Different Take on a V8 Swap - Duder's 4.6L Twin Turbo 245

[Tfrasca]

Originally Posted by Duder

Thank you sir! Your 142 project is killer. I may just refer to pictures of your engine bay for inspiration of the overall aesthetic for this thing.

Thanks for that!

[evolvo67]

Originally Posted by Duder

I may need to offset the whole thing a little towards the passenger side to clear the column though.

If you do this remember you have to keep the crankshaft parallel to the pinion shaft otherwise you'll have U joint alignment issues. In other words you can't just move the front of the motor and not the tranny mount, too.

[t8fanning]

Originally Posted by Duder

Sorry to hear that. One of these days we will need to meet up and geek out. But congrats on the bambino.

Definitely. I might be coming out there to Socal Euro, so maybe I'll have to extend the trip and stop by or something.

Thanks, he's a good kid.

[doucheNozzle]

Originally Posted by t8fanning

Definitely. I might be coming out there to Socal Euro, so maybe I'll have to extend the trip and stop by or something.

Thanks, he's a good kid.

Send him back if he's not.

[Duder]

Originally Posted by evolvo67

If you do this remember you have to keep the crankshaft parallel to the pinion shaft otherwise you'll have U joint alignment issues. In other words you can't just move the front of the motor and not the tranny mount, too.

Thanks for the reminder. I think there may be enough room to keep the crank axis straight in the car, but shift the whole engine & trans a bit to the passenger side. Trans mount doesn't exist yet so no problem there, so far. I'm also going to investigate scooching the column over towards the driver's side. The pierce point through the firewall could be adjusted a bit. The earlier style shaft between firewall and rack may help too - it's much skinnier and doesn't have the big mass damper dongus that all the later ones do.

Originally Posted by t8fanning

Definitely. I might be coming out there to Socal Euro, so maybe I'll have to extend the trip and stop by or something.

Word. I'll see if I can go to that show this year. Last time was 4 or 5 years ago and there was some cool stuff to see.

[Lankku]

Last year had a 4.6 2V for a while in a 242.

Moved the rack left as much as crossmember allowed nicely(1.5cm), moved lower end of the steering column left as much as the hole in the firewall allowed and engine was a little to the right. Otherwise cylinder head corner wouldn't clear the upper joint.

Was thinking of relocating the brake booster behind the left headlamp but decided to go for a hydro boost. Was a pretty tight fit anyways but a cleaner look than relocating the booster.

What are you going to do to the weight distribution? A 2V engine with a TR-3650 is much heavier than for example a B21AT and M45. I calculated around 120kg/286lbs more weight and most of it is on the front axle. Despite that it was pretty nice on a track.
Thought of a turbo too and because of the weight was tinking of locating it in the general area of front muffler. No other suitable place

[Duder]

Originally Posted by Lankku

Last year had a 4.6 2V for a while in a 242.

Moved the rack left as much as crossmember allowed nicely(1.5cm), moved lower end of the steering column left as much as the hole in the firewall allowed and engine was a little to the right. Otherwise cylinder head corner wouldn't clear the upper joint.

Was thinking of relocating the brake booster behind the left headlamp but decided to go for a hydro boost. Was a pretty tight fit anyways but a cleaner look than relocating the booster.

What are you going to do to the weight distribution? A 2V engine with a TR-3650 is much heavier than for example a B21AT and M45. I calculated around 120kg/286lbs more weight and most of it is on the front axle. Despite that it was pretty nice on a track.
Thought of a turbo too and because of the weight was tinking of locating it in the general area of front muffler. No other suitable place

Ah yes! I forgot about your thread, but thanks for the reminder. I found that I had already replied in it

This 3V engine has an aluminum block, vs. iron for the Crown Vic 2V, so I think weight might not be such a huge concern. I have a T45 transmission that I plan to use with this, which is aluminum case as well and fairly light compared to other options. I have not weighed anything yet so this is all conjecture.

Hey, at least I have the extra rear weight of the wagon body helping me out!

My twin GT28 turbos will likely end up just ahead of the shock towers on either side. I think this is the best place to locate them for my situation, but I'll consider all other options first. I do like the fact that the exhaust manifolds would point forwards, which helps for packaging around the steering column & starter, but then the question becomes how to route the downpipes.

How did you like the driving experience with hydroboost?

[M.H. Yount]

Originally Posted by Duder

Thanks for the reminder. I think there may be enough room to keep the crank axis straight in the car, but shift the whole engine & trans a bit to the passenger side.

All the old Converse kits placed the pushrod 5.0L's offset 1/2" towards the passenger side, and I used the same offset with the LS.

[freevolvos]

ever consider hydroboost like in one ton Chevy trucks and Astro vans ? never mind i see that been brought up

[Pillow]

Subbed! Looks like a great project coming together here.

[Lankku]

Originally Posted by Duder

This 3V engine has an aluminum block, vs. iron for the Crown Vic 2V, so I think weight might not be such a huge concern. I have a T45 transmission that I plan to use with this, which is aluminum case as well and fairly light compared to other options. I have not weighed anything yet so this is all conjecture.

Hey, at least I have the extra rear weight of the wagon body helping me out!

My twin GT28 turbos will likely end up just ahead of the shock towers on either side. I think this is the best place to locate them for my situation, but I'll consider all other options first. I do like the fact that the exhaust manifolds would point forwards, which helps for packaging around the steering column & starter, but then the question becomes how to route the downpipes.

How did you like the driving experience with hydroboost?

Was thinking if that 3V is iron or not(could have looked at the pictures better). Aluminium and iron blocks seem to have 70-75lbs(?) weight difference which is something. That along with the wagons more heavier rear and mandatory battery relocation, the weight distribution might be just fine.

Downpipes straight through the hood? 2.5" might be the biggest that can fit around starter, accessories, engine mounts and front cross member without cutting the body. Lack of route(s) for the piping was one of the reasons I planned installing the turbo under the car. Having it out of sight was on the list too.

To me hydroboost had similar pedal feel as a booster, just much more power with less pedal movement. Modulating the braking power on track and daily driving was easy after getting the hang of it. It wasn't too easy to lock the fronts even with 305mm front and standard rear brakes.

[gsellstr]

Forgot about this one Chris. Check out Fredrik Hillman's 122 build. He's doing a 3v into a 122, hoped to have at the show but it's not there yet. Plan is a pair of 16t's since he has them.

[Harlard]

No idea how I missed this. Really looking forward to witnessing the enginerding and fabricobbling process.

[Duder]

Originally Posted by Harlard

enginerding and fabricobbling process

That's an accurate way to describe what's happening here. I need to get back at this project after the upcoming Lemons race. Part of the reason I start threads is to keep me motivated to make progress!

[Duder]

Little bit of a teaser:



I sold my 1993 E34 M5 back in January, which had these killer AC Schnitzer Type II, 3-piece wheels on it. For some reason the buyer didn't want them - weren't to his taste apparently - so I worked out a deal to buy them back and shipped the car on some old E36 wheels I had lying around.







The idea is to adapt the V8 245 to the Schnitzers. I'm looking at using E36 front spindles, hubs, struts, brakes, etc. to allow me to run the fronts without adapters. Mockup!



Rears will need adapters for sure, and I'm hoping I don't have to narrow the axle.
Edit: I meant to say re-drilled hubs to adapt the rear to 5x120.

Fronts are 17x8.5 ET+13 with 225/45R17, rears are 17x9.5 ET+13 with 255/40R17.

[Harlard]

The most offset I would be comfortable running with the rears would be 25mm, 13mm might be okay. Any less and you will need a considerable amount of pulling (this is basically to get the same amount of fender clearance as myself, assuming you move the axle forward 3/4" for extra clearance like I did.

[Duder]

Originally Posted by Harlard

The most offset I would be comfortable running with the rears would be 25mm, 13mm might be okay. Any less and you will need a considerable amount of pulling (this is basically to get the same amount of fender clearance as myself, assuming you move the axle forward 3/4" for extra clearance like I did.

Cool, yeah. I have talked to both Towery and Homer about this very situation, and I think something like a 5mm - 7mm spacer with these wheels, giving ET6 - ET8 might work, with shortened trailing arms and some fender rolling. Of course the hubs will need to be redrilled to 5x120 to make this work (sub-10mm adapter thickness technology is not yet mature).

Towery: "I ran 9.5" ET38 with 35mm adapters on the rear, so ET3 effectively."
"On the inside of the rear wheel wells, it seems to narrow towards the front. I had some rubbing along the inside, mainly forward of the shock. I also had rubbing on the trailing arm."

Homer: 245/40R17, 17x9 ET6, "If the axle were perfectly centered I'd have ~17-19mm of clearance between the widest part of the tire and the inner fender. I've heard it rub a handful of times only on nasty articulation."

With these 17x9.5s and 255s I might have to pull the rear quarters out, and of course trim or roll the lip a bit. But I feel like there is a solution.

I used an online calculator to visualize Homer's setup (left) vs. what I'm looking at (right). It says I'll have 7-8mm less clearance on the inside, and 3-4mm less on the outside.

[Harlard]

This is my go-to calculator as well. It should fit OK. Redrilling the hub is most likely the way to go. That mentioned, I would personally go with studs that use smaller shanks than stock. They will get awful close to the hub's outer edge.

[Uncleknucklez]

Maybe some scope creep here, but this sounds like the time to Ford 8.8 that bad Jackson if it wasn’t already mentioned.

This has quickly become one of my favorite builds on the forum. I can’t wait to hear the lump fire up, ima Chevy guy if I had to pick, but those Ferds sure do sound good!

[Duder]

Originally Posted by Uncleknucklez

Maybe some scope creep here, but this sounds like the time to Ford 8.8 that bad Jackson if it wasn’t already mentioned.

This has quickly become one of my favorite builds on the forum. I can’t wait to hear the lump fire up, ima Chevy guy if I had to pick, but those Ferds sure do sound good!

Heh, thanks. Not really scope creep; I'm not expecting the Volvo rear to survive at 500whp, but maybe this will be a later phase of the project.

8.8 and 9" are on the consideration list. And then part of me wants to investigate an IRS swap to E39 or something similar.

[Tfrasca]

Originally Posted by Duder

Heh, thanks. Not really scope creep; I'm not expecting the Volvo rear to survive at 500whp, but maybe this will be a later phase of the project.

8.8 and 9" are on the consideration list. And then part of me wants to investigate an IRS swap to E39 or something similar.

YES.

[doucheNozzle]

Originally Posted by Duder

Heh, thanks. Not really scope creep; I'm not expecting the Volvo rear to survive at 500whp, but maybe this will be a later phase of the project.

8.8 and 9" are on the consideration list. And then part of me wants to investigate an IRS swap to E39 or something similar.

Toyota IRS? Fawk.

[Duder]

I hope no one's expecting insane rates of progress on this. You will be sorely disappointed if so. But I did manage to find some time to work on it over the past few days. Got the foam crap off of the upper firewall and cleaned it thoroughly, followed by more inner fender degreasing. Then today I pulled the Disco Potatoes (Patatas?) off of the Mustang cast manifolds and did a quick mock up in the 245.



This is more or less the turbo positioning that I'm thinking. Battery will go back in one of the buttcheeks, and I'll cut the OE tray out, so the driver's side turbo should sit a bit lower. Housing clocking angles are not at all defined yet. This is very rough. The angle is to promote free-flowing downpipe design straight out of the turbines, so they don't have to make a sharp bend directly after the turbine outlet (that's bad...mmmkay). Manifolds will be fairly straightforward. Logs facing forward, more or less in plane with the exhaust ports. Then some short up-pipe adapters between manifolds and turbine housings. The downpipes will be the most difficult part of this whole swap I think. There's plenty of room on the passenger's side, but not much at all on the driver's side due to the steering column. I'm thinking that the driver's side downpipe will have to run across the engine bay down low and then tee into the passenger's side. Either that, or maybe each side can sneak under the manifold...maybe.







On the compressor side the outlets will likely feed two separate intercooler cores. I think that's the simplest way to set this up. I might put twin airboxes and filters under the inner fenders, then run tubing up between inner & outer fenders and into the compressor inlets. What could be simpler!?!?





Another confounding factor is that this car will have AC. For sure. It's non-optional. The '05 Mustang has the AC compressor down low on the passenger side, which is fine in & of itself, but will restrict my available downpipe real estate for sure. Here's my planned serpentine belt routing below. I discovered the idler pulleys weren't on correctly for the past 10 years (remember this was a dumb show engine).



Still haven't done a hood test fit yet, but clearance is gonna be close or nonexistant to the rectangular throttle body mounting flange. I still may space the crossmember a bit under the framerails which will lower the engine and give me more hood clearance, not to mention space for manifolds and downpipes.



Next up is test fitting the trans to the engine, then determining fore/aft position and starting on motor mount design.

[Andrewhans]

I'm not a ford engine guy at all but the design that went into those manifold is very impressive and it's very cool that you designed it.

Should be a very cool build. Can't wait.

[Duder]

Originally Posted by Andrewhans

I'm not a ford engine guy at all but the design that went into those manifold is very impressive and it's very cool that you designed it.

Should be a very cool build. Can't wait.

Thanks! It seems like a lifetime ago that I designed those. I learned a lot about 3D surfacing in Catia through this project, that's for sure. Tried to emulate the OE manifolds in terms of runner size and routing, as much as possible. We 3D scanned the manifolds using a GOM "white light" scanner to get the port geometry and pierce points. The passenger's side downpipe was the biggest challenge - turbo position left us with super tight clearance to the firewall, hence the cobra head shape.