Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a 1967 mustang convertable and would like advice on engine swap that would fit engine bay without modification. c4 or c6 automatic transmission and other compatible upgrades that I would need to make. Drivetrain, suspension etc.
 

·
Subscriber
Joined
·
551 Posts
Stick with motor families that were available from the factory in '67, and anything will fit without modification.
I don't have much use for non-overdrive transmissions - something like a 302/AOD combo should be a piece of cake.
 

·
Subscriber
Joined
·
551 Posts
in that case-
six-cylinder options: 250
v8 options (small-block): 260, 289, 302
v8 options (big-block): 352, 390, 428

my personal opinion - stay away from the FE, they're expensive, and there's no factory overdrive transmission that will bolt up.

302/AOD is the way to go if you want an automatic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,419 Posts
1967 6 cyl came with 4 lug wheels and a 7.25" rear end. The small block V8 got the 8" and 5 lug wheels.

Unfortunately, to properly change to a V8, you'll need all the suspension, along with the rear axle... in addition to all the engine/trans stuff.

Unless you have a parts car, it could get very expensive. It's a big job, either way.

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thank you for the advice. I appreciate that you guys are willing to share your knowledge and point guys like me in the right direction.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,830 Posts
If you find a 9 inch rear from 67-70 it's a bolt in, 289-302 with a C4 is a bolt in with the correct parts, as is any FE with a C6. Of course you need the correct parts and the list is long

For the front end, any 67-70 5 bolt lug Mustang from the spindles will work, or find Granada disk spindles with a change to tie rod ends.

In the end, not a real tough swap, but takes some parts searching and rebuilding.The 289/302 swap would be the cheapest by far, and despite being a big block guy myself, likely the easiest and cost effective way to build a real fast car if that's the goal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Ease and cost effectiveness are definitely a priority. This will not be a daily driver. Looking at 302. Not sure if i need C4 or C6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,419 Posts
Ease and cost effectiveness are definitely a priority. This will not be a daily driver. Looking at 302. Not sure if i need C4 or C6.
C4 is plenty for a small block. It's also a more efficient transmission, and absorbs less power... in addition to being smaller, lighter and easier to deal with when packaging it into a car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
A 351 Windsor makes a nice swap.

Not much bigger than a 302, just a bit wider at the deck.

351W uses the same mounts as the 302 and you can use a C4 behind it. (or an AOD)

Just my $0.02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,419 Posts
A 351 Windsor makes a nice swap.

Not much bigger than a 302, just a bit wider at the deck.

351W uses the same mounts as the 302 and you can use a C4 behind it. (or an AOD)

Just my $0.02
This would be my first choice as a swap as well. If you want to make some power, it doesn't cost much more to stroke one to 408ci. All 351W engines use the older 28 oz-in external balance shared with all the pre-82 302's.

Even if a person leaves the 351W mostly stock, it's a stronger foundation... and provides a lot of room for possible future upgrades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Whatever engine you choose, measure its width across the exhaust manifolds and keep that the same as a 289-302 width so you do not have to modify the shock towers.
If it matters to you, fuel economy varies widely 9 mpg in my 1971 351 to 28 mpg for my 1965 289 with a 2.8 :1 ratio rear axle and a 2 bbl carb. Given the choice even the 3 speed manual transmission was fine as the mustang was light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Whatever engine you choose, measure its width across the exhaust manifolds and keep that the same as a 289-302 width so you do not have to modify the shock towers.
If it matters to you, fuel economy varies widely 9 mpg in my 1971 351 to 28 mpg for my 1965 289 with a 2.8 :1 ratio rear axle and a 2 bbl carb. Given the choice even the 3 speed manual transmission was fine as the mustang was light.
The 67 Mustang was engineered to take the big block 390 FE.
Any small blocks will fit with ease.
No shock tower butchery needed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,830 Posts
Galaxiex is right, 67-70 can take 351, and the 69 had a 351W, absolutely a bolt in, and you can buy headers for a 69 and drive away. Although I said the 289/302 swap was a good one, the 351W (or 351C for that matter) is a no brainer for some extra torque and power
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top