-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
4.0 Mustang T5 bellhousing
- Thread starter 260Alpine
- Start date
gordonra
Donation Time
Hi Jim,
It's my understanding that the bellhousing you are referring to could possibly work, but hasn't been documented that I've heard. I know of one member near me that is attempting to go this route and I'm anxious to see how it goes.
There could be a problem with the clutch slave configuration since it would need the internal unit and not the more traditional cylinder.
Rich
It's my understanding that the bellhousing you are referring to could possibly work, but hasn't been documented that I've heard. I know of one member near me that is attempting to go this route and I'm anxious to see how it goes.
There could be a problem with the clutch slave configuration since it would need the internal unit and not the more traditional cylinder.
Rich
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Bill, Also there are thousands of them. 2005-2009 Mustang. I know a lot of people don't like the idea of the internal HTOB. It has been pretty much trouble free. I think you could cut a window for a throwout fork, install a GM adjustable ball, S10 fork, a piece of angle for external slave mount. I have pictures of a similar set up on a Buick V6 bellhousing.
MikeH
Diamond Level Sponsor
I wonder if the flywheel and the clutch would also be an option.
From Wikipedia:
The 2005–2009 base Mustang was powered by Ford's cast iron block 4.0 L Cologne SOHC V6, replacing the 3.8 L Essex OHV V6 used in 2004 and older models. It produces 210 hp (157 kW) at 5300 rpm and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m) of torque at 3500 rpm and was mated to a standard Tremec T-5 5-speed manual
From Wikipedia:
The 2005–2009 base Mustang was powered by Ford's cast iron block 4.0 L Cologne SOHC V6, replacing the 3.8 L Essex OHV V6 used in 2004 and older models. It produces 210 hp (157 kW) at 5300 rpm and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m) of torque at 3500 rpm and was mated to a standard Tremec T-5 5-speed manual
That is the incredible part. If so, you would be able to transfer the flywheel, clutch, pressure plate, starter, TOB assembly and even the Mustang T5. The T5 used behind the 4.0 seems to be very different and includes a "semi remote" (don't know what that means) shifter assembly, but sounds like it allows the shifter location to be varied. Some are unhappy about the strength of this T5, but remember that is behind a very torquey 4.0 in a car that is probably close to a thousand pounds heavier. Haven't looked at the ratios, but if the "innards" are compatible, the gears could be swapped around and still end up with an easier, lower cost installation.
If I were into V6's, I'd be very excited about the possibilities.
Bill
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Flywheel won't work, 8 bolt. Pressure plate pattern the same with 10" clutch. I tried to find if you can change the funky output flange on that T5 to a regular yoke with no success yet. Edit: there is a common 8.8 rear yoke. Here is a picture of an aftermarket shifter for that T5. Looks like custom length rod would let you put the shifter wherever you want. Ratios are 3.75 first, .72 fifth.
Attachments
Last edited:
Jim, as usual, you are a constant source of interesting, useful information.
About the clutch, I had the impression that the Mustang II clutch was bigger than the Bronco II clutch, and that the flywheel were different. Would you happen to know which flywheel/clutch this Mustang 4.0 clutch (and pressure plate?) will work with.
So, if a person were starting from scratch, they could source this Mustang 4.0 bellhousing, with its internal HTOB and, depending upon which flywheel you have, the clutch and pressure plate. The transmission might be problematic.
Paul M.
I've got two engines. The first is a 75 Mustang V6 with bellhousing. It's been rebuilt and nearly completely assembled. I've got the T5 fitted to the bellhousing except for the pilot bearing business. My second engine is a Bronco II engine that I hope to fit a 4.0 crankshaft into. I already have another timing cover. I like the concept of using an internal TOB so I'll start searching for this Mustang 4.0 bellhousing.
About the clutch, I had the impression that the Mustang II clutch was bigger than the Bronco II clutch, and that the flywheel were different. Would you happen to know which flywheel/clutch this Mustang 4.0 clutch (and pressure plate?) will work with.
So, if a person were starting from scratch, they could source this Mustang 4.0 bellhousing, with its internal HTOB and, depending upon which flywheel you have, the clutch and pressure plate. The transmission might be problematic.
Paul M.
I've got two engines. The first is a 75 Mustang V6 with bellhousing. It's been rebuilt and nearly completely assembled. I've got the T5 fitted to the bellhousing except for the pilot bearing business. My second engine is a Bronco II engine that I hope to fit a 4.0 crankshaft into. I already have another timing cover. I like the concept of using an internal TOB so I'll start searching for this Mustang 4.0 bellhousing.
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Paul, 98 and newer 4.0 Flywheel are 8 bolt. The 2005-2009 Mustang I think are too. The pressure plate from a 98 and newer bolted up to a 2.9 in a Ranger. I think if someone figured out a yoke for the 2005-2009 Mustang T5, it would be useable. You would need a longer drive line also as it has a very short tailshaft. Ram, Centerforce and others make HP clutches for the 2005-2009 Mustang. Paul, Have you ever thought about just putting the 2.8 heads on a 4.0 pushrod block? You would have to compare gaskets for water jacket differences. Use spacers for the intake, like they do on the 300 Buick with 215 Performer intake. You don't need a distributor if you use EDIS crank trigger ignition. I would oil through the pushrods and use stud mount on a bar roller rockers like Morana offers.
Jim, I'll have to double-check my crank to make sure it's a 6 bolt part. My machinist in Portland (Portland Engine Rebuilders) has turned a 2.9 crank to fit the 2.8 block and I'm hoping he'll be able to do the same with a 4.0 crank. The oil pans on both engines are about the same width and I'm feeling good about being able to make it happen.
Regarding the 2.8 heads on a 4.0 block, I'll have to shop for a 4.0 head gasket and lay that on a 2.8 head to see if the bolts are going in the right places. If those heads will fit, it opens up a world of possibilities for V6 swaps. As it is, I'm thinking that the 2.8 stroked to 3.4 will already be crazy fast, but with a roller cam 4.0 block, you're in Sunbeam Tiger territory. It wouldn't be to difficult to stroke a 4.0 crank to make a 4.2 (260 ci) engine.
I've driven a 4.0 Ranger pickup truck, admittedly a SOHC, but it was the torque that was pleasing. That was the pleasure of driving a Tiger - the engine's torque.
Regarding the 2.8 heads on a 4.0 block, I'll have to shop for a 4.0 head gasket and lay that on a 2.8 head to see if the bolts are going in the right places. If those heads will fit, it opens up a world of possibilities for V6 swaps. As it is, I'm thinking that the 2.8 stroked to 3.4 will already be crazy fast, but with a roller cam 4.0 block, you're in Sunbeam Tiger territory. It wouldn't be to difficult to stroke a 4.0 crank to make a 4.2 (260 ci) engine.
I've driven a 4.0 Ranger pickup truck, admittedly a SOHC, but it was the torque that was pleasing. That was the pleasure of driving a Tiger - the engine's torque.
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Paul, The 4.0 block would be taller and wider, a little heavier and probably the accessories may lead to interference issues. I bet the heads would bolt on, water jackets may not line up but heads or gaskets could be modified(holes drilled or slotted) to work. 4.0 crank in 2.8, crank counter weights may have to be turned down for block clearance, piston skirt trimmed and check rod to cam and panrail. Are you using the Chrysler 3.3 pistons? If you have an 8 bolt crank you will have to get a newer flywheel. Check out Chris Gill's 300 Buick stroker(350 crank) I've been helping with on Mgexperience engine swap page.
Last edited:
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Bill, The pressure plate bolt pattern is the same. 2.9 flywheel in the Ranger is the same as 2.8. The flywheel pattern changed to 8 bolt in 98. The depth of the 4.0 bellhousing may be different than the Mustang II also, won't know until Paul picks one up and compares.
Last edited:
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Paul, You have entirely too much fun! I think there is a Ford 8.8" yoke that will fit in the tailshaft. You would need a slip joint on the driveshaft. I think it is 3.75 first so I would recommend higher rear gears. You can shorten or lengthen the remote shift rod or see if the S10 or Mustang shifter will work. May not have the ballseat as in earlier T5. Keep us posted.
Last edited:
Jim, some time ago I happen to have scrounged the tailshaft, output shaft, and other bits from a S10 T-5. Hopefully I have enough of the parts to swap the tailshafts. I'm a little confused about what you mean regarding Ford 9" yoke part, but I'll study on that bit of information and figure it out eventually. 3.75 first? Oh well. Maybe use it with the Dana 44 and swap in some numerically lower gears.
The new bell and transmission will probably go with the Bronco/Ranger stroker V6 that's waiting its turn.
The new bell and transmission will probably go with the Bronco/Ranger stroker V6 that's waiting its turn.
260Alpine
Silver Level Sponsor
Paul, I was thinking of replacing the heavy balancer with a rear end yoke. Then you would need a slip joint on the driveshaft. I think the bell is deeper and uses the 94 and up longer input shaft also. I was hoping to see what shifter would bolt up to the box on the tailshaft. The MGB guys like the 3.31 rear with that first ratio. That is common, along with 3.54 in 70's Jeep Wagoneer. 3.08 in some Postal Jeeps.
Last edited: