[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by matt167

actully a 1964-1965 Mustang 6cyl car would have an 8" rear with the same axle tube type as the Falcon's. and the V8 Mustang would be 8" also, but wouldn't have the Falcon axle tubes

I was thinking 289 271HP...

[xntrik]

Originally Posted by matt167

56" backing plate to backing plate is what a Mav rear is. 8" 4 lug for 6's and 5 lug 8" for the 8's

Backing plate measurement is irrelavent.

The only measurements that counts are the wheel flange to wheel flange

and of course the spring perches.

[xntrik]

Originally Posted by matt167

actully a 1964-1965 Mustang 6cyl car would have an 8" rear with the same axle tube type as the Falcon's. and the V8 Mustang would be 8" also, but wouldn't have the Falcon axle tubes

Actually ALL the 65-66 Mustangs all had 2 1/2 inch axle tubes, even the V8s with 8" and even the 9" rear ends in the HIPO cars.

I am not sure any 60-65 6 cylinder Falcons had 8" rears. Not long ago I changed an unmolested 65 Falcon 6 cyl car to 8" Granada rear and 5.0 V8.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by xntrik

Well actually, I know of a photograph taken in 65 of a young man doing an engine istallation putting a 427 low riser into a 65 Mustang. It can be done without major tower modifications but only 58 Edsel station wagon cast iron log FE exhaust manifolds will allow clearance.

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

I surely would like to see that photo, up close.

Originally Posted by xntrik

Heck, you should have driven the car !!!!!!!

427 flags on the fenders made everybody laugh..... until the hood was opened.

edited: Any you can bet your bippy that the maintenance was........ what's a good word?....... really difficult.

I am going to have to take you to task on this one. A 351W is a tight fit and a 351C makes your sphincter pucker. The only way an FE is going to go down is with apron modifications.

And what was so special about 361 EDSEL exhaust manifolds? They were the same as used on the other FE's of that year.

[xntrik]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

I am going to have to take you to task on this one. A 351W is a tight fit and a 351C makes your sphincter pucker. The only way an FE is going to go down is with apron modifications.

And what was so special about 361 EDSEL exhaust manifolds? They were the same as used on the other FE's of that year.

I am still pretty sure that I said "without major tower modifications".

The car no longer exists. This is 41 years later.

MM, do you want the pictures posted?

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by xntrik

I am still pretty sure that I said "without major tower modifications".

Fitting an FE into a 65/66 MUST chassis requires major tower modifications, just ain't no way around it.

[matt167]

Originally Posted by xntrik

Actually ALL the 65-66 Mustangs all had 2 1/2 inch axle tubes, even the V8s with 8" and even the 9" rear ends in the HIPO cars.

I am not sure any 60-65 6 cylinder Falcons had 8" rears. Not long ago I changed an unmolested 65 Falcon 6 cyl car to 8" Granada rear and 5.0 V8.

no 6cyl Falcon had a 8" rear, all 6 cars had was 7 1/4" rears. but the '64/ '65 Mustang's had the Falcon Axle tube diamater, making them a bolt in, as replacement for the 7 1/4".

[xntrik]

OK I concede.

A big hammer is major.

[xntrik]

Here's a interesting story you might appreciate.

A few years ago my son and I wanted to put a 302 into a Merkur XR4Ti. Rapido in Portland said it was quite an undertaking, and it took them over a year to get one running in theirs.

At the Duquoin IL Street Machine Nationals a V8 Merkur passed us. When we caught the 2 young guys they said it was quite a job. They said it took them a week to get it in there and close the hood. It did fit under the stock hood. They said it could have been quicker but they spent too much time eating pizza.

The license plate read...... Z EATER

Go figure.....

[rllitty]

Use a mustang II front suspention and remove the shock towers.Rod and Custom Motorsports makes them.