.  Do it. You won't regret it.  I am using a team Z K member and coil over kit.  I have a couple threads here about it.  I don't update it much here but have the full build on Facebook