LS Fox body project
07-29-2018, 08:04 PM
#41
TECH Senior Member
WHOA! That was new to me too! Pretty advanced suspension tech for a mundane sedan... that cops depended on to handle halfway decent. Maybe the raison d'etre?
07-29-2018, 08:41 PM
#42
Shocked -- first time I've EVER heard "handle decent" and "Crown Vic" put together....LOL!
Seriously - Watts link a great way to laterally locate a live axle. The police Vics no doubt handled better than stock Crown Vics did. But compared to cars that truly handle well, they are land barges.
Seriously - Watts link a great way to laterally locate a live axle. The police Vics no doubt handled better than stock Crown Vics did. But compared to cars that truly handle well, they are land barges.
07-29-2018, 08:53 PM
#43
TECH Senior Member
The old Crown Vic actually handled pretty well under police usage. I understand the cop suspension was somewhat better than civilian versions, but how much? I do know the cops' main complaint about the car was horrendous lack of power... but yeah, compared to what we are NOW used to, they were still a BARGE lol.!
07-30-2018, 09:54 AM
#44
Don't be surprised if MM can't comment about fitment with a truck intake. There are so many variables involved that it would be almost impossible to give you a direct answer. All I know is that with my setup using the MMK-1 and the offset rack bushings, I doubt that a truck intake would fit. As far as running a duct from the hood scoop to the TB, it would depend a lot on your setup, and would most likely be restrictive. The LS motors like 4" intake tubing.
07-30-2018, 11:44 AM
#45
With some trimming to the truck intake (can't use the cover) truck intake will clear the stock hood on a Fox Body LS swap using the stock K-member and the Hooker engine mounting brackets developed for it. This described engine fitment is depicted in the attached photo above. Those same Hooker engine brackets can also used with the Maximum Motorsports MMKM-1 K-member and should deliver the same results. With that said, the truck component that will give you a more clearance issues will be the truck alternator case (the lobe on top of the case that contains the threaded hole for the case half attachment bolts to be more precise) and will take some grinding to the front end of it and maybe also to the inner structure of the hood to fully clear.
If you wanted to use the Maximum Motorsports MMKM-1 K-member and the truck intake and alternator without having to trim anything, I think you could get there by using the 1/2" K-member shims that Maximum Motorsports sells.
The Team Z and AJE K-members both bias the engine/transmission center line away from the stock OE passenger side offset and towards the center of the car when using their own engine mounting brackets, so keep in mind that the information providing above only pertains to the engine sitting in the stock passenger side biased offset.
The Hooker engine mounting brackets for the AJE and Team Z K-members are unique in the fact that they maintain the OE engine offset and you can get them in a stock height configuration, or with a 1/2" drop, which would provide that little bit of extra underhood clearance that some guys are searching for without having to resort to using K-member shims.
07-31-2018, 10:34 AM
#46
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Toddoky
Thanks, that was helpful. I guess that offset is what makes the header routing asymmetrical. How far off center is the normal position? I've read about the power steering rack clearance issues when you use the 1/2" drop, what is your recommendation given street use with weekend track rental, is the stock cross member the best overall option?
I'm glad you other guys got tickled by my research but it looks it was all for naught. The headache of putting that in would match putting in an IRS so there really is no point unless you already have one in your yard
Thanks, that was helpful. I guess that offset is what makes the header routing asymmetrical. How far off center is the normal position? I've read about the power steering rack clearance issues when you use the 1/2" drop, what is your recommendation given street use with weekend track rental, is the stock cross member the best overall option?
I'm glad you other guys got tickled by my research but it looks it was all for naught. The headache of putting that in would match putting in an IRS so there really is no point unless you already have one in your yard
07-31-2018, 12:22 PM
#47
Yeah, there's no possible way to design a symmetrical appearing set of LS swap headers on a Fox body if you are maintaining the factory engine offset, especially if you are designing them to fit with the stock K-member. I don't remember the discrete amount of the factory offset (it's been some time since I've moved on from the development of the Hooker Fox Body LS swap system), but it was at least 3/4".
The Hooker LS swap system of components for Mustangs is unique in the fact that it provides the user with the ability to perform the engine/trans swap using a stock K-member (and steering shaft and rag joint) to save cost up front, and then swap out the K-member for a Maximum Motorsports, AJE or Team Z K-member at a later date solely for performance improvements. The K-member swap is not a requirement as it is using other methods of performing the LS swap and the Hooker headers and transmission crossmembers are equally compatible with all of the K-members mentioned.
In specific regards to the Maximum Motorsports K-member, the Hooker system is the only choice available that was designed around the use of the MMKM-1 5.0 engine K-member instead of being based around the use of the MMKM-2.1 to carry out an LS swap in these cars. The MMKM-1 geometry is more preferable for these cars in our opinion as the rack height is higher, which provides more ground clearance and and a better bump steer configuration at the steering arms when all is said and done.
Most users choose to use K-member spacers to fit a particular components so as to save money (like a particular intake manifold or accessory drive set-up for instance) and we were sure to provide the ability to do that with the Maximum Motorsports K-member since it's the only way to get the engine lower with that K-member due to the stock steering rack position it uses. My preference would be to use a different intake, accessory drive, or even an aftermarket hood instead of using K-member spacers, but that's just the way I choose to do things at this stage in my life.
The AJE and Team Z K-members are both designed with geometry that drops the steering rack a minimum of 1" lower than it is on a stock Fox Body K-member, so we were able to provide the ability to drop the engine 1/2" in those applications by simply creating specific engine mounting brackets for each of those K-members. Whereas the stock and MMKM-a K-members limit you as to what oil pans can be used (The Holley 302-3 oil pan was developed specifically for this), the AJE and Team Z K-members provide far more options are far as oil pan compatibility is concerned.
If I were doing an LS swap in a Fox Body for street use today, I would start out using the stock K-member to lessen the time, effort and expense required to do just the actual LS swap. I wouldn't even drop the K-member like many guys do, I would pull/install the transmission from the bottom and the engine through the hood so I wouldn't have to disturb the alignment of the front suspension. With the Hooker parts, it's a piece of cake to do it this way. If I decided at a later date to swap out the K-member, I could easily do by using a bar support on top of the engine and leaving the drivetrain in place.
The Hooker LS swap system of components for Mustangs is unique in the fact that it provides the user with the ability to perform the engine/trans swap using a stock K-member (and steering shaft and rag joint) to save cost up front, and then swap out the K-member for a Maximum Motorsports, AJE or Team Z K-member at a later date solely for performance improvements. The K-member swap is not a requirement as it is using other methods of performing the LS swap and the Hooker headers and transmission crossmembers are equally compatible with all of the K-members mentioned.
In specific regards to the Maximum Motorsports K-member, the Hooker system is the only choice available that was designed around the use of the MMKM-1 5.0 engine K-member instead of being based around the use of the MMKM-2.1 to carry out an LS swap in these cars. The MMKM-1 geometry is more preferable for these cars in our opinion as the rack height is higher, which provides more ground clearance and and a better bump steer configuration at the steering arms when all is said and done.
Most users choose to use K-member spacers to fit a particular components so as to save money (like a particular intake manifold or accessory drive set-up for instance) and we were sure to provide the ability to do that with the Maximum Motorsports K-member since it's the only way to get the engine lower with that K-member due to the stock steering rack position it uses. My preference would be to use a different intake, accessory drive, or even an aftermarket hood instead of using K-member spacers, but that's just the way I choose to do things at this stage in my life.
The AJE and Team Z K-members are both designed with geometry that drops the steering rack a minimum of 1" lower than it is on a stock Fox Body K-member, so we were able to provide the ability to drop the engine 1/2" in those applications by simply creating specific engine mounting brackets for each of those K-members. Whereas the stock and MMKM-a K-members limit you as to what oil pans can be used (The Holley 302-3 oil pan was developed specifically for this), the AJE and Team Z K-members provide far more options are far as oil pan compatibility is concerned.
If I were doing an LS swap in a Fox Body for street use today, I would start out using the stock K-member to lessen the time, effort and expense required to do just the actual LS swap. I wouldn't even drop the K-member like many guys do, I would pull/install the transmission from the bottom and the engine through the hood so I wouldn't have to disturb the alignment of the front suspension. With the Hooker parts, it's a piece of cake to do it this way. If I decided at a later date to swap out the K-member, I could easily do by using a bar support on top of the engine and leaving the drivetrain in place.
07-31-2018, 02:41 PM
#48
FWIW - the kit for mine using the Ford V8 offset the engine towards the passenger side by 1/2" to gain a bit more clearance to the steering shaft. Playing with corner scales, I liked that idea - helps a little bit offset the driver's weight on the left/right balance. So I offset the LS3 1/2" as well. But when playing with that, it's a good time to see where the tranny is going to end up and take a look at rearend/pinion location relative to the tunnel so you get the driveshaft where you want it. Simply centering the pinion in the car may not be the best approach.
07-31-2018, 03:04 PM
#49
Good points you've brought up in your post Micheal Yount. Ford designed the entire car around the stock engine offset position (tunnel sheet metal profile and rear end pinion offset being the major design items), so when efforts are made to move the engine closer to center there are are negative impacts to the configuration of the car that come with that. Many transmissions end up encountering interference issues with the tunnel when they wouldn't have if the engine would have remained in the stock offset position and clearance for exhaust system routing and auto transmission shift control linkage becomes a major issue on the left side. As you mentioned, there will also be an increase in compound operating angles of the U-joints if the stock rear end is left untouched. Many of the aftermarket K-member companies advertise the shift in engine location to be a benefit aimed at providing more header clearance, but I believe causes more negative affects than what it's worth on a typical street/strip car, especially if headers are available that fit the car well with the engine remaining in the stock offset.
If you are building a purpose built race car and the time and financial means to modify every single part of the car and/or have custom parts made for the car to address every concern that pops up, then there may be some justifiable reason to move the engine/trans away from the stock offset.
If you are building a purpose built race car and the time and financial means to modify every single part of the car and/or have custom parts made for the car to address every concern that pops up, then there may be some justifiable reason to move the engine/trans away from the stock offset.
07-31-2018, 03:14 PM
#50
Actually, if I were purpose building for the track (road course or autocross) - if there were room, I might offset it even more to help offset driver's weight in the car....pretty interesting the things you see when you get one on corner scales and start playing with stuff. It's not just the weight -- but also how far the weight sits from a longitudinal or lateral or axle centerline. Here's a couple of examples -- simply opening the door all the way on mine shifted 40 lbs. to the side with the open door. Moving a 40 lb. battery from the engine compartment (right behind headlight) to the trunk (low near the tailight) took 20 lbs. off the front tires and added 60 lbs. to the rear tires. Turns out the rear location was about twice as far away from the rear axle centerline than the front location was from the front 'axle' centerline. Longer lever.
12-17-2018, 10:14 AM
#52
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This project is back on after a bit of a hiatus. The current status:
1. Acquired a low mileage 1986 SVO and restored it to operational.
2. Acquired my Aluminum block LS complete with harness.
3, Acquired underframe connectors and will mount them after I've sorted out the rear.
The tentative plans include keeping the T5 transmission and shopping for the correct bell housing to mate with it. I believe the SVO T3 is adequate to get 8lbs. of boost on the 5.3L LS. Fitting the intake, headers and exhaust routing are dependent on what I do with the rear. I am heeding Michael's advice and planning a completely upgraded rear. I am seriously considering fitting a whole 1994-2005 watts Crown Vic rear. I believe the track width is the same, it's sturdier, it gives me more wheel options and the added weight in the rear will increase its front to rear balance. If I can get it to fit, the Crown Vic rear is the best bang for the buck. Naturally, I invite scrutiny and advice when I post so feel free to keep me from bad decisions and alert me to what else I might consider doing.
1. Acquired a low mileage 1986 SVO and restored it to operational.
2. Acquired my Aluminum block LS complete with harness.
3, Acquired underframe connectors and will mount them after I've sorted out the rear.
The tentative plans include keeping the T5 transmission and shopping for the correct bell housing to mate with it. I believe the SVO T3 is adequate to get 8lbs. of boost on the 5.3L LS. Fitting the intake, headers and exhaust routing are dependent on what I do with the rear. I am heeding Michael's advice and planning a completely upgraded rear. I am seriously considering fitting a whole 1994-2005 watts Crown Vic rear. I believe the track width is the same, it's sturdier, it gives me more wheel options and the added weight in the rear will increase its front to rear balance. If I can get it to fit, the Crown Vic rear is the best bang for the buck. Naturally, I invite scrutiny and advice when I post so feel free to keep me from bad decisions and alert me to what else I might consider doing.
Last edited by yldouright; 12-18-2018 at 06:26 AM.
12-21-2018, 01:12 PM
#54
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@booboo37
The Mustang SVO rear is wider than the Fox body GT Mustang. I'm pretty sure it's 56.5" just like the C.V. so should I be worried about that? The real issue is whether I can get the watts link under there. By the way, I discovered that the SVO T3 would be useless on my LC9. Since my goal was a nice flat 400ft/lbs torque that lasted 3000rpm and starts fading around 5600rpm, it looks like my LC9 was a bad choice. It moves too much air for my turbo and doesn't have enough to get me my 420whp. I may have to trade it for an LT1 and run NA or put in a bigger turbo. I don't want the power of a bigger turbo, it demands too many other upgrades so a 400-450whp result is the sweet spot for me. Does anyone know how the GM 2.5L ATS 4cyl. mounts? With 16lbs. of boost, that might be an option.
The Mustang SVO rear is wider than the Fox body GT Mustang. I'm pretty sure it's 56.5" just like the C.V. so should I be worried about that? The real issue is whether I can get the watts link under there. By the way, I discovered that the SVO T3 would be useless on my LC9. Since my goal was a nice flat 400ft/lbs torque that lasted 3000rpm and starts fading around 5600rpm, it looks like my LC9 was a bad choice. It moves too much air for my turbo and doesn't have enough to get me my 420whp. I may have to trade it for an LT1 and run NA or put in a bigger turbo. I don't want the power of a bigger turbo, it demands too many other upgrades so a 400-450whp result is the sweet spot for me. Does anyone know how the GM 2.5L ATS 4cyl. mounts? With 16lbs. of boost, that might be an option.