Manual Steering?

[GallopingFord]

I like where your head is at. I look forward to you posting a build on this monster. I know that BMR makes a K-member specifically for the S197 chassis to bolt up a 351w and the steering rack. I'm trying to find specifics on someone who has routed it.

What about the rear end?

 

[jsimmonstx]

408 is a stout setup... And yes, $25K is NOT out of the question, assuming all "race grade" parts and solid machine work. Given the weight, though, I think you're still going to want a power rack under there. It's easy enough to mount a PS pump to a Windsor block, and then it's just a matter of fabricating lines to hook to a 05-10 rack. Since I doubt you're sticking with the OE K-member, you may need to add a bump-steer kit depending on rack mounting, but there's no real size difference between a manual and power rack. It's all in the lines and their routing.

We're expecting somewhere north of 450HP at the rear wheels, and 450lbft of torque. The shop helping me with the swap says the car should to 9's in the 1/4 mile if I wanted to do any drag racing. Yummy.

I'm going to try to retain the OEM K-member for now. It *should* allow enough room to clear the oil pan, but I think we're going to wait to see. All other S197 swaps I've seen use the BMR K-member, but only for the weight reduction (which isn't really that much unless you also swap out the control arms). That's $1000 I don't want to have to spend unless absolutely necessary. Besides, I have the Boss SLA control arms from Steeda already on the car. I have adjustable sway bars and a watts link, so I think the suspension can be tuned to account for the extra weight.

I'm hoping the 2005-10 OEM hydraulic PS hoses should be fine as they are since the pump will be mounted a bit closer to the rack than it is when mounted to a 4.6. At this point though, I'm planning on a manual rack unless I get lucky and the EPAS "just works". However, I've never been that lucky.

I'm already running a bumpsteer kit and a watts link - in fact, the only part of the OEM suspension I haven't replaced is the UCA on the rear end.

There are a crapload of other issues to consider as well:

0) Getting a viable signal to the OEM tach. There are two possible ways to do it that I can see - transfer the V6 reluctor wheel to the new motor and utilize the OEM crank sensor, or explore the signal coming from a digital MSD ignition module to see if it can generate an appropriate signal to the ECU. If neither of those work, out comes the ECU, and I have to replace the instrument cluster with a fabricated part featuring aftermarket gauges.

1) Retaining the a/c (not planning on it). Will I be able to if the ECU isn't there? Will the HVAC controls even work?

2) The radiator fan needs to be hooked up differently because there won't be a cylinder head temperature reading any more. Can I adapt the signal from a temp sender to make the fan work, or do I have to install some sort of switch that turns the fan on a specific temperature? If the ECU is gone, the latter is probably the best approach.

3) There is a question as whether or not the shifter will line up with the existing shifter hole. I don't see why it shouldn't because I'm assuming the distance from the motor mount to the shifter should be pretty close to the same, regardless of what kind of front-mounted engine setup you're talking about.

4) Keeping the ABS system. I don't know if I need ABS (I've certainly driven a car without it for many years), and since "brakes are brakes", not having the ABS hooked up shouldn't be an issue, and they even make a straight-thru block to replace the ABS manifold.

As you can see, I'm trying as hard as possible to cover all the bases.

 

[jsimmonstx]

I like where your head is at. I look forward to you posting a build on this monster. I know that BMR makes a K-member specifically for the S197 chassis to bolt up a 351w and the steering rack. I'm trying to find specifics on someone who has routed it.

What about the rear end?

Rear is currently a OEM 8.8 with 3.73 gears. If I have any money left over, I'm gonna upgrade that to 31-spline axles and probably drop the ratio to 3.55. I figure 3.73 might be too high for road work (currently about 2500 rpm at 70).

The trans is going to be a close-ratio T56, probably using a MGW shifter (gonna go with hydraulic clutch).

I'm extremely serious about doing this the right way in terms of mechanical parts. I don't want anything to break because I cheaped out. I'm also concerned about executing this well. If it looks like crap, it's probably not goign to work very well either.

I've seen that BMR k-member, and it is my first choice if I need to get one. Unfortunately, I probably won't know for sure until we try to actually drop the engine in the car. Since you really don't see a lot of S197's with the engine out, it becomes a challenge to eyeball stuff.

The only thing we're sure of is that the engine bay and trans tunnel are wide enough to accept the power train. After that, everything is up in the air (and believe me, that's an unpleasant reality).

I wish I could attract some sponsors with reasonably deep pockets... This is going to be an epic build (for me, anyway). I did the web site for the shop doing the work in exchange for some of the labor costs. (www.southtexasperformance.com), and I have $2500 saved towards the parts (since Nov 1). When I get to the $18k mark, I'll start ordering stuff and get the motor built.Once everything is delivered, I'll start the actual process of swapping the engine. I'm going to try to push the shop to have the car at least drivable in no less than a week from start to finish. Instrumentation and other nigglies will be resolved as time permits. I'm trying for an Oct 1 completion date in time for Mustang Fest in Corpus Christie, followed by the local Shelby club's annual visit to the Harris Hill road course in Austin.

 

[GallopingFord]

The person I would look up and ask for advice (if you need any) is MarcS. He is running a Roush Yates 358ci Nascar engine in his S197.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

We're expecting somewhere north of 450HP at the rear wheels, and 450lbft of torque. The shop helping me with the swap says the car should to 9's in the 1/4 mile if I wanted to do any drag racing. Yummy.

While it may be a touch down on torque compared to the Windsor, have you looked at doing a Coyote swap instead? HP is certainly achievable, and you would probably wind up with torque in the low 400's with proper exhaust. You would also probably be able to keep the EPAS rack, since you'd have a PCM that would generate all the CAN-BUS data you would need. Oh, that and 7500RPM capability... A Coyote crate motor, CobraJet intake, headers AND a close-ratio BossR1 trans will set you back a LOT less than $25K as well. Just sayin'. If you're doing it for the "be different" factor, well, then carry on.

I'm going to try to retain the OEM K-member for now. It *should* allow enough room to clear the oil pan, but I think we're going to wait to see. All other S197 swaps I've seen use the BMR K-member, but only for the weight reduction (which isn't really that much unless you also swap out the control arms). That's $1000 I don't want to have to spend unless absolutely necessary. Besides, I have the Boss SLA control arms from Steeda already on the car. I have adjustable sway bars and a watts link, so I think the suspension can be tuned to account for the extra weight.

Probably room enough for the exhaust as well... Sounds good from here!

I'm hoping the 2005-10 OEM hydraulic PS hoses should be fine as they are since the pump will be mounted a bit closer to the rack than it is when mounted to a 4.6. At this point though, I'm planning on a manual rack unless I get lucky and the EPAS "just works". However, I've never been that lucky.

Lines: Should work, particularly with a low-mount S197 pump. I was figuring on you dropping in a FOX or SN95 pump, and for that you'd need to change lines to get the right fittings. Not horribly expensive to do that. EPAS: I'm not an expert, but my understanding of the way the system works is that it takes vehicle speed into account to apply the "correct" amount of assist. You could certainly get a VSS signal from the trans, but whether the computer would be "willing" to pass the data correctly without any engine signals and control is another matter. I would probably forget the EPAS and just go hydraulic.

There are a crapload of other issues to consider as well:

0) Getting a viable signal to the OEM tach. There are two possible ways to do it that I can see - transfer the V6 reluctor wheel to the new motor and utilize the OEM crank sensor, or explore the signal coming from a digital MSD ignition module to see if it can generate an appropriate signal to the ECU. If neither of those work, out comes the ECU, and I have to replace the instrument cluster with a fabricated part featuring aftermarket gauges.

Plan on the aftermarket gauges. The entire 05+ dash is run off CAN-BUS, and as such requires valid signals from the PCM.

1) Retaining the a/c (not planning on it). Will I be able to if the ECU isn't there? Will the HVAC controls even work?

Here's where things could get interesting... Almost the entire vehicle harness (which includes all the HVAC stuff) bounces through the SJB, which works off... you guessed it! CAN-BUS. I'm pretty sure that the HVAC would work, but you'd lose a lot of the "logic" attached to the A/C system. Idle bump, cooling fan control, etc., without some work-around lash-ups. See my "electrical solution" at the end of my response...

2) The radiator fan needs to be hooked up differently because there won't be a cylinder head temperature reading any more. Can I adapt the signal from a temp sender to make the fan work, or do I have to install some sort of switch that turns the fan on a specific temperature? If the ECU is gone, the latter is probably the best approach.

Lots of ways to skin this cat, but... Again, see my "electrical solution" at the end.

3) There is a question as whether or not the shifter will line up with the existing shifter hole. I don't see why it shouldn't because I'm assuming the distance from the motor mount to the shifter should be pretty close to the same, regardless of what kind of front-mounted engine setup you're talking about.

This is a pure mechanical deal. The Windsor block won't interface in ANY way to the Modular family motor mounts, so you're going to be fabricating mounts (motor plates are sexy!!). Just put them where you want them to pop the shifter through the tunnel where you want it.

4) Keeping the ABS system. I don't know if I need ABS (I've certainly driven a car without it for many years), and since "brakes are brakes", not having the ABS hooked up shouldn't be an issue, and they even make a straight-thru block to replace the ABS manifold.

This is an interesting one... The ABS system does tie into CAN-BUS but only for reporting and traction-control duty. The actual anti-lock programming resides in the control module bolted onto the HCU, and is effectively stand-alone assuming power, ground, and four wheel speed sensors. You CAN keep this and keep it functional, excepting the traction control, which doesn't work worth a crap anyway.

Okay, now for the fun part: the electrical system. By deleting the engine (and all of it's associated calibrated sensors) you're going to want to ditch the PCM completely. While you're at it, I would ditch the ENTIRE electrical system in the car, and start from scratch with a clean sheet. Take a look at this website: http://www.isispower.com/ They make a CAN-BUS based electrical setup that is pretty much a piece of cake to wire, and it will also strip a BUNCH of weight out of the car. No more SJB, no underhood fuse panel, no massive wiring harnesses, none of it. The real question is one of control at that point. The ISIS system uses one control input module that takes all of your switching inputs, converts it to CAN-BUS data, and kicks it out to a network of local power control modules. For a street car, you would probably use three, one in the engine bay, one in the trunk, and one under the dash. You can either build a switch-bay to control the network, or re-purpose the stock switches to do what you want them to do if you want to keep a more "stock" look to things. The nice thing about this system is that it can trigger multiple things off one switch, adjust that trigger based on other inputs (conditional programming), or have multiple controls affect a single circuit. IIRC, you can even program the brake lights to strobe on application for a specific period of time (assume LED brake lights, 3-flash in 0.25 seconds, then on steady), if you wanted.

If you want to keep the HVAC working as stock, then you'll probably need an additional module just to handle that, since there are a LOT of circuits involved. Looking at the 2008 electical book, you'll need at least four motor control lines plus feedback sensor lines JUST for the vent door positioning... You could cut a lot of that down by just running defrost and floor modes, and skipping the temp blend, and dash vents. A/C would be pretty simple and old-school, running the clutch-request line through a high-pressure and low-pressure cutout switches plumbed into the A/C lines. Personally, I would skip it all, gut the HVAC system, and just run a defog blower. A/C is useless on track, drips water in the pre-grid, weighs a bunch, and sucks power from the motor. If you wanted to keep heat, you could do a simple one motor defrost/dash setup to switch between the two, and control your temps with the blower motor (off, low, high for simplicity).

For the dash, I would skip analog gauges completely, and do something like an AIM Pista logger/dash. You're already going to have wheel-speed sensors from the ABS, and you can tie those in to generate vehicle speed, or use the VSS signal from the trans to do the same thing. If you run typical engine sensors (coolant temp, oil temp, oil pressure, tach), you can also use the dash to automatically trigger a LOT of your electrical system as needed. Programmable cooling fan? Check. Warning lights? Check. Programmable diff and trans cooling pumps and fans? Check. Ignition kill to prevent catastrophic failure? Check. Combined with an aftermarket rev limiter (or two!) you could even set up launch control and/or pit-speed limiters as well.

Fore-to-aft wiring would be kept at an absolute minimum. Run a 2ga (or single-aught) power "backbone" from the battery to the other end of the car (either way, forwards or aft) to power the various modules, and tie-wrap a CAN-BUS cable (roughly 3/16" diameter) to it, and that's it, at least for "required" lines. If you wanted to get fancy, you could also pull another small-diameter cable with eight or ten 20ga lines inside (roughly 1/2" diameter) and that would let you pick up a LOT of data at the rear of the car and get it up front. Fuel level senders, rear wheel reluctor signals, differential temp, transmission temp, hell, even rear wheel ride-height, or IR tire and brake temp sensors if you wanted. All that "analog" data would tie into the AIM dash. If you wanted to get really fancy, and had a lot of data pickup points in the rear, AIM does make a remote CAN-BUS hub to plug the sensors into, which would knock even that cable down quite a ways... In short, you're only limited by your imagination and pocketbook.

The ISIS system isn't the cheapest thing up front, but compared to miles of wire, relays, Deutch (or Weatherpak) connectors, ffuse panels, etc., it starts to get pretty inexpensive. FWIW, the SJB is a centralized version of a CAN-BUS controlled power distribution system. Same concept, but the ISIS spreads smaller modules out around the chassis.

The AIM dash is actually inexpensive once you total everything up. Do a cost analysis for a speedo, tach, shift-light, oil pressure, oil temp, coolant temp, trans temp, diff temp, and volt meter, then add warning lights for the key functions, AND add something like a Traqmate data logger, and you will be WELL north of the cost of an optioned-out AIM data dash. Unless you cheap out on the gauges, of course, but even then, the sheer quantity of them will push the price north, to say nothing of running all those sensor lines, illumination lines, power and ground lines all over the place.

I think that what you're doing conceptually is very cool, and I hope my rambling thoughts might help...

Oh, FWIW, the AIM data dash can read the PCM CAN-BUS PIDs directly, for a total of four wires to hook up (power, ground, HS CAN+, HS CAN-) if you stuck with a Coyote... Again, just sayin'

 

[jsimmonstx]

A Coyote swap would run about $19k (if done right), but the whole point of this is - as you surmised - to be different from everyone else.

The exhaust will be via shortie headers. I haven't settled on the size of the pipe, but I'm thinking 2.5 inch right now. I'm also going to have electric cutouts so I can run open exhaust at the track (and at car meets/shows).

Ford Racing makes a set of mounts for their Boss 302/351 crate motors. They *look* like they'll work, but I haven't talked to them. I tried last week, but they were closed due to weather. I talked to the shop and they said motor plates are certainly doable, but in the end, it would be cheaper to simply buy the new BMR windsor K-member when everything was said and done. I might end up going this route.

The rest - I'm a bit overwhelmed. The ISIS system sounds really cool, and that's the way I think I'd like to go eventually. But that might be beyond my planned budget for now. I will admit that the though of completely rewiring the car makes sense, it's - well - pretty darned scary.

I prefer to keep the old-school analog gauges.

Not keeping the A/C is no big deal, but I'd at least like to keep a functioning heater. I'm fine with the possibility of having to convert the heater controls into analog, and was in fact fab'ing up a new face plate so as not to be constrained by existing (useless) controls.

Finally, if I wanted a Coyote, I'd sell this car and buy a GT. After all, insanity can only be justified to a point.

 

[jsimmonstx]

Just got off the phone with FRPP, and the M-6038-CJPR mounts will allow me to mount a 351W into a S-197. Unless the OEM K-member presents fitment problems where the oil pan is concerned, the engine mounting issue is resolved.

 

[Justin_H]

Talk to your engine guy about your exhaust plans- they sound woefully inadequate for the rest of the combo. 1 3/4" long tubes and 3" dual exhaust is probably the minimum you want, either that or you should spend half as much on the engine because you'll be corking up a lot of the power on that 408.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

A Coyote swap would run about $19k (if done right), but the whole point of this is - as you surmised - to be different from everyone else.

All good, and exciting, as well!


Exhaust and motor mounts: Any time you're doing a motor swap, unless it's a plug-n-play kit, you're going to run into fabrication. Exhaust is easy, and if you wanted to get REALLY trick (but pricy), Burns' Stainless sells oval-section tubing, where you could do a full-on side-exhaust without completely sacrificing ground clearance. I would also think really hard about your planned shorty/2.5" setup... You'll be leaving a lot on the table, particularly at the higher RPMs. Think more like 1-7/8" long-tubes, and 3" downstream to really let the motor breathe. Based on your costing, it sounds like you'll be getting some nice, free-flowing heads, and as we all know, the more radical the cam, the higher the rev range. I'd bet you'll exceed 100% VE with that intake setup; don't skimp on the exhaust and bottle up all that hard-earned power!

Motor mounts are fairly simple as well. A few pieces of steel, a bit of welding, and you can make bolt-up adapters to stock (or aftermarket) Windsor block mounting points. Trans crossmember could probably be the aluminum piece from FRPP, since you're thinking T56, and that's a known swap into the S197.

The rest - I'm a bit overwhelmed. The ISIS system sounds really cool, and that's the way I think I'd like to go eventually. But that might be beyond my planned budget for now. I will admit that the though of completely rewiring the car makes sense, it's - well - pretty darned scary.

Electrical is always the joker in the pack. I deal with it on a daily basis (wiring, fabrication, circuit design, etc.), so I've got a bit of a different viewpoint that most. I WILL say that electrical is one of those things that done right is a thing of beauty, and done wrong is a complete and total nightmare. Which ever way you go, take your time, do it right and clean, label the HELL out of things, and keep records! For a situation like yours, where you're ditching the PCM (and obviating the true functionality of a CAN-BUS OE style setup), I still think it'll be better for you both long and short term, to pop for something like the ISIS system rather than trying to cobble together what you really need while trying to work around the SJB and under-hood load center.

The distributed system concept is actually pretty simple. Put the power distribution where it needs to be, with the shortest possible runs and the lowest possible quantity of wire. Front power box would drive up to 8 circuits (assuming street car):
1: left turn signal
2: right turn signal
3: marker lights
4: headlights (possibly through a standard relay or two depending on load)
5: high-beams
6: starter "start" terminal
7: ignition coil power
8: horn

The rear box would also drive up to eight circuits:

1: left turn signal
2: right turn signal
3: marker/tail lights
4: brake lights
5: fuel pump
6: diff cooler fan and pump
7: trans cooler fan and pump
8: cool suit pump

The under-dash module, would then also drive up to eight circuits:

1: gauge power
2: blower motor feed
3: wiper motor feed
4: MSD box power
5: Data acquisition system power
6: Video record system power
7: Radio/Telemetry power
8: Cigarette lighter

Finally, a control module takes up to twenty-four switches as input information, mounted up under the dash. Each switch runs to a dedicated terminal on the box, where it's converted to data.

With the CAN-BUS setup, you run a short piece of wire directly from the distribution box straight to the desired piece of electrical hardware. A data cable strings the boxes together, and you just set up how each output channel behaves (always on, ignition switched, switch triggered either key-on or not, etc.) in a software GUI, then download it to the controller.

With an "old school" setup, you would run power to a central load center (fuse box), and then take the outputs in a spider-web up and down the length of the car... You'll also need a relay block to handle high-amperage switched loads, and those controlled by the ignition-on switch position. All in all, a LOT more headache, and a LOT more wire. Take the rear of the car as an example. Using my example of eight load circuits, you'd need the following:

1: left turn signal - 16ga wire from the flasher circuit
2: right turn signal - 16ga wire from the flasher circuit
3: marker/tail lights - 16ga wire from the headlamp switch
4: brake lights - 14ga wire from the brake pedal switch
5: fuel pump - 12ga wire, from the ignition switch, with a relay
6: diff cooler fan and pump - 12ga wire from either the ignition or battery, relay controlled.
7: trans cooler fan and pump - 12ga wire from either the ignition or battery, relay controlled.
8: cool suit pump -14ga wire from the battery, with a relay

So, for just the rear of the car, you'd be looking at a harness with three 16ga wires, two 14ga wires, and three 12ga wires. Add four 20ga if you intend to keep the ABS functional. This harness would be a minimum of 13' long, and would have "peel outs" across it's length.

In comparison, the ISIS setup would probably be able to drop a wire gauge size for each lead (less length means less voltage drop), and you would probably have 25' of wire TOTAL. Much cleaner, much simpler to wire, and a piece of cake to troubleshoot, since there are circuit status (on/off and fault) lights for each of the circuits.

COST: A 3-box ISIS rig would probably run under $2K for the hardware, and figure on 6-8 hours of labor for installation, and another 2 hrs for programming and diagnostics. Even with a "sweetheart" shop rate of $60/hr for labor, that's still around $2400 all in. With a traditional setup, you're probably looking at around 25-30 hours in labor for just the wiring hardware (load center, relay block, harness fabrication, installation of Deutch or Weatherpak connectors, taping, etc.), plus another $600 or so in hardware, not counting switches, which I'll get to in a moment. Figure on $2100-$2500 to go the "traditional" way. So far, it's a wash. If you want to re-use the existing SJB and fuse panel hardware and wiring harnesses, you'll save a bunch on the physical hard-parts, but you're going to spend a TON on wiring labor. Ford combined lots of their sub-harnesses together in some of the main trunks (think 1.5" diameter bundle, packed with 16-20ga wires!), so it's not uncommon to open up a harness and find THREE "grey with yellow trace" wires in there. To find the correct one of the three, you have to run continuity tests up and down the line... Hell, it took me over three hours to de-content the underdash harness on my car, with the correct book, tools and knowledge, and that was after it was sitting on a workbench! If all you were doing was adding on an alarm, or something like that, it would be one thing, but with as many changes as you'll be making, it may make more sense to start clean-sheet, before you get eaten alive with labor time tracing down circuits and running logic tests to see how a circuit has to be modified to function properly.

From a fiscal standpoint, I would pick my path and commit now, before the build starts, and go from there. If you build a harness, and then swap over, you'll have essentially paid twice. The electrical setup won't make the car faster (+/- weight reduction/addition) but a no-start will certainly slow the car down...

Switches: I'm not counting the switches in the price, because with either the "old-school" or "modified stock" solutions, you're going to need roughly the same piece count and current capacity switches. With the ISIS setup, however, switch current capacity becomes a non-issue as they carry virtually NO current whatsoever. You could even re-use all the stock stuff, and let your imagination run wild. Cruise control on/off to start the car? Why not? You get the idea....

I prefer to keep the old-school analog gauges.

Copy that. Just trying to save some coin for the rest of the build.

Not keeping the A/C is no big deal, but I'd at least like to keep a functioning heater. I'm fine with the possibility of having to convert the heater controls into analog, and was in fact fab'ing up a new face plate so as not to be constrained by existing (useless) controls.

Upon further review, the ruling on the field has been overturned... A small bit of good news for you: While the HVAC system does tie into the PCM, I *think* that's for status and idle control only. It *appears* that the Climate Control Module is part of the switch assembly, and minimal circuit work will be required to get it functioning in a stand-alone mode. For the heater, you'll need to access the 26-pin connector on the back of the dash panel, C294A, and get start/run power to pin 14 (22ga wire, brown with a white trace), fused battery power to pin 26 (22ga, red with yellow trace), and I *think* that would be it. For the blower motor, you'd need to supply relay-controlled (and fused at 30A) power on the blower motor connector C2066, 12ga pink with white trace. The relay for that should be ignition-switched. If all of my assumptions are correct, the above will let you keep the entire stock HVAC system controls fully functional.

For the A/C system itself, you could use a relay on C294A pin 3, a 22ga grey with red trace, to drive battery voltage to the AC clutch itself. Take the output of the clutch and run it through the high- and low-pressure cutoff switches, and tie that to both ground and a linear actuator on the throttle linkage to get your idle bump-up when the clutch engages. I would also suggest that you set the car up to fire off the radiator cooling fan directly off the relay you added above. That way, when you hit the "A/C" button, the cooling fan kicks in, but the idle only bumps when the compressor clutch is engaged. Make sense? Personally, I would still skip the AC stuff completely. Talk about cluttering an engine bay! Compressor, lines, receiver/dryer, condensor, wiring, etc.

With the ISIS system, you could have an absolutely IMMACULATE engine bay... 8ga wire and a CAN-BUS cable heading to the power module hidden behind the headlight bucket on the passenger side. Alternator wire ties into that 8ga wire, and then you have a single 12ga lead running to the ignition coil. Possibly a small harness for the ABS stuff, but that could come up from underneath right in front of the HCU itself, staying essentially invisible. That would be pretty clean.

Finally, if I wanted a Coyote, I'd sell this car and buy a GT. After all, insanity can only be justified to a point.

Nah, insanity is in the eyes of the beholder. If ANY of us did only stuff that "made sense," we'd never take a car on track...

 

[BMR Tech]

People don't buy our Windsor K-Member because it's saving them weight, that is just a 22lb reduction bonus...

They use it because it bolts in with 8 bolts, and the engine plops right in. I have customers who spend weeks trying to get everything to work with a stock K, then call me up and order ours - and it takes them an hour after getting it, to have a windsor sitting in the engine bay, like it is supposed to.

And the Arms you have, will work excellent with our K-Member.

 

[jsimmonstx]

People don't buy our Windsor K-Member because it's saving them weight, that is just a 22lb reduction bonus...

They use it because it bolts in with 8 bolts, and the engine plops right in. I have customers who spend weeks trying to get everything to work with a stock K, then call me up and order ours - and it takes them an hour after getting it, to have a windsor sitting in the engine bay, like it is supposed to.

And the Arms you have, will work excellent with our K-Member.

Ford Racing said their mounts will allow me to drop the windsor into the car, but the idea of less weight is definitely a big draw, especially since the motor will weigh much more than the V6 I'm removing. Then there's the possible issue of oil pan clearance (Canton road racing oil pan). I'm assuming that your K-member will be okay in that regard.

I'm seriously leaning toward your replacement K-member.

Question: Do you anticipate problems with the shifter placement? I'm going to swap in a T56 trans with a quicktime bell housing as well.

 

[Sky Render]

Precisely zero S197 track cars use manual racks. The FR500S, the 302S, and the 302R all have power steering.

There's a reason for that.

Also, 25K, bitches.

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk

 

[jsimmonstx]

Talk to your engine guy about your exhaust plans- they sound woefully inadequate for the rest of the combo. 1 3/4" long tubes and 3" dual exhaust is probably the minimum you want, either that or you should spend half as much on the engine because you'll be corking up a lot of the power on that 408.

Yeah - I have to look at the exhaust plans again. 3-inch pipes would be huge under the car and I think ground clearance would become an issue. I also want to add electric cutouts but don't recall ever seeing cutouts in an oval format.

 

[jsimmonstx]

I couldn't find shorty headers with 3-inch collectors or anything bigger than 1-5/8 primaries, so it looks like Kooks (almost 4-x the price of shorties) is going to be the answer. I originally selected shorties because it appeared to solve the fitment issue regarding fitment. I'd hate to spend $1k on headers only to find out they won't fit...

After adding the BMR K-member, header change, hydraulic power steering, and ISIS wiring (hardware only), I'm still within my $25k budget.

 

[jsimmonstx]

Precisely zero S197 track cars use manual racks. The FR500S, the 302S, and the 302R all have power steering.

There's a reason for that.

Message received, and plan adjusted accordingly. BTW, do all of those cars use the OEM rack?

Also, 25K, bitches.

What does this mean?

 

[Roadracer350]

Message received, and plan adjusted accordingly. BTW, do all of those cars use the OEM rack?

Not that I know of. I know the FR500S/C uses a reduced power assist and the others use the Ford racing racks due to the EPAS mess.

 

[2008 V6]

All good, and exciting, as well!
Exhaust and motor mounts: Any time you're doing a motor swap, unless it's a plug-n-play kit, you're going to run into fabrication. Exhaust is easy, and if you wanted to get REALLY trick (but pricy), Burns' Stainless sells oval-section tubing, where you could do a full-on side-exhaust without completely sacrificing ground clearance. I would also think really hard about your planned shorty/2.5" setup... You'll be leaving a lot on the table, particularly at the higher RPMs. Think more like 1-7/8" long-tubes, and 3" downstream to really let the motor breathe. Based on your costing, it sounds like you'll be getting some nice, free-flowing heads, and as we all know, the more radical the cam, the higher the rev range. I'd bet you'll exceed 100% VE with that intake setup; don't skimp on the exhaust and bottle up all that hard-earned power!
________________________________________________________________



A 3.5” drive shaft will allow you to run a single 4”exhaust over the axle and out the right rear. (A watts link might hinder this – My measurements were done using a relocated panard bar which would have matched my lowered car – parallel and lower than axle but a stock location panard bar would work also –

This will flow more than sufficiently for your HP requirements and 3.5 “ tube would be the minimum but would work. No weight savings over a dual exhaust with the same sq. in surface flow area and gauge tube. The weight savings is in using (1) muffler and a couple of less hangars and connections. It also puts the weight over the right rear quarter and some off of the left.

4” – 321 stainless 20 Gauge (0.035 wall) gives a flow surface area of 12.13 sq. in., weighs per foot approx. 1.484 Lbs. and is easily obtainable in 10’ or 20’ sections. Mandrel bends will have to be purchased in 16 Gauge 304 from most suppliers.
I tried to bend 4” 20 gauge years ago and wasn’t able to make acceptable bends. I even put screw on caps on the ends of the tube and at 10PSI, filled the tube with water.
Running 3” dual exhaust is heaver than a single 4” and only 1.3552” sq. in. more flow area, weights per foot (20 gauge .035” wall – (2) pieces) 2.219 Lbs per foot. – a rough estimate 0.735 Lbs per foot difference for minimal gains for your HP level.

4” 6061 aluminum 16 gauge (.065” wall tube) = .89495 Lbs per foot.

Personally for a track only car I would use aluminum. The cost difference isn’t that much – your labor will be more. This is the route I have gone in the past and would have with this car. Sounds very good but - that is – just my opinion. Muffler would dictate noise compliance with certain tracks.

 

[Sky Render]

I don't know about the FR500S, but the BOSS 302R/S both use the Ford Racing EPAS steering rack.

If I were you, I'd get a standard hydraulic rack from a '10 or earlier.

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk

 

[ExSRT8Guy]

Wow. Seriously ambitious project.

I know it's not the same, but, back in the day, I had a '70 428 SCJ Mach 1, with the Drag-Pak. DP cars had no P/S. We used to joke that you could skip a gym session for each time you parallel parked it, and, if something ran out in front of you, there'd better be divine intervention, because there was no way you'd be able to get the car to turn away quick enough!

Oh, and the gazillion pound pressure plate built up my left leg so much that if I didn't pay attention, I'd always drift to the right when walking.

 

[2008 V6]

Wow. Seriously ambitious project.

I know it's not the same, but, back in the day, I had a '70 428 SCJ Mach 1, with the Drag-Pak. DP cars had no P/S. We used to joke that you could skip a gym session for each time you parallel parked it, and, if something ran out in front of you, there'd better be divine intervention, because there was no way you'd be able to get the car to turn away quick enough!

Oh, and the gazillion pound pressure plate built up my left leg so much that if I didn't pay attention, I'd always drift to the right when walking.

There is quite a bit of difference between a rack & a box. Geometry & setup angles play a huge role.