Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V-10 in a Wagon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by slymer View Post
    was referencing the torque/hp not the fit. I know dern well that engine is a beast and a huge one at that.
    A nicely-built 351W gets you reeeeeeeally close to the same numbers.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by johnunit View Post
      but is that really worth the extra money for spark plugs?
      Lol.

      Pete
      Originally posted by gadget73
      For other types of inquiry, more information is required. Please press 4 to speak to a representative who can help you with your question. This call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes.


      2003 Grand Marquis Ultimate, the "Stealth Bomber": http://www.grandmarq.net/vb/showthre...-Grand-Marquis
      1991 S-10, 'Bulldog', 2.5l 5 speed: http://www.grandmarq.net/vb/showthre...375#post698375
      1985 Town Car, 'Faded Glory', gone but not forgotten. 84/87/91/97 MGMs too.

      Comment


        #93
        Larry.

        Stop pissing in this thread.

        Ideally he'd have a NRE twin turbo, intercooled LS7 w/ T56 to swap in.

        But the V10 is still a gnarly swap, 30V or not.
        **2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302: 5.0/ 6 spd/ 3.73s, 20K Cruiser
        **2006 MGM,"Ultimate": 4.6/ 2.73/ Dark Tint, Magnaflows, 19s, 115K Daily Driver
        **2012 Harley Davidson Wide Glide (FXDWG):103/ Cobra Speedsters/ Cosmetics, 9K Poseur HD Rider
        **1976 Ford F-150 4WD: 360, 4 spd, 3.50s, factory A/C, 4" lift, Bilsteins, US Indy Mags, 35s Truck Duties

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by P72Ford View Post
          Larry.

          Stop pissing in this thread.

          Ideally he'd have a NRE twin turbo, intercooled LS7 w/ T56 to swap in.

          But the V10 is still a gnarly swap, 30V or not.
          I'm not 'pissing in this thread'.

          While using this particular engine in this particular car is quite possibly the most-silly engine swap in recent history, I still want to see it happen.

          'Sillyness' is a great thing. I'm only pointing out some possible discrepancies in some numbers posted by someone else.

          Build the car. Make it happen. I want to see sheer automotive stupidity (the good, fun type, as this type of stupidity inspires others in a great way to do something fun and different, even if it's not a smart idea) happen, and make me wonder how I can do the exact same thing myself. Give me something crazy to dream about. I've talked about doing this exact same swap, into a Box wagon, but I don't own a box wagon, nor do I own a V10, nor will I be owning either anytime soon, so either build the damn thing already, or quit boring us all to tears with hyper-exclamation-mark-accentuated chat about what you're thinking of doing....if you're not going to do it.

          In other words, this guy needs to put up or shut up. Nuff' said.

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by GoodSamaritan View Post
            I can see it interfering with the ac box. There is a simple solution for that. Take it off like deuce and a half did with his drag car. I've toyed with the idea of doing that just to clean up the engine compartment. (ac is long since removed) At the very least it should be relatively easy to cut it down to eliminate the protrusion that holds the evaporator.

            If it's still too big, use an aftermarket heater.
            You've seen my pics from the wagon, right? Little metal duct that connects the fan and the heater plenum? Granted, an aftermarket heater would still be both more convenient and more elegant.


            Originally posted by Pirate View Post
            A nicely-built 351W gets you reeeeeeeally close to the same numbers.
            Well past, I should hope. But that's hardly the point of this thread. If practicality were of utmost concern, almost every Ford person would run a SBF of some description.
            2012 Mazda5 Touring | Finally working on the LTD again!

            Comment


              #96
              The V10 gets my vote as a bitchin motor swap. 310hp and 425 torque at 2000rpm would not be slow at all. I've driven v10's in trucks and vans and the power was impressive. I can only imagine the performance with thousands less pounds.

              4r100? Keep it! Can you say bulletproof? Cut the floor up... f**k it... that's alot cheaper than building trannys every time you blow one up. T5- are you kidding me? Same with the V10- bullet proof. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's more durable and economical than a built windsor... I mean in the V10 you're hardly going to be cracking the throttle to move 4000 pounds around. Plus if you really wanted a race car you wouldn't be starting with boat of a wagon would you?

              BTW putting a motor from a bigger vehicle into a smaller vehicle is not silly or stupid. It's the definition of a muscle car and it's hot rodding at it's finest.

              Comment


                #97
                Very well said ford man very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                '88' MGM wagon (mine and my sons toy)
                "60" chrysler New Yorker (my project)
                "78" Chevy 1 Ton P/U (yard horse)
                "01" Ford Explorer (wifes DD)
                "93" Chevy Suburban (my DD)

                Comment


                  #98
                  Right, because it isn't perfectly easy to open a catalog or website and order a normal transmission that can handle 425 lb-ft just fine ..........
                  2012 Mazda5 Touring | Finally working on the LTD again!

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Right, open the catalog; put it on the credit card... 3, 4 grand? Why not? Life is good?... 4R100 is the best automatic Ford has made and he already has it...

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by ford man View Post
                      The V10 gets my vote as a bitchin motor swap. 310hp and 425 torque at 2000rpm would not be slow at all. I've driven v10's in trucks and vans and the power was impressive. I can only imagine the performance with thousands less pounds.

                      4r100? Keep it! Can you say bulletproof? Cut the floor up... f**k it... that's alot cheaper than building trannys every time you blow one up. T5- are you kidding me? Same with the V10- bullet proof. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's more durable and economical than a built windsor... I mean in the V10 you're hardly going to be cracking the throttle to move 4000 pounds around. Plus if you really wanted a race car you wouldn't be starting with boat of a wagon would you?

                      BTW putting a motor from a bigger vehicle into a smaller vehicle is not silly or stupid. It's the definition of a muscle car and it's hot rodding at it's finest.
                      Some notes about your comments:

                      1. Ever tried lifting a 4R100 from a bench to a transmission jack? I can do it all day with a complete AOD or 4R70W....the 4R100? Not so much.

                      2. There are a lot of 2005-up V10's out there for cheap. It just takes some looking, and those start out with 457 ft/lbs....and there's a lot more potential with those engines.

                      3. Okay, a wagon weighs around 3800-4000 pounds, complete, and now we're adding 200 or so more pounds with the bigger engine, and another 200 or so pounds with the transmission...pushing dry weight to near 4400 pounds....by the time you put a driver in, add fuel, blah blah blah....that 425 ft/lbs. just got sucked up by a vehicle that weighs almost as much as the truck it came out of.

                      4. The V10 is bulletproof? Well, yes, in an automatic truck, where you don't have a lot of rpm swing. In a car? hmmm. At one time, I had a plan to drop a 2005-up V10 into my thunderbird, and did a hell of a lot of research on the subject.

                      My findings?

                      I'm a bit worried about the connecting rods, especially if you begin abusing it in a 'hot rod' manner....and don't try to convince me he's only going to use it as a work car, and never attempt to blaze the tires.

                      If I build one, it's going to get better aftermarket rods and forged pistons.

                      5. It is stupid to install this particular engine into this particular car. I can think of at least a half-a-dozen better candidates for a 'different' engine swap (2005-up V10, anyone? At least the plugs don't shoot out of the 2005-up heads), but he's already got it, and I really want to see it in the car, even if my motives for him doing so are purely selfish. I've talked with another guy here about doing the exact same thing to a wagon, and it's a little insulting that someone else is going to beat me to it (not sure about that one, still, but hey), but hot damn, if he's going to do it, do it already. Don't listen to me, don't listen to anyone else, just do it.

                      Yes, it's quite possibly the dumbest of all possible engine swaps into this car, but no, I don't think it's cheaper to do that a windsor producing the same power; by the time you factor in time spent, you've just erased a considerable amount of lifespan trying to make something fit when you could have just had a V8....and been done with it already.

                      So yes, it's stupid, but it's a fun stupid. So far as trying to free-associate this with the musclecar movement, however?

                      Nah. None of them got a low-rpm, 500-inch Caddy-style of torque monster that was pretty much done and over with by 4500 rpm, with the exception being maybe the 455 Olds Stage 1....this is simply tossing a truck engine into a somewhat-lighter truck....especially if you stick with the 4R100 tranny.

                      It's a fun project, nothing more. It's also the kind of 'stupid' we definitely need right now.


                      Originally posted by 1987cp View Post
                      Right, because it isn't perfectly easy to open a catalog or website and order a normal transmission that can handle 425 lb-ft just fine ..........
                      Originally posted by ford man View Post
                      Right, open the catalog; put it on the credit card... 3, 4 grand? Why not? Life is good?... 4R100 is the best automatic Ford has made and he already has it...
                      I was just going to use a T45 behind mine. I can't launch my T-bird like I can a straight-axle car, so it would work perfectly, even behind the better-performing 2005-up V10....and no, they don't cost 3-4 grand. In fact, I'm really struggling to find a manual tranny that costs 3-4 grand....unless it's a stupidly-overrated 6-speed, with all of the trimmings....

                      I think the T45 would even hold up in a V10 wagon, provided you didn't try to drag-race it and launch at 5K....not to mention the weight savings of switching from a bloated 4R100 to a much-lighter t45, in addition to freeing up a lot of frictional losses incurred by using the huge automatic....which chip away considerably at the 425 ft/lbs created by the older V10.

                      Problem Solved.
                      Last edited by ; 10-19-2010, 05:31 PM.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Pirate View Post
                        Nah. None of them got a low-rpm, 500-inch Caddy-style of torque monster that was pretty much done and over with by 4500 rpm, with the exception being maybe the 455 Olds Stage 1....
                        Whoa, cowboy...

                        An early 70s bone stock 500 Cadillac (with a conventional TH400 behind it), would put a 3700 pound car in the 13s, without a hitch. They were rated at 400 hp, 550 ft*lbs torque. I've seen a G body Cutlass with all the trimmings (full interior, etc), and a mild (cam, intake, carb) early 500 swap run consistently in the low 12s.

                        Why am I mentioning this?

                        Because, Larry, you are disgracing () the engine by mentioning it in such a deragatory manner... as though it wasn't good enough for a 'muscle car', just because it was a torque monster.
                        **2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302: 5.0/ 6 spd/ 3.73s, 20K Cruiser
                        **2006 MGM,"Ultimate": 4.6/ 2.73/ Dark Tint, Magnaflows, 19s, 115K Daily Driver
                        **2012 Harley Davidson Wide Glide (FXDWG):103/ Cobra Speedsters/ Cosmetics, 9K Poseur HD Rider
                        **1976 Ford F-150 4WD: 360, 4 spd, 3.50s, factory A/C, 4" lift, Bilsteins, US Indy Mags, 35s Truck Duties

                        Comment


                          Sheesh, if you want to see it done shut up and wait.
                          Builder/Owner of Badass Panther Wagons

                          Busy maintaining a fleet of Fords

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by P72Ford View Post
                            Whoa, cowboy...

                            An early 70s bone stock 500 Cadillac (with a conventional TH400 behind it), would put a 3700 pound car in the 13s, without a hitch. They were rated at 400 hp, 550 ft*lbs torque. I've seen a G body Cutlass with all the trimmings (full interior, etc), and a mild (cam, intake, carb) early 500 swap run consistently in the low 12s.

                            Why am I mentioning this?

                            Because, Larry, you are disgracing () the engine by mentioning it in such a derogatory manner... as though it wasn't good enough for a 'muscle car', just because it was a torque monster.
                            What? I love Caddy engines. A ridiculous amount of torque from an engine that's smaller externally (and lighter, if I'm doing my math correctly) than either Chevy's big-block disaster, the 454, and Ford's dinosaur, the 460.

                            My only complaint is that parts for the Caddy are stupidly expensive, otherwise, I'd have one or two in the garage. I've got seat time in a 500-powered pickup, and a 500-powered Coupe de Ville, both modded a bit....and they were both almost frightening to drive...and both could be driven cross-country without a single complaint. Smoooooth.


                            This is a questionable swap, and it's going to produce questionable results.

                            However, I don't care. We need more stupid nowadays.



                            Concerning your being visibly upset about my Caddy comments....

                            I don't consider the Caddy motor to be a 'musclecar' engine. It's entirely in a completely-different zip code. You don't have to rev the shit out of this engine to get the car to move. You simply put the shifter in drive, you misspelling mechanical-engineering menace....


                            Originally posted by mrltd View Post
                            Sheesh, if you want to see it done shut up and wait.
                            I'm trying to. Other people are wanting to talk.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by P72Ford View Post
                              Because, Larry, you are disgracing () the engine by mentioning it in such a deragatory manner... as though it wasn't good enough for a 'muscle car', just because it was a torque monster.
                              Massive torque at idle will not move you down the 1/4 mile unless you have a transmission with enough gears and the proper ratios to take advantage of it. Torque is useless if it can not actually do work. Horsepower is a calculation of the work. 425 ft lbs at 3500rpms is going to do alot more work than 425 ft lbs at 2000 rpms. That is why peak numbers are not always the best measure of performance. a wide torque band will prevail over a very sharp one with the top number being a little higher. A N/A Ford V10 is not good enough for a muscle car.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Mercracer View Post
                                Massive torque at idle will not move you down the 1/4 mile unless you have a transmission with enough gears and the proper ratios to take advantage of it. Torque is useless if it can not actually do work. Horsepower is a calculation of the work. 425 ft lbs at 3500rpms is going to do alot more work than 425 ft lbs at 2000 rpms. That is why peak numbers are not always the best measure of performance. a wide torque band will prevail over a very sharp one with the top number being a little higher. A N/A Ford V10 is not good enough for a muscle car.
                                So why did you quote me to share this elementary nugget?

                                I never said the V10 was a good choice for a muscle car.

                                I implied that the 500 Cadillac and Ford V10 shouldn't be categoqrized together.
                                **2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302: 5.0/ 6 spd/ 3.73s, 20K Cruiser
                                **2006 MGM,"Ultimate": 4.6/ 2.73/ Dark Tint, Magnaflows, 19s, 115K Daily Driver
                                **2012 Harley Davidson Wide Glide (FXDWG):103/ Cobra Speedsters/ Cosmetics, 9K Poseur HD Rider
                                **1976 Ford F-150 4WD: 360, 4 spd, 3.50s, factory A/C, 4" lift, Bilsteins, US Indy Mags, 35s Truck Duties

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X