5.0 and trans swap 65 mustang

[imp]

Does the vss have anything to do with fuel management? I would think if I used the abs module and kept the vss in the circuit besides everything else involved with abs the cpu should still use that vss signal?

@Desertstrike86
No. All the problems being discussed here are imponderable, without sufficient hard data to back them up. In OBD-I the VSS was present ONLY to feed data to the speed control.

Later, I'm not sure. As they eased into use of the VSS signal for other functions, things got harder to follow, harder to verify, or understand. This is why I stick with OBD-I, in which I can transform ANY carburetted old crock into EFI without running into electronically-installed blockades.

 

[Josh P]

The nice thing about swapping a newer engine into an older vehicle is the sky is the limit. I swapped a 4R70W and explorer 8.8 into my 68 cougar a few years ago. The 302 engine is still original and the trans is controlled by a baumann optishift unit. I will eventually swap the engine with one out of an explorer and do an efi conversion.

 

[imp]

The nice thing about swapping a newer engine into an older vehicle is the sky is the limit. I swapped a 4R70W and explorer 8.8 into my 68 cougar a few years ago. The 302 engine is still original and the trans is controlled by a baumann optishift unit. I will eventually swap the engine with one out of an explorer and do an efi conversion.

@Josh P
Just wondering why you would have dumped the Cougar's 9-inch ford rear? Can't recall, if they came with 6-cylinders, would have had the smaller 8-inch, or worse yet, the "Integral Housing" type w/o removable pinion carrier. imp

 

[Josh P]

@Josh P
Just wondering why you would have dumped the Cougar's 9-inch ford rear? Can't recall, if they came with 6-cylinders, would have had the smaller 8-inch, or worse yet, the "Integral Housing" type w/o removable pinion carrier. imp

Cause it was an 8 inch 3.00 ratio open differential. $100 at the U pull it got me a 3.73 ratio 8.8 with limited slip and disc brakes.

 

[imp]

Cause it was an 8 inch 3.00 ratio open differential. $100 at the U pull it got me a 3.73 ratio 8.8 with limited slip and disc brakes.

@Josh P
Good grab! So your trans. with O/D should do pretty good with 3.73s. In O/D gear, the 3.73 "looks like" 2.61. Did you get rid of the Disc Brake Proportioning Valve, or use the rear discs with it? I put rear discs on my '65 after putting on front discs; drove it some months with front discs, rear drums, no prop. valve, worked just fine, no power brakes. imp

 

[Josh P]

@Josh P
Good grab! So your trans. with O/D should do pretty good with 3.73s. In O/D gear, the 3.73 "looks like" 2.61. Did you get rid of the Disc Brake Proportioning Valve, or use the rear discs with it? I put rear discs on my '65 after putting on front discs; drove it some months with front discs, rear drums, no prop. valve, worked just fine, no power brakes. imp

It was factory drums front and rear, no power brakes. I don't drive it much currently cause I keep having issues with the carb. Feel free to pm me, I don't want to take this thread off topic.

 

[CDW6212R]

Cause it was an 8 inch 3.00 ratio open differential. $100 at the U pull it got me a 3.73 ratio 8.8 with limited slip and disc brakes.

Well done, and that is related to this 65 Mustang swap. How much trouble was that rear to alter it to go in your 68 Mercury?

 

[Josh P]

Well done, and that is related to this 65 Mustang swap. How much trouble was that rear to alter it to go in your 68 Mercury?

Modified the u bolt plates by welding a steel plate on top then drilling new holes for the larger u bolts. I had the springs rearched and 1 leaf added to the pack to cure the dragging ass. It is dark, but I tried to get a few photos

 

[imp]

Modified the u bolt plates by welding a steel plate on top then drilling new holes for the larger u bolts. I had the springs rearched and 1 leaf added to the pack to cure the dragging ass.

@Josh P
Good job! Brings back lots of memories for me doing exactly the same thing. imp

 

[Desertstrike86]

So do ya think if I used the abs module and kept the vss in the circuit without any of the other abs wires going to it it would still do it’s thing? Eheh maybe a shot in the dark here

 

[boominXplorer]

There's a write up on adding the wiring needed for vss in 98+ on the ranger station forum, I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Desertstrike86]

There's a write up on adding the wiring needed for vss in 98+ on the ranger station forum, I'll see if I can find it.

Oh ok awesome thanks

 

[imp]

So do ya think if I used the abs module and kept the vss in the circuit without any of the other abs wires going to it it would still do it’s thing? Eheh maybe a shot in the dark here

@Desertstrike86
Dunno about earlier ABS, but when my '04 ABS Module went out, the damned PCM shut down my engine! imp

 

[Desertstrike86]

Ok guys just found out from the guy that bought the car for me at the auction that this explorer is in fact a 1996.... so with that being said what will I need for the motor trans and rear end swap into the 65 mustang? This solves my abs vss issues and all that Jazz right?

 

[boominXplorer]

That will make things way easier. No pats, no rear abs signal needed and regular gt40 heads so your regular mustang headers will fit.

 

[Desertstrike86]

Sweet.... that saves me some grief with the abs crap. I guess now it’s just a straight swap “harness” wise.

 

[CDW6212R]

Very good, easier is better. Just go very slowly and gently with the wiring R&R, both from the Explorer and into the Mustang. The wires are very brittle around the engine, try hard not to flex or bend them.

 

[Desertstrike86]

Oh ya for sure. I’ll do it at the shop on a weekend or something...

 

[Joe Dietz]

DesertStrike86,

I did a '96 Explorer drive train swap in my 1966 Ranchero. Your '65 Mustang will be a couple inches narrower, as the '66 Ranchero is the same size as a '67 Mustang. If you want to keep the Explorer serpentine system, which btw works great, you will likely need to make some motor mount adapters to slide the engine forward about 2". This is so the AC, pwr steering pump etc clear the shock towers. If you are cutting out the shock towers for a modern front suspension, obviously not necessary.

The nice part about this is you can put the explorer computer in the firewall just under the radio where it would be located on the Explorer. Less wiring to mess with. Moving the engine forward also allows for easy access to the computer. Even in an old Mustang things are going to get tight...

I strongly suggest you get an aftermarket Mustang fuel tank that is already setup for an in tank pump. This will save you from having to cut and modify your tank...Mustang guys have it so easy anymore . I tired several iterations of inline pumps and in the summer and at Colorado's altitude they all tended to overheat similar to vapor lock. consider that nearly all modern cars with EFI use in take pumps.

Another suggestion is to dump the stock Explorer exhaust manifolds for some from a 93 Mustang...I used stock ones, there are other options as there are tons of aftermarket options for the 90-93 Mustangs.

I did not end up using the 8.8 out of the Explorer, but good option. Let me know how it fits...
I ended up modifying a 9" and had it modified to fit the Explorer brakes...btw, I went with '78 Granada front disc brakes but there are lots of aftermarket options here too. Notice the Explorer disk brake booster as well. The brake power booster is from a Fox body 4 cyl...pedals are modified.

Here are a few pictures of the Explorer swap in my '66 Ranchero...

Peace & Enjoy,

 

[Desertstrike86]

Dude you’re awesome!!!! Thanks for the info!!!! I wouldn’t have known about having to space the motor forward to fit the accessories.... i do need some good ideas for front disc brakes as my car is originally a 6cyl 4 lug... I’m using that 8.8 so that solves the rear... but I may just get the front conversion from CJ pony’s ?