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

[smorgasbird]

Personally, I could never drop a computer controlled engine into my T-Bird. I hate all those sensors and I'm not fond of electronic fuel injection. If I wanted that stuff in a car I'd buy a newer vehicle. I like messing around with carb jets and metering rods, and I LOVE the roar of a 4 barrel at full throttle!
Sure, my bird is modded. I put in a nice cam, headers and a performance intake and carb, but I also installed a dual points distributor. I don't care for electronic ignition set-ups. When I was a kid all my cars had points and carbs, and that's why I like the old bird so much. I like tinkering with the carb and ignition. Reminds me of "the good old days".
That said I will agree with Vic about the chevy engine conversion. I would never ever put a chivvy engine in a Ford. There was a guy who showed up at the local lot a few years back with a fox body mustang that he'd dropped a computerized chevy engine into. NOBODY liked it. He pissed off the Ford AND the GM guys at the same time!
Do what you want with your old Bird, have fun, enjoy it- but I still don't see why anyone would want to put a computer controlled engine into a nice old car!

[thunderbird61]

Thats the whole point, we all do what we like, you like this, I like that and someone else like something else... Thats the whole point of this hobby and life in general I think.

BUT, I too would keep it Ford. I would be a litle bit ashamed of myself if i put a chevy in there... There is enough Ford engines to choose from anyways.

[bubbastbird]

Hey guys,
There's room for everybody in the car world. If a car is something special to begin with, I think they should be kept that way (ie. sports roadster, M code, Q code, etc etc) But if if its not rare or special from the factory, I think it's up to the individual to make it what THEY want it to be. Personaly when my 390 lays down or my pocket book gets a little thicker I'm going with a 500+ inch ford motor and some kind of overdrive. I think I can get better milage and still have Tons of torque. The big strokers are less expensive than getting more from the FE and the o.d. would be great on the wighway. I REALLY would like to find a way to put a 5 or 6 speed manual in there too! T-Birds Rule!!!

Steve

[Wklink]

Looks good. No desire to do it to my Bird.

On the other hand this would make a great swap into the 65 Fairlane. I would have to remove the shock towers and put a Mustang II suspension on her but am thinking about that anyway.

[Beach Bum]

OK... Y'all can forget about me putting that Chevy LS1 engine in my '63 Bullet Bird. I came close because the high mpg is very attractive, but in the end I took a serious look at the amount of hassle it would be to make it work and decided that my built-up 289 with its manual trans simply makes more sense to me as a mechanic and lover of old cars.

Actually, this swap could be considered 'near-concours' because Ford did offer the 289 K-code engine in the 1963 Fairlane and Galaxie. So, they actually *could* have offered a 1963 Thunderbird with a 289 High Performance engine option if they had wanted to. But there was no reason for them to do that, of course, since the Thunderbird at the time was all about Bigger is Better and the small block V8 didn't fit into the 'luxury sports car' concept they were cultivating for the car.

For 20 years I've tinkered with this particular engine and trans in a now badly rusted out 1968 Mustang and have built up the original stock motor to where it is something of cross between a K-code High Performance 289 and a bizarre 302. I've never put it on a dyno, but based on how it performs compared to my other 68 Mustang with its stock 289, I'd guess the horsepower at around 230 and the torque perhaps 340. In the T-bird it won't be a 'muscle car' but it will drive well enough and still give me 'decent' mileage for a 2-ton machine. Well, a bit less than that because this combo will drop at least 300 pounds from the curb weight compared to the factory 390 with Cruise-O-Matic.

The donor Mustang will also provide my Bullet Bird with a lot of other nice conversion parts, like front disc brakes, dual-master cylinder and booster, some nice 15-inch wheels and I think I can make the clutch-pedal assembly work in the T-bird. The reason it has become a donor after all these years is that it was originally a North Carolina car and had bad road salt damage to the undercarriage and body when I got it and transplanted it to Florida. Somehow I never got around to de-rustifying and re-doing all that bad metal and by now it would be more money and work to do it than it would be worth. But the deteriorating undercarriage is no longer street-safe and since I've got this Bullet Bird sitting there with an empty engine compartment... the right choice seems obvious. Besides, I have a soft spot in my heart for the sheer reliability, power and simple-but-strong design of that engine and trans -- so now my old Mustang will die and be reborn as a 1963 Thunderbird. I should be so lucky when my time comes...

[Wklink]

Not sure I would really want a K code motor in my 63 anyway. The K code engine was rated for 271 bhp and the 390 beat in horsepower and torque. In something relatively light like the 63-65 Fairlanes and the 65-66 Mustangs they were good engines but not for the heavier T-birds. What I think Ford would have done was go with the 427 powered cars since the FE block was already available and used in 63 and 64 in the Thunderbolt Fairlanes. The 390 was simply too big to shoehorn into a Fairlane without major revisions to the shock towers so they never considered it until 1966.

As for the newer 4.6L engines, I would have to do that as well but it would be worth it to me. But that is down the line. The 225HP A code 289 is still purring along and gives me enough punch to get by the trucks when I need it.

[Beach Bum]

But in 1963 Ford also put the K-code 289 in the Galaxie, with its curb weight of around 3800 pounds, which is very close to what my T-bird will weigh with the 289/manual trans installed. And no one considered the Galaxie a dog with that drive train. The T-bird did not really 'need' all the 300 hp and 450 pounds of torque the 390 provided -- that was just part of Detroit's big power marketing competition of the time (when gas was 19 cents a gallon).

Since my 63 HT came with no engine, I'm just looking to use one of the existing motors I already own and have a Bird that will drive down the road nicely and not cost anymore than necessary to do it. Besides, I didn't buy my Bullet Bird to engage in off the line punch-outs at the intersection. I bought it because I've always loved the superb styling and roomy cockpit. If I wanted a street screamer I'd just stick with my Mustangs and Camaros.

[swillafew]

I am all ears about selecting a 5 liter motor for an engine swap.

Email John Klatt at

jdklattmusic@gmail.com

[46stude]

A 302 fits fine- that's whats in my '62.

[Alan H. Tast]

A 302 fits fine- that's whats in my '62.

The bigger questions about swaps like this are:
1. Did you go to a lower gear ratio than the original 3.00:1, such as a 3.56:1 or 4.11:1?
2. What transmission is behind it?
3. How well does the car move off the line? Is it sluggish or less responsive than the original 390?
4. How much RPM does the engine have to turn to move the car at highway speed?
5. Overall, how does performance compare between using a SBF 302/5.0L versus the original FE 390?
6. Are you happy with how it performs? What would you do different?

[thunderbird61]

A 302 fits fine- that's whats in my '62.

Hi, doing the same on a 61. What kind of engine mounts did you use?

/Ronny

[46stude]

The bigger questions about swaps like this are:
1. Did you go to a lower gear ratio than the original 3.00:1, such as a 3.56:1 or 4.11:1?
2. What transmission is behind it?
3. How well does the car move off the line? Is it sluggish or less responsive than the original 390?
4. How much RPM does the engine have to turn to move the car at highway speed?
5. Overall, how does performance compare between using a SBF 302/5.0L versus the original FE 390?
6. Are you happy with how it performs? What would you do different?

1. Stock 3.00 gears
2. C-6
3-6. No earthly idea.

I bought my 'Bird as an unfinished project. Previous owner somewhere down the line had the SBF swapped in. Would I have done the swap myself? Probably not. But its in there & I think it'll perform just fine.

These cars are not that heavy, guys. 4K isn't anything. How many millions of Ford trucks and Crown Vic/Marquis/Town Cars came with a 302 straight from the factory and were pushing the same weight numbers- or more?

Hi, doing the same on a 61. What kind of engine mounts did you use?

They built their own mounts. Kinda cheesy looking IMHO, but they work.

[bigdog]

I have put a 4.6 3v from a 2006 into my 63. Crown vic front and it is amazing. I can tinker. I can tune and it rides like new. Way better than 63. Safer and more fun
Way more power and over 30 mpg to boot!

[61Okie]

The old tech FE has always has had a bad rap.
But the durability and cool factor is hard to beat. Some young guys have never seen a Hot FE. All they know is 5.0 & 4.6 stuff.
Weight as I see it is the single advantage engine to engine.
FE- all iron 600 lbs
FE- alum intake and water pump 525 lbs
4.6 - 2 cam 500 lbs
4.6- 4 cam alum block 425 lbs
Now, I do agree a mappable fuel injected FE with a adapted AOD overdrive transmission is a great idea to pursue. I believe Broader makes a adaptor bell housing.

*ME- I'm Two Four Barrels and a C6

[62TBYRD]

Birddog

I may have miss read your post. Did you use the Crown Vic IFS as well? I have been interested in this swap for my 62. Have not got on it yet as Im finishing my 62 Unibody project that has an 02 Lightning 5.4 in it. I have done a little measuring and a 03 and up CV IFS for around $300 gives you big disc brakes, rack and pinion, sway bar and mod motor mounts. I fully understand there is a great deal of fab required. Any insight or pics you have would be greatly appreciated. BTW the great thing Ive noticed about this group is everyone has different views/opinions but no one seems to get their feelings hurt when there is a difference of opinion.