4.6L into 61-3 - I've Seen It Done!

This area is for posting questions/information concerning 1961-63 year Thunderbirds NO FOR SALE POSTINGS

Moderator: Wklink

kevindeluca66
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:41 pm
Location: Minooka Il

Post by kevindeluca66 »

I love the concours stuff. I still cant figure out how we can be related.
A 66 Thunderbird is cool. A Sapphire Blue 66 is a beautiful car. The 428 engine completes the package.
VTCI#10019 Member since 2002, parents have been members since I was 11 years old.
Dirty Birdy
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:54 pm
Location: Qualicum Beach BC Canada

Post by Dirty Birdy »

Nope I dont understand it either. Being a former ford mechanic still with "connections" I could have easily went the 4.6 way as well. But I feel the gain vs $ does not warrant it, and just cause its different doesnt mean its cool, look at the Pontiac Aztec.
I couldnt fix your brakes so I made your horn louder!
edpol
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by edpol »

As for causing devalue, that only applies to those looking for all original or concours restored vehicles.
There are plenty of people who want classic cars with modern safety, performance, and fuel consumption upgrades. A lot of them also like modern colors and finishes as well. And they'll pay big bucks for all these upgrades. Some will do the mods themselves, some will have it done professionally, some will look for cars already modified.
A lot of these buyers want a car they could drive often, some on a daily basis, and want the reliability and lower maintenance modern technology provides.
Original or modded, there's a butt for every seat.
novanutcase
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:58 am

Post by novanutcase »

True but there are many more that are looking for original than modified cars. Ask me how I know. That's not to say that there isn't someone out there that can appreciate it for what it is but I for one would be VERY wary of any stock car that was modified that I'm buying. As great as the single components on there own may be it takes a lot of tweaking and dialing in to make it work seamlessly like they do in the modern cars they were designed for. Many people either don't go to the trouble or drive it as is.

I agree that the benefits of modernizing your classic are great but I don't trust anyone elses "modernizations". Maybe I'm just anal that way but whenever I've bought a car that has already been "updated" invariably I'll either have to rip out what the previous owner has done or, if it's not too bad, fix whatever they neglected to do to make it right.

Vic, I had an '03 Mustang GT with a PI headed 4.6 2V. When I dynoed it stock the best it could do RWHP was 246hp. After I replaced the exhaust with a set of long tubes along with a few other engine mods like CAI, bigger TB, etc. I was only able to squeeze 268rwhp out of her. I'm going to assume the 265 hp stock you are quoting is at the crank.

John
Professional Pic Whore

Image
User avatar
thunderbird61
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: Lunner, Norway

Post by thunderbird61 »

I think this is cool, but then I'm driving a modified Tbird myself. I'm actually thinking about going modern in the drivetrain too :shock: :mrgreen:

-Ronny
1961 Ford Thunderbird
wisconsinjimmy

Post by wisconsinjimmy »

This is an interesting read with the pros and cons and I think it is even steven right now BUT give me HEAVY IRON not whimpy aluminum, I want to here the the lope of the cam, lifters ticking like a swiss watch and the sound and smell of COMPRESSION and I forgot to mention the rush of air into the CARB darn all this is making me $$$$$$$$$.
Beach Bum
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:43 am
Location: North Floridia Gulf Coast on the beach south of Tallahassee

Post by Beach Bum »

VicRattlehead,

While it makes perfect sense for a group like this to be top-heavy with concours advocates, there are still plenty of Bullet Bird owners who don't want a show car -- they want something they can drive on a regular basis. Even (*gasp*) every day. You know, just like these Thunderbirds were driven when they were brand new -- the way they were *intended* to be used. Not as show boats, but stylish transportation. The problem is, of course, the price of gas. When it was 19 cents a gallon, getting 8 to 10 mpg around town with the huffin' 390 was just fine, but $4.00 a gallon simply doesn't allow that now unless you've literally got money to burn.

Concours guys have already spent ten thousand dollars or much more on restoring their T-Birds to factory-perfect shape and because of that they don't drive them much (I wouldn't either) and so $4.00 a gallon gas is no biggie for them. But I didn't buy my '63 HT to preserve it for some museum, I bought it to drive it like I always dreamed of when I was a kid and saw these cars cruisin' up and down the streets of my town every day. And with all the options and conversion/swap expertise available today, there's no reason why I can't have a Bullet Bird with at least the same kind of performance the 390 delivered, far greater daily reliability and average 22 mpg.

There's plenty of room for concours, restomods and Frankenstein Conversions in the land of the Thunderbird and no need for rancor between the different approaches.

Since I happened to acquire a 1963 HT with an *empty* engine compartment, except for the trans -- which I doubt would even turn without a full rebuild -- I am in a position to consider all kinds of modern implementations under the hood. I want to keep the exterior and the cabin as near concours as possible. To me that's what matters on the preservation front. But what I want out of sight under the hood is the best combination of performance and high mpg that I can cobble together.

So, I'm eager to hear from anyone else who has experience along these lines with the Bullet Birds because although I have the mechanical know how and the tools, I've never attempted a project this challenging before, but it's too good an opportunity for me to pass up.

Right now I happen to have on hand a built-up 1968-era 289 with a T5 manual trans and also 1998-era LS1, also with a T5. I'm not necessarily married to the idea of using either one, but it would certainly help on the budget if I did. And, yes, I am seriously toying with the idea of committing the ultimate heresy -- creating a 1963 Thunderbird with a *manual* transmission. Oh, the horror...
-
<b> -- J.R.</b>

current cars:
1963 Thunderbird HT being converted to 5-speed man
1968 Mustang GT 3-spd man
1968 Mustang GT auto
1967 Mustang auto
1981 El Camino 3-spd man
1986 Camaro IROC Z T-top auto
1998 Camaro T-top 5-spd man
User avatar
VicRattlehead
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:40 pm
Location: Channahon, Illinois
Contact:

Post by VicRattlehead »

JR
I'm all for the 5speed but for the love of all cargods, don't put a chevy in that bird ugghh
http://www.per-race-engines.com
1996 Thunderbird LX
Mods
Image
Stock is boring and useless!
Beach Bum
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:43 am
Location: North Floridia Gulf Coast on the beach south of Tallahassee

Post by Beach Bum »

Well, I figured if I was gonna talk heresy I might as well go all the way ::?

For most of my life I always believed a Ford should have a Ford motor in it, but it was recently pointed out to me that if you go back to the early days of hot-rodding and customized rides that it was very common to put Ford Flathead motors in all kinds of other 'brands' of cars and that putting a Chevy 350 in a Ford Deuce Coupe was a classic swap that no one ever had a problem with -- and it wasn't really until after WW II that the rivalry between Chevy and Ford polarized custom builders into this almost religious belief that it is some kind of crime against nature to put a Chevy engine in a Ford body or vice versa.

Naturally I favor the idea of using my built-up 289 . I've worked on 289s, 302s and 351s since I was 18. I've torn down and rebuilt that engine from the crank to the carb several times. I know it intimately and I trust it implicitly for reliability and durability. But, lets face it, you're never gonna get much more than slightly better mpg out of it than you would from a tweaked and well-tuned 390.

On the other hand, this LS1 engine out of my old 1998 Camaro has guts, is relatively easy to work on and very reliable for a computerized aluminum job... and I had no trouble regularly squeezing 30 mpg out of it going down the highway at 70 mph. I think it could perform almost as well if I Frankensteined it into my '63 T-bird. But it would be a very complex job what with all the computerization and cross-referencing sensors the engine requires just to fire up a spark.

I'm considering these because they happen to be the two engines I have on hand. If someone can suggest a better engine possibility that won't cost a small fortune to acquire, I would love to look into it.
-
<b> -- J.R.</b>

current cars:
1963 Thunderbird HT being converted to 5-speed man
1968 Mustang GT 3-spd man
1968 Mustang GT auto
1967 Mustang auto
1981 El Camino 3-spd man
1986 Camaro IROC Z T-top auto
1998 Camaro T-top 5-spd man
User avatar
VicRattlehead
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:40 pm
Location: Channahon, Illinois
Contact:

Post by VicRattlehead »

what really did it for me not liking the non ford in a ford is seeing all the chevy 350's in the 32-34 fords. just got tired of it.
new 5.0 in a bird would be really cool.
http://www.per-race-engines.com
1996 Thunderbird LX
Mods
Image
Stock is boring and useless!
User avatar
TsNStangs
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:24 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by TsNStangs »

J.R., you've started a whole 'nuther conversation, considering putting a 289 in a Big Bird... :razz:
~ Daniel
"I'm your huckleberry..."
VTCI #11333
User avatar
thunderbird61
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: Lunner, Norway

Post by thunderbird61 »

J.R., you've started a whole 'nuther conversation, considering putting a 289 in a Big Bird... Razz
Then I will follow up :evil: :badgrin: , this winter a 5.0 HO efi + aod is finding its way into my custombird :-) And before anyone protests, the decission is already taken.

The 390 and trans is shot after an engine fire, and here in Norway, we have only two people in the whole country with god enough knowledge of this engine to restore it in a responsible and knowledgable way, so thats not an option for me. WAAAAY to expensive also beacuse of the need to order parts from overseas.

The, by far, cheapest route to take for me is installing this type of modern engine. Many more options when it comes to the 5.0 engines over here.

-Ronny
1961 Ford Thunderbird
aidanfancystang
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:49 pm

Post by aidanfancystang »

I am going to be doing the 5.0 efi and aod swap into my bird as well, my only concern is the torque for the wieght of the car.

the reason I want the 5.0 is that the 390 is a heavy engine and my airride takes alot of pressure to even get the front off the ground.
User avatar
thunderbird61
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: Lunner, Norway

Post by thunderbird61 »

Yes, the torque is the main consern. In my situation I really do not care though. I have seen this done and know that it will be okay in traffic, thats enough for me.

PS! I also like to do custom stuff, but would never do this to an original car, but this car has undergone a customisation or two, so I do not have that concern here.

-Ronny
1961 Ford Thunderbird
Dirty Birdy
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:54 pm
Location: Qualicum Beach BC Canada

Post by Dirty Birdy »

As most of you know, my car is faaar from stock. I dont think putting an updated motor in a classic is a bad thing, I just dont think the 4.6 is the best choice. Id prob be more inclined to run a 302 out of a fox body mustang with a vortech blower or turbo setup. Reason being the cost of parts for these motors are super cheap and there are many power boosters that also are very cheap(trickflow heads and intake) . The wieght of the motor is much less pluss the narrow block would allow for a sweet set of custom headers leading forward to the rad support with two turbos on either side, relocating the battery to the trunk. I just about went this way, the motor is still in my garage, but decided to stick with and rebuild the original motor. The 302.... well thats going into a 32 rat.
Oh and as far as running a chev motor in it, those days are gone. You may have noticed in most rod magazines, the trend is going towards ford with ford, chev with chev. That motor may not have came with the car but....
I couldnt fix your brakes so I made your horn louder!
Post Reply