Merkur SHO transplant

[JEM]

Surprisingly the 2.9 and 2.3 are heavy because of all the metal and no aluminum, but they are still lighter than the 5.0.

An aluminum-head 5.0 can be as low as 420lb fully dressed depending on the front dress and intake (the Ford FEAD and big chefs-hat intake design are bulky and heavy; they went cheap over compact.)

A GM LS2 crate motor (all aluminum) would be 460lb or so fully dressed for 400HP out of the box and more readily available; the LSn-motor accessories are engine-mounted (minimal bracketry) and the intakes weigh nothing.

And since the oil pump is on the crank snout, you can put the sump, driveshaft, etc. anywhere you want to (as long as it doesn't hit a crank throw or main cap, of course.) I wonder what the pan looks like on the 4x4 Holden Commdores (Adventra?) they built for a couple years, I think they had the LS1.

We're rapidly approaching the point at which use of anything but an LSn-family engine is only for (a) freebie engines (b) restoration (c) nostalgia or (d) smaller or specific applications where the GM V8 won't fit.

 

[mustangracer91]

An aluminum-head 5.0 can be as low as 420lb fully dressed depending on the front dress and intake (the Ford FEAD and big chefs-hat intake design are bulky and heavy; they went cheap over compact.)
....We're rapidly approaching the point at which use of anything but an LSn-family engine is only for (a) freebie engines (b) restoration (c) nostalgia or (d) specific applications where the GM V8 won't fit.

agreed, about the intake, but aside from going all aluminum headed w/aluminum intake and a fishbowl carb, it's gonna be heavier, and that's also not considering that there are multiple aluminum heads out there for the 2.3 as well that lightens up the 2.3 significantly and greatly increases performance as well...I was just referring to level playing field of all things fuel injected...also major advantage of the 2.3 that nobody mentioned is the fact that it's an OHC engine w/no pushrods, and roller cams can be used (stock or performance) on any 2.3 head w/no mods...where as alot of your older 5.0's require custom parts to be able to use the roller cams...

agreed about the gm v8 as well, except that I can't bring myself to crossing the production lines and strap in a gm into a ford unless it's like an old 30's rod...and ford did like a tighter engine compartment, so the 60 degree v motors fit alot better than alot of the gm 90 degree DOHC motors... and the guys inital post was about building a AWD xr4ti...the gm v8 is a poor canidate for that swap.

 

[JEM]

also major advantage of the 2.3 that nobody mentioned is the fact that it's an OHC engine w/no pushrods, and roller cams can be used (stock or performance) on any 2.3 head w/no mods...where as alot of your older 5.0's require custom parts to be able to use the roller cams...

Roller 5.0 blocks are a dime a dozen. I could pull three complete roller 5.0s for $100 apiece at the next Pick-your-part half-price weekend assuming someone else doesn't get there first.

Playing devil's advocate here, but please tell me again why OHC is an advantage, particularly when you're talking about two inline valves and nothing special in terms of port design?

so the 60 degree v motors fit alot better than alot of the gm 90 degree DOHC motors.

...but we're not talking about a DOHC motor, we're talking about a nice, narrow, lightweight pushrod V8 that's smaller than a 60-degree SHO V6 in just about every dimension except block length.

and the guys inital post was about building a AWD xr4ti...the gm v8 is a poor canidate for that swap.

Only because it'll be any stock Sierra XR4x4 transmission or transfer case's worst nightmare.

 

[mustangracer91]

Roller 5.0 blocks are a dime a dozen. I could pull three complete roller 5.0s for $100 apiece at the next Pick-your-part half-price weekend assuming someone else doesn't get there first.

Playing devil's advocate here, but please tell me again why OHC is an advantage, particularly when you're talking about two inline valves and nothing special in terms of port design?

agreed, that the 5.0 rollers are plentiful, but I personally don't know what the block numbers translate to by heart, there's the chance of picking up a motor for 100 that isn't roller. There was alot of fuel injected 5.0's produced with standard non roller cams...ANY Lima 2.3 can be roller cam'd w/stock parts...also, if you want to stroke the 2.3 to a 2.5, the crankshaft is available for that in just about any junkyard thanks to the massive quantity of fleet rangers...by combining parts from multiple years of mustangs/turbocoupes/fairmonts and rangers you could build a pretty hot little motor, all with oem parts...the hottest you can build a 5.0 with junkyard oem is to find a wrecked svt product, or a v8 explorer, and even then it's still doesn't have aluminum heads...knock it all you want, it's a little motor with alot of potential...and besides, even my grandma has a 5.0 in her car...it's as common as the cold...

high revving engine with simplified and reduced quantity of valvetrain parts and travel. reduced number of failure components...less frictional hp loss...

...but we're not talking about a DOHC motor, we're talking about a nice, narrow, lightweight pushrod V8 that's smaller than a 60-degree SHO V6 in just about every dimension except block length.

I haven't tape measured it, but all the gm ls motors I've seen are big, and again heavy...is there a perticular LS motor your thinking of? because the last time I changed plugs on an LS-1 camero it was a major PITA to get the back plugs out, it'd think 30degrees less v woulda helped that significantly. I agree that yes, the plenums on the v8 sho are large, but I'd think at this point with diving into fabbing up an oil pan and adapting to the mt-75, sourcing the necessary parts and building a harness and engine management, a custom plenum would be the least of the worries...

Only because it'll be any stock Sierra XR4x4 transmission or transfer case's worst nightmare.

I agree it's not optimum (without the strength mods), but neither is the vw quattro unit, or the jeep awd viscous coupler unit, it's kinda a given when diving into AWD that it's going to be a PITA, and as I mentioned before, there's the hassle of any future repairs to these AWD components

 

[JEM]

agreed, that the 5.0 rollers are plentiful, but I personally don't know what the block numbers translate to by heart, there's the chance of picking up a motor for 100 that isn't roller.

Nah. All the EFI HOs are roller, and everything else '88-later (at least) is too. Right now there's enough Mark VIIs with ** 5.0s to choose from that one rarely has to lower oneself to a non-** motor. Agreed, the Windsor V8s are common as dirt, you get no fangle points for using one, but it does make parts availability (aftermarket heads, intakes, etc.) painless both new and used.

Now, if you're going to spend the money on, say, a new set of AFR 185s, that $4000 GM crate motor (or that $1200 junkyard takeout and the $300 LS7-heads-without-the-CNC-porting factory head castings from the - L76?) starts to look like an awfully good deal...

high revving engine with simplified and reduced quantity of valvetrain parts and travel. reduced number of failure components...less frictional hp loss...

What you say is partly true of simpler OHC layouts (cam-on-bucket designs like the SHO) but I don't think there's much advantage to the 2.3's arrangement.

I haven't tape measured it, but all the gm ls motors I've seen are big, and again heavy...is there a perticular LS motor your thinking of? because the last time I changed plugs on an LS-1 camero it was a major PITA to get the back plugs out, it'd think 30degrees less v woulda helped that significantly.

That's because GM stuffed the engine a mile back in the engine compartment (for good reason) and the plugs are on the bottom of the heads on a pushrod motor, but that LS1 is still no wider across the exhaust manifolds than a SHO V6.

And that LS1 weighs almost exactly the same (450lb, plus or minus a few) fully dressed, as a SHO V6. The SHO V6 is one heavy motor for its size.

 

[mustangracer91]

Nah. All the EFI HOs are roller, and everything else '88-later (at least) is too.

I'll agree to dissagree on that one, because I've owned three that were non roller MPFI'd motors, maybe not from the factory because I bought the cars used, but non roller none the less...

Now, if you're going to spend the money on, say, a new set of AFR 185s, that $4000 GM crate motor (or that $1200 junkyard takeout and the $300 LS7-heads-without-the-CNC-porting factory head castings from the - L76?) starts to look like an awfully good deal...

agreed, but you're still not accounting for the weight issue, and it's still a gm that'd be shoehorned into a ford...I'm not a pureist by any stretch, but it's a little too far in my opinion...besides, I'm sure it'd be alot easier to mount up a ford to a ford trans than a gm to a ford trans...

What you say is partly true of simpler OHC layouts (cam-on-bucket designs like the SHO) but I don't think there's much advantage to the 2.3's arrangement.

agreed that OHC alone is not a performance improver...but it is a durability improver and valve train stability at higher rpms is much better with the pushrod motors. I agree that a DOHC whips the OHC in performance hands down, and with the volvo head that is another cheap j/y part you can use to have DOHC if you so wished...

That's because GM stuffed the engine a mile back in the engine compartment (for good reason) and the plugs are on the bottom of the heads on a pushrod motor, but that LS1 is still no wider across the exhaust manifolds than a SHO V6. And that LS1 weighs almost exactly the same (450lb, plus or minus a few) fully dressed, as a SHO V6. The SHO V6 is one heavy motor for its size.

I think I see where the bulk of our missunderstanding is, I was referring to a v8 SHO, as I've never owned a v6 SHO or know much about them at all...and the v8 SHO engine is all aluminum...

 

[JEM]

I think I see where the bulk of our missunderstanding is, I was referring to a v8 SHO, as I've never owned a v6 SHO or know much about them at all...and the v8 SHO engine is all aluminum...

Doesn't matter, the V8's a little lighter but no smaller, it's still every bit as large as an LS1 if not larger, its output is modest and there's no significant aftermarket for the SHO V8 and trying to get power out of one without going forced induction is going to require serious $ (oh, and let's not get into valvetrain durability...)

If you want a small DOHC V8 with a Ford label on it, get a Lincoln LS/Jag motor.

IMO, of course.