just how important is "original"

Or a 350 Chevy/700R4 like all good Fords have.................

 

I' fairly sure you could get the 460 to fit in there, but there's a big downside - everything else has to be upgraded around it to a 'plus 2' level - cooling, suspension, brakes, plus more. With a 302/AOD, you would still have to upgrade a bit, but on a less drastic level - more like 'plus 1'.

 

I have in the last few years done a 56 merc and 59 Ford for my brother and will say the easy is the 302 but with a c-4 because the firewall and trans tunnel is a tight fit. 56 merc got a 302 and c-4 being a good fit but the 59 ford got a 390 and a 4-speed and had to fit with a shoe horn .

 

Fowagon - did you keep the column shift on the 59? How hard was it to find motor/trans mounts? I was getting pretty up on the idea of a 302/C4 when I just talked with a local JY that has a 68 Galaxie with a 390. As the 390 is an FE that will be a bolt in but after waht you say on the tunnel I don't know about the trans. Anyone know what is likely to be behind that 390 in a 68?

 

Should be a C6.

 

thanks n2fordmuscle - sounds like if a C4 is tight then a C6 ain't gonna fly so I'm back to my 302/C4 ideas...

 

To reply to the topic title? It depends.

Now, if I had a 1990s Whale Wagon I'd be fond of sticking a Diesel engine with a Manual transmission in and running it on Biofuel for fuel economy purpose and to say "Hey, Look; 4,300+ pound car gets 35+ MPG HWY!" because that would open people's eyes to the possibility. But, that's a purpose not quite in line of what you're asking.

 

In the 59 the motor mounts were the same as the 292 y-block and used the original tranny mount but elongated the holes for the 4-speed which had to go to floor shift. A 302 can produce good horsepower and torque and will require fabrication for motor mounts. Remember if you go with a 302 that depending on the year the imbalance of the crank changed in the 80,s from 28oz. to 50oz. and torque converter or flywheel has to match.

 

I'm going to throw another vote in for the EFI 302 and AOD combo. But I'll also say there's no reason you can't use a carbureted 302 with an AOD. You just need the right kickdown installed to mate the carb linkage to the transmission. AOD's went behind 302 two-barrel engines from 1980 to 1982. A Motorcraft 2150 carburetor, while not a four barrel, is efficient and responsive in the right application, and is still VERY popular among AMC-Jeep-IH-Bronco circles.

 

Rmvr53, maybe a 292, 312 or 352 with either a c4 or AOD mechanical over drive and it should (engine wise) look like it factory with good fuel economy from Downunder

 

If you are towing a 2 horse trailer, the 302 is going to be marginal unless you get the gearing just right. I would go for the fuel injected 351 and MECHANICAL AOD out of a late 80s F-150 if you want fuel injection. Otherwise, the 351W out of a Crown Vic, and then put on an Edelbrock Performer 1401 square bore 4 bbl, metered and jetted for you application. The Edelbrock book says the carb does not work with the AOD, but oh, yes it does, with the carbureted version of the linkage. We have put many hundreds of thousands of miles on that combination, and the fuel economy will beat that lump of an I-6 to HELL and back. With the V-8, a dual 2 1/4 inch exhaust with good mufflers and an X or H cross over gives you an increase of about 20 horsepower and about 5 mpg when not towing.

 

A bit off-topic here, but someone in Oregon bought a Ford Edsel sedan and put a 2.3 Litre engine from 1988 in it. According to a the thread linked below (page 9) it's his daily driver. He's been getting about 20 MPG in it, and these cars would get what - seven to twelve MPG stock? If he would've stuck a Diesel engine in there I think it could get at least 25 MPG.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/59-edsel-2-3-turbo-5-speed-conversion-14594.html

 

three words....

thats...just...wrong....

 

What, do you mean the Edsel conversion?

 

X2