walt peifer wrote:
> <michaelvogel@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137970305.114116.214210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm looking for some opinions on the smallest useful engine that can be
>>transplanted into a 1965 ford mustang... Is it a stretch to say that a
>>honda accord engine might be compatible and/or even strong enough to
>>drive the mustang?
>>
>>Or maybe the easier option is to modify the stang's 289 v8 to make it
>>more fuel efficient. Comments/suggestions?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Michael
>>
>
> rebuild the 289. carefully select the cam, run a 4-v intake with a small
> (low cfm carb with vacuum secondary. upgrade the ignition (petronix, unilite
> ect) use high quality cap, wires and plugs. Find a 35 amp alternator, no
> after market electronics, quality using a manual trans convert to over
> driven T-5, lighten the flywheel and pressure plate, with an auto for an
> over drive type AOD. lighten the drive shaft (carbon fiber, aluminum) find a
> set of 2:11 or 2:34 gears, change the tires to the narrowest highest
> pressure p-metric radials you can find and are comfortable with. remove the
> carpet and trunk mat and the insulation under them, reinstall the mat and
> carpet. don't carry anything extra in the trunk. Drive as if there is and
> egg between your gas pedal and the floor,
>
>
Brent P wrote:
> In article <43D58EE1.8030303@here.com>, cprice@here.com wrote:
>
>> or better yet, sell the 65 and buy a prius.
>
> He should just find a 4 cylinder probe! After all, that car was nearly
> the 1989 mustang.
....or an SVO turbo-4. Those were pretty good on fuel economy if you
didn't have a lead foot.
Ritz wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <43D58EE1.8030303@here.com>, cprice@here.com wrote:
>>
>>> or better yet, sell the 65 and buy a prius.
>>
>>
>> He should just find a 4 cylinder probe! After all, that car was nearly
>> the 1989 mustang.
>
>
>
> ...or an SVO turbo-4. Those were pretty good on fuel economy if you
> didn't have a lead foot.
<rant>
Please dont cut up a SVO for this project. hack a t-bird, a merkur or
other turbo ford car. SVO's are becomming fairly rare these days, and we
dont need people hacking them to bits.
cprice@here.com wrote:
> Ritz wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> In article <43D58EE1.8030303@here.com>, cprice@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> or better yet, sell the 65 and buy a prius.
>>>
>>>
>>> He should just find a 4 cylinder probe! After all, that car was
>>> nearly the 1989 mustang.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...or an SVO turbo-4. Those were pretty good on fuel economy if you
>> didn't have a lead foot.
> <rant>
>
> Please dont cut up a SVO for this project. hack a t-bird, a merkur
> or other turbo ford car. SVO's are becomming fairly rare these days, and
> we dont need people hacking them to bits.
>
> </rant>
A decent '65 is pretty rare too. It seems idiotic which is why I
suspect the whole thing was just a troll/joke.
Ritz wrote:
> cprice@here.com wrote:
>>
>> <rant>
>>
>> Please dont cut up a SVO for this project. hack a t-bird, a merkur
>> or other turbo ford car. SVO's are becomming fairly rare these days,
>> and we dont need people hacking them to bits.
>>
>> </rant>
>
>
>
> A decent '65 is pretty rare too. It seems idiotic which is why I
> suspect the whole thing was just a troll/joke.
>
> Cheers,
<cprice@here.com> wrote in message news:pTeCf.452647$ki.288322@pd7tw2no...
> Ritz wrote:
> > cprice@here.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <rant>
> >>
> >> Please dont cut up a SVO for this project. hack a t-bird, a merkur
> >> or other turbo ford car. SVO's are becomming fairly rare these days,
> >> and we dont need people hacking them to bits.
> >>
> >> </rant>
> >
> >
> >
> > A decent '65 is pretty rare too. It seems idiotic which is why I
> > suspect the whole thing was just a troll/joke.
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> Agreed.
I have a 65 Mustang and if i wanted something fuel efficent, i would have a
mod ped. Gas is expensive, get the biggest engine and enjoy the money your
paying for gas.
walt peifer wrote:
> <michaelvogel@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137970305.114116.214210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> rebuild the 289. carefully select the cam, run a 4-v intake with a small
> (low cfm carb with vacuum secondary. upgrade the ignition (petronix, unilite
> ect) use high quality cap, wires and plugs. Find a 35 amp alternator, no
> after market electronics, quality using a manual trans convert to over
> driven T-5, lighten the flywheel and pressure plate, with an auto for an
> over drive type AOD. lighten the drive shaft (carbon fiber, aluminum) find a
> set of 2:11 or 2:34 gears, change the tires to the narrowest highest
> pressure p-metric radials you can find and are comfortable with. remove the
> carpet and trunk mat and the insulation under them, reinstall the mat and
> carpet. don't carry anything extra in the trunk. Drive as if there is and
> egg between your gas pedal and the floor,
my reference to the "honda accord" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Anyway, yes I agree that a rebuild is probably the most efficient way
to improve some gas mileage while still preserving the mustang's
original power.
Ill take your motor off your hands!!
<michaelvogel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137970305.114116.214210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for some opinions on the smallest useful engine that can be
> transplanted into a 1965 ford mustang... Is it a stretch to say that a
> honda accord engine might be compatible and/or even strong enough to
> drive the mustang?
>
> Or maybe the easier option is to modify the stang's 289 v8 to make it
> more fuel efficient. Comments/suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Michael
>
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
