65 Mustang Engine Transplant

Easier to modify your foot.

May you burn in eternal hellfires...

What mileage do you want?

The same as the late 5.0's?

A ricer in a Mustang????? Is lynching still permitted?

what's a honda?

Good thing we can't actually reach into the computer monitor and slap some sense into you. honda, crap, you should have your Stang taken away from you for even THINKING that. Must be a troll...

You want a fuel sipping mustang?

1) Find one of the very rare 1969 Mustang E's. 200 cid I6 with a trans set up for fuel economy.

2) Mustang ii 4 cylinder.

3) 1979-1993 4 cylinder.

Don't hack up a perfectly good '65.

If you really want a '65 with better fuel economy, buy a '65 with 170 or

200 cid I6.

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,

Having owned a Mustang II I tend to disagree with this... Unless specially set up, even the V8s were dogs. I think the 4 banger would have to strain more to move that much weight. It might save some in the short haul, but in the long run... it's a question. I had the 302 w/4V and it still was nothing compared to my 72.

I can't help but agree. I'm sure ANYTHING is possible with a sufficient amount of money and elbow grease applied. Nationalist sentiments aside, it would probably be a lot easier to transplant an inline Ford 6 cylinder like a 200 or 250 which was both available and plentiful at that time. With appropriate tweaking, those engines CAN be quite fuel efficient with the old single barrel carbs.

Keep in mind that your time is allegedly also worth something. So spending a month trying to shoehorn in a more fuel efficient engine might not be the big money saver that you think.

Lastly, I suspect the original post was a joke....but ya' never know....

Cheers,

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.

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.

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.

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.

thanks for the thoughts :)

Interesting concept. I've thought of doing a Mazda 32v V6 front wheel drive swap myself. But I'm too busy putting a 351 Cleveland into a 67 Chevelle.

Good luck...