Anyone ever succeed in 3.8 sc motor swap?

Discussion in 'Technical' started by flynbrd, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. flynbrd

    flynbrd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've seen a few posts about people starting the build however nothing completed.. The biggest challenge is getting by that crossmember. The oilpan has to remain in the rear considering the pan bolts to the transmission.
     
  2. starsky74

    starsky74 Technician

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    107
    Location:
    Hackberry Louisiana
    Vehicle:
    73 four door, 74 starsky&hutch mav, a 93SHO, an 03 gt, and a 94 gt
    no, but id love to see it, or an 2nd gen SHO 3.0/3.2 swap
     
  3. baddad457

    baddad457 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,861
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Opelousas La.
    You using a FWD 3.8 motor ?
     
  4. Rando76

    Rando76 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Location:
    Claremore, OK
    Vehicle:
    Collection of Mavericks and Comets
    I also thought it was too wide for the shock towers. I used to own a '92 T-Bird SC. It was a blast to drive.
     
  5. flynbrd

    flynbrd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    48
    naah the 3.8 is the same as 5.0. Its just a regular 3.8 with an eaton on it. Course the 3.8 has better heads, crank and pistons over the na version. Only way I see one going into a maverick is to move the crossmember and steering. Just curious to see if someone has ever done it yet.
     
  6. Rando76

    Rando76 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Location:
    Claremore, OK
    Vehicle:
    Collection of Mavericks and Comets
    I said that because I thought that Jamie had tried it a few years back and found a width problem. But, maybe I'm thinking of the SHO motor he tried recently. Anyway, search on posts by "Jamie Miles".
     
  7. vinceking001

    vinceking001 Gearmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    1975 Ford Maverick
    The driver side shock tower is a deal-killer, I second that sentiment. I'm putting a n/a 3.8 in one and threw a s/c upper manifold on there just for grins. If you want s/c, you're better off using an n/a intake and going aftermarket on the charger. Personally, i'm going twin turbos for the efficiency. If you can get your hands on that block, take it though. Forged pistons, etc. Keep in mind it's still a cast crank though, so watch your RPMs. If you're going boost, i'd really recommend a forged crank also. Tom Morano racing makes some killer upgrades for the 3.8. I bought his 4.2 stroker kit and block girdle for the main caps. Not cheap, but good stuff. This guy was making 10-second V6s before "tuning" was cool.

    Good luck!!
     
  8. flynbrd

    flynbrd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    48
    3.8

    I believe the 3.8 motors had steel cranks and the 3.8 and 4.2 na had cast. They make kits out there to invert the blower or you can do it your self with some welding.
     
  9. Jamie Miles

    Jamie Miles the road warrior

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    383
    Location:
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Vehicle:
    13 Mavericks
    Main clearance problems on with the '96 Mustang 3.8 I tried to drop in was with the rear sump pan and exhaust manifolds. I've dropped an SHO engine in as well, again, rear sump pan in the way. Other then that, the SHO would fit if you shaved the shock towers and built custom headers.

    The nicest fitting V6 I tried in a Maverick is the 3.0 "Vulcan" V6, which I took out of a 2001 Ranger. It fit excellent with the factory Ranger exhaust manifolds, and 200 I6 mounts could be adapted to work, but once again, that damn rear sump oil pan. I had a camera with me that time around, and took pics.

    If someone could find a way around the center link interfering with the rear sump pans, it would open up a whole realm of engine possibilities. I think the Duratec 2.3L 4 cylinder from the 2001.5+ Rangers would make a great little engine in one of these cars for a daily driver.
     
  10. flynbrd

    flynbrd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    48
    solution

    Perhaps the only way to make it work is either

    A. mustang II end or something along those lines
    B. Dry sump system.
     
  11. vinceking001

    vinceking001 Gearmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    1975 Ford Maverick
    For mine, I fab'ed the oil pan into a front sump and bent the pickup tube. Not The prettiest thing in the world, but it works. My manifolds are home-made. Also not pretty. Long story short...those two hurdles can be overcome without shock tower mods. However, I plan to eventually notch the towers so I can have the factory shorty headers forward facing. It sure would be cleaner and better flowing than the monstrosity I call my exhaust manifolds now.
     
  12. vinceking001

    vinceking001 Gearmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    1975 Ford Maverick
    I'll have to read up on that. I read somewhere that only the pistons/rods are forged and the crank is cast, but I could have been mis-informed.

    Heck, it came from the internet so it's got to be true, right?.....Right?
     
  13. flynbrd

    flynbrd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    48
    sump

    Forgot to bring this up earlier but will the front sump still work? From my understanding ford never placed a front sump v6 into the 70s was due to the fact the sump still would not clear. Only engines that had enough length to get past the crossmember were I4 I6 and v8 engines. The V6 is of course one cylinder shorter in length causing the front oil sump to sit further back. When ford switch to the newer suspension this allowed them to run rear sumps and now v6 engines... right?
     
  14. vinceking001

    vinceking001 Gearmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    67
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    1975 Ford Maverick
    Well, i got one in there right now and it seems to work ok. The belly bar just barely fits behind the sump without making contact. Mind you, on the photo I've unbolted the belly bar but normally it snugs up there right behind the sump. This vehicle has already been successfully running an EFI 3.8 in it for a few years, it just blew a head gasket and I am using the opportunity to go turbo while I am rebuilding it anyway.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011
  15. flynbrd

    flynbrd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    48
    steer

    Manual steering right?
     

Share This Page