Transplanting a 4.6l Ford Cobra engine?
02-01-08, 12:36 AM
#1
Speed Mach Go Go Go
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: My 350Z Roadster kicks my RX7's butt
Posts: 4,772
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Transplanting a 4.6l Ford Cobra engine?
I'm not sure what section this goes in to so feel free to move it.
I'm not sure why this hasn't been looked at before. A nissan engine makes no sense at all. I understand a Corvette engine since the bodies are very similar and they share a similar passion but you still put in a Ford rear end. Ford owns most of Mazda and you now see Ford/Mazda combo dealerships.
The GT500 and the GT40 use a 5.4l 4v(x8) supercharged engine which is too large but a 4.6l Aluminator crate engine with a Whipple supercharger has possibilities. I don't remember what liter the Corvette Lt1 is. I don't remember the person that's been building his for over 10years? I wanted to ask him. I'm not sure abut fitting the Mustang transmission. Anyhow, if anybody has any info please post.
I'm not sure why this hasn't been looked at before. A nissan engine makes no sense at all. I understand a Corvette engine since the bodies are very similar and they share a similar passion but you still put in a Ford rear end. Ford owns most of Mazda and you now see Ford/Mazda combo dealerships.
The GT500 and the GT40 use a 5.4l 4v(x8) supercharged engine which is too large but a 4.6l Aluminator crate engine with a Whipple supercharger has possibilities. I don't remember what liter the Corvette Lt1 is. I don't remember the person that's been building his for over 10years? I wanted to ask him. I'm not sure abut fitting the Mustang transmission. Anyhow, if anybody has any info please post.
02-01-08, 12:50 AM
#2
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: University Place, WA
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hm,... my '02 Ford Explorer has a 4.6L V8 that is essentially the same as the Mustang 4.6L EXCEPT, the Explorer has an aluminum block rather than the iron block the mustang does. About 75 lbs lighter I think.
02-01-08, 01:11 AM
#3
NASA TTS Build
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that since the Ford V8s are DOHC motors they are quite a bit larger then say a OHC LSX motor.
Note: I may be wrong about this as I did not look up the specs
Note: I may be wrong about this as I did not look up the specs
02-01-08, 04:32 AM
#5
F'n Newbie...
iTrader: (6)
Pretty sure the current 4.6l V8's are SOHC..
I have a buddy that is trashing his 4.6 for a 5.4l short block, and we're putting twin turbo's on it.. gunna be mean as hell...
This has me mildly intimidated. Though him being able to go faster, sooner won't be that bad since I'm helping with the build...
I have a buddy that is trashing his 4.6 for a 5.4l short block, and we're putting twin turbo's on it.. gunna be mean as hell...
This has me mildly intimidated. Though him being able to go faster, sooner won't be that bad since I'm helping with the build...
02-01-08, 07:28 AM
#6
Senior Member
We actually talked about putting one of these in my mustang. The problem was the width of the 4.6L engines. I would have to cut the shock towers to get it to fit.
02-01-08, 08:29 AM
#7
Please somebody help!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Woodridge, IL
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, the latest 4.6 modulars are dohc. there 3 different simple versions, probably with some ecu tuning differences or intake manifold tweaks, etc.
SOHC 2 valve (since early 90's)
SOHC 3 valve (new mustang)
DOHC 4 valve (mid 90's mark8, since then it's been in a few different cars)
It interesting to note that the supercharged SVT slobra uses an iron block version of the 4 valve. I know with an ecu flash those things are pretty beastly.
From what the previous posters have noted though i think you might want to go with a narrower* V.
SOHC 2 valve (since early 90's)
SOHC 3 valve (new mustang)
DOHC 4 valve (mid 90's mark8, since then it's been in a few different cars)
It interesting to note that the supercharged SVT slobra uses an iron block version of the 4 valve. I know with an ecu flash those things are pretty beastly.
From what the previous posters have noted though i think you might want to go with a narrower* V.
Trending Topics
02-01-08, 07:37 PM
#8
Speed Mach Go Go Go
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: My 350Z Roadster kicks my RX7's butt
Posts: 4,772
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Yeah the GT500 and GT40 (latest) are 4v/cyclinder and looks like a Roush supercharger. Ford racing has an aluminum 4.6l mustang engine and one of the guys their has it supercharged to 600hp. I have no idea about the size and fitment. What's the name of the guy with the 1,000 page thread doing the Corvette LT1 transplant?
02-02-08, 10:25 PM
#9
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ford 4.6L is a rather large motor for what it is. The motor is really lacking the technology (and in many ways, the sheer simplicity) that the Chevrolet motors incorporate to make them much better performers. I think this a rather less-travelled route, as most of the Ford guys seem to go either 302 or 351.
As for fitting a 5.4L, that is debatable. Videos surfaced a little while back of a guy with a 427 BBC mounted in an FB. Nothing is impossible, and I think a 5.4L could be fitted if someone had the time, money, and capabilities to fabricate their own mounts for it (oh, and not to mention pay Ford's prices for motors). I'd be interested to see how you worked the headers and exhaust though, as that will probably be one of the biggest problems outside mounting the motor.
As for fitting a 5.4L, that is debatable. Videos surfaced a little while back of a guy with a 427 BBC mounted in an FB. Nothing is impossible, and I think a 5.4L could be fitted if someone had the time, money, and capabilities to fabricate their own mounts for it (oh, and not to mention pay Ford's prices for motors). I'd be interested to see how you worked the headers and exhaust though, as that will probably be one of the biggest problems outside mounting the motor.
02-03-08, 06:07 AM
#10
Call me gramps!
The Ford 4.6L is a rather large motor for what it is. The motor is really lacking the technology (and in many ways, the sheer simplicity) that the Chevrolet motors incorporate to make them much better performers. I think this a rather less-travelled route, as most of the Ford guys seem to go either 302 or 351.
As for fitting a 5.4L, that is debatable. Videos surfaced a little while back of a guy with a 427 BBC mounted in an FB. Nothing is impossible, and I think a 5.4L could be fitted if someone had the time, money, and capabilities to fabricate their own mounts for it (oh, and not to mention pay Ford's prices for motors). I'd be interested to see how you worked the headers and exhaust though, as that will probably be one of the biggest problems outside mounting the motor.
As for fitting a 5.4L, that is debatable. Videos surfaced a little while back of a guy with a 427 BBC mounted in an FB. Nothing is impossible, and I think a 5.4L could be fitted if someone had the time, money, and capabilities to fabricate their own mounts for it (oh, and not to mention pay Ford's prices for motors). I'd be interested to see how you worked the headers and exhaust though, as that will probably be one of the biggest problems outside mounting the motor.
The fact is, the modular line of motors are much wider than the older Ford Small Blocks.
The following is from Granny's Speed Shop
Engine / Transmission Choices...
...The RX-7's engine compartment / steering rack location somewhat dictates which engines are best suited for this conversion. The reason we prefer to use Chevy's rear sump small block engines?...engines with an oil sump located to the rear, such as the small block Chevy, allow for a lower and more rearward engine location while still clearing the RX-7's steering rack. Front sump engines, even engine's with a small front sump such as the Ford 5.0 w/ the FOX body pan, would require either a far forward engine location or re-location of the RX-7's steering rack. Narrower engines such as pushrod V-8s will clear the RX-7's brake booster, while overhead cam engines such as the Ford 4.6 would require some creative re-working of the RX-7's brake system.
...The RX-7's engine compartment / steering rack location somewhat dictates which engines are best suited for this conversion. The reason we prefer to use Chevy's rear sump small block engines?...engines with an oil sump located to the rear, such as the small block Chevy, allow for a lower and more rearward engine location while still clearing the RX-7's steering rack. Front sump engines, even engine's with a small front sump such as the Ford 5.0 w/ the FOX body pan, would require either a far forward engine location or re-location of the RX-7's steering rack. Narrower engines such as pushrod V-8s will clear the RX-7's brake booster, while overhead cam engines such as the Ford 4.6 would require some creative re-working of the RX-7's brake system.
02-03-08, 09:24 AM
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's much more difficult than that. The modular line of motors (4.6L, 5.4L, SOHC, DOCH, 2V, 3V, 4V) simply will not fit without MAJOR MODIFICATIONS.
The fact is, the modular line of motors are much wider than the older Ford Small Blocks.
The following is from Granny's Speed Shop
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
The fact is, the modular line of motors are much wider than the older Ford Small Blocks.
The following is from Granny's Speed Shop
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
02-04-08, 03:09 PM
#12
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4.6 vs 5.0:
The modular motor is physically larger than the old 460!
my 5.0 fit in the FC like it was a tiny V6:
Mine had a 49/51 f/r weight distribution, and no relocation of the crossmember/steering rack. Granny's used my car to advertise their kit (even though my car did NOT use their kit) and they still got it wrong.
The modular motor is physically larger than the old 460!
my 5.0 fit in the FC like it was a tiny V6:
Mine had a 49/51 f/r weight distribution, and no relocation of the crossmember/steering rack. Granny's used my car to advertise their kit (even though my car did NOT use their kit) and they still got it wrong.
02-04-08, 08:25 PM
#13
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4.6 vs 5.0:
The modular motor is physically larger than the old 460!
my 5.0 fit in the FC like it was a tiny V6:
Mine had a 49/51 f/r weight distribution, and no relocation of the crossmember/steering rack. Granny's used my car to advertise their kit (even though my car did NOT use their kit) and they still got it wrong.
The modular motor is physically larger than the old 460!
my 5.0 fit in the FC like it was a tiny V6:
Mine had a 49/51 f/r weight distribution, and no relocation of the crossmember/steering rack. Granny's used my car to advertise their kit (even though my car did NOT use their kit) and they still got it wrong.
But yeah that 4.6L is huge and it seems to me to be rather pointless. Good job keeping it old school with that carburetor, it's the way to keep things simple and still get good performance.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
turbo-minivan
General Rotary Tech Support
69
02-04-16 12:29 AM
