So I want to modify my 1986 Ford Thunderbird Elan Edition V8 5.0

>LS
>straight pipe
>suggestions

kys

File: be6.jpg (13KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 224x216px

>LS
>mfw

>>16200601
>>16200624
Spot the butthurt ford cucks

Really though OP you could probably put in a cam, intake, and exhaust and not have to go through the ordeal of an engine swap. Even if you do get the 5.3 you can't keep the stock cam for that engine because those are for trucks that burn 87 octane and suck ass for performance applications.

>v8
>wants to go through the trouble of an enigne swap just to end up with another v8

fix up your car as it is.

>>16200583
>I want to put a LS v8 5.3 engine

Literally why?

You already have an excellent engine in there, smog choked as it may be, just add cam, exhaust headers, intake and exhaust and youll probably be at 300 HP easy.

Much easier than dealing with a 5.3 swap... thats for god damn sure.

>>16200583
Swap out a H.O. 5.0 top end for an instant 70hp gain, even more with Explorer GT40 heads.

>>16200676
I think 86 might be carbed still for the t-bird. In which case it's carb, cam, heads, headers, and exhaust.

>>16200638
Yeah, you're probably right
>>16200663
I kinna wanted to do it cause the parts made for the LS based engine but what do I know, I've just recently got into the vehicle modding game like 4 months ago.
>>16200676
The engine swap is the last thing I want to do and from what I've gathered from my friend who modifies trucks, and LS engine is the best way to get alot of horsepower for cheap.

>>16200663
kinna worded that weird but if I base what I wanna do by how someone else did it, I find it easier. like building a PC based off of a "300$ console killer" video

>>16200706
you will spend thousands just to get the engine in the car

how much power do you want

how much do you want to spend

never straight dual pipe as it sounds like shit and is awful for performance

>>16200706
The LS can be an option if your motor is at the end of its life but Ford 5.0s are stupid easy to get more power out of since they're super choked from the factory, and it'll be way less dicking around.

>>16200706
The aftermarket for the Ford 302 is second to none, you could spend less than 1k in parts and more than double your stock HP.

>>16200706
That ford 5.0 is the best there was until the GM LT came around. Even after the LT came in with the 4th gen F-body you still had plenty of lighting-fast foxbodies with 5.0's. It's not a shit engine because it's gutless and has no potential. It's a shit engine (right now) because it's smogged as fuck and restrained by shitty 80's emissions tech.

>>16200706
>the best way to get alot of horsepower for cheap.

Uhhh right now, the best way to get "alot of horsepower for cheap" is to mod the god damn FIVE O sitting in the thing....

Literally known as one of the easiest and cheapest (and well responding to mods) to mod...

>>16200728
>you could spend less than 1k in parts and more than double your stock HP.

no

you could not come close to that unless you junkyard turbo or nitrous

>>16200735
How much do you know about ford 302s? I'm going to guess very little.

>>16200722
I mean, I can salvage it from a 2001 Tahoe in a scrap yard,400+ HP?,2Gs,Yeah you're probably right

>>16200735
You could buy a cam, new valve springs, a set of gt40s and a good carb/intake combo for less than a g

>>16200735
These 86's models had 150 HP stock....

You could double that with $1000 provided you did the work yourself.

>>16200742
Dude, getting an engine that was not designed to go into a car into a car is a fucking lot of work. Then you have to make it run, and of you want to really drive it, you have to make it play nice with the instrument cluster or engineer a workaround. OR YOU COULD DO WHAT LITERALLY EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS TELLING YOU TO DO AND JUST FIX UP THE ENGINE THAT'S IN IT BECAUSE IT'S A PERFECTLY GOOD ENGINE YOU IGNORANT SHIT.

>>16200742

You already have your mind set on a swap, you came here looking for reinforcement of that retarded and expensive idea.

Go ahead, do what you want but at least youll always know you took the hardest, most expensive and retarded path...

>>16200735
GT40 top end, E303 cam and long tubes will easily hit 310bhp.

>>16200742
youre going to spend more than 2gs just getting it in the car

>>16200748
>150hp

lmao

no wonder

I thought these things had at least 200 in 86

then sure you can do a 300hp for cheap all day

>>16200754
>>16200758
I'm actually really liking the idea of keeping the engine, though not going to install the turbos myself...

>>16200759
As long as you replace valve springs. But yeah.

>>16200763
Mustangs had the HO putting out 200+, other cars did not.

>>16200767
Who the fuck mentioned turbos? Why? 302s aren't huge fans of turbos without redoing the internals. Just build it for N/A power. I swear people these days think the only way to add power is to LS swap or boost something. Don't even take 5 minutes to look up something related to the existing engine.

>>16200767
>turbos

You can make the car plenty quick (300+ HP) without dealing with that.

Adding a turbo only makes sense after youve done the carb, camshaft, head, headers and exhaust.

>>16200767
I don't think you understand the amount of work to put a turbo in a car not designed for a turbo, especially with two cylinder banks and having to upgrade the entire fueling system.

>>16200768
Explorer GT40s already have beehive springs IIRC.

>>16200763
So basically you have no idea what's going on here?

>>16200771
Mark VII as well.

>>16200796
The stock springs on a gt40 from an explorer (most common donor) are literally a shit.

>>16200583
Don't listen to the haters, OP. LS swaps take as little as $500 and an afternoon to complete, and then you'll be on your way to making huge power.

How about this, if you had the car that I have and you wanted to make it a sleeper. what would you do to it

>>16200767
all you really need is a

top end from an Explorer from a junkyard
new valve springs and maybe rockers
new cam (dont go with outdated letter shit)
headers and exhaust
make sure its all good
nitrous good tune to get your 400hp when you want it

>>16200796
so basically youre a cunt

Id still say I know more than you since you think stock springs are worth a damn on any 302

>>16200809
Carb/intake, junkyard GT40 heads with a rebuild, headers, exhaust with h-pipe, 3.73 or shorter rear end gears.

>>16200816
not doing nitrous at all dude, don't wanna fucking explode if I crash

>>16200816
E303 is good, if I had the cash I'd be rocking a lunati voodoo or a comp cams max energy unit.

>>16200822
Oh yeah, and a cam. Old letter ones are cheap but, well, old. Better, newer designs exist. Do your research and decide how ridiculous of a cam you want.

>>16200824
This guy has to be trolling at this point.

>>16200824
then get a pair of Trickflow heads instead of the junkyard stuff

infact just go out of your budget a bit and get the whole top end kit

>>16200827
I know it can still make power but that shit came out in the 80s didnt it?

>tfw theres an old dude still running a Duntov 30-30 (or so he says) around here

sheesh

>>16200855
Trick flow heads are like 1400 for a set

Gt40s are 120 or so from the junkyard.

Also it's old, but they're still pretty decent. The 302 is 50 years old, really makes you think

>>16200855
>but that shit came out in the 80s didnt it?

Its an OHV design from the 60's but its literally attained legendary status.

The 302 is to Ford as the 350 is to Chevy except the 302 is twice as popular.

You could also throw a Ford 5.8 in it, if you REALLY want to deal with swapping an engine but the aftermarket is far less.

OP, I have a 98 Explorer that came with the same engine except has the best heads Ford ever made and thus 215 factory horsepower. Still pretty bad but not terrible.

I put torque monsters on it, it was a son of a whore to install but the dyno registered nearly an increase of 20 hp and 35 lbs or torque! And thats with everything else bone stock, except for a higher flow K&N filter (same flat filter type as stock).

id rather have torque in the explorer than high HP numbers and im looking at 320+ ft/lbs.

That said, just mod the god damn thing....

>>16200873
but he wants 400hp

>>16200923
I know the engine itself is old its just the fact that cam tech has come a long way

not many people opt to use shit like 292 or Fuelie heads when you can just grab a pair of Vortec heads not to mention all the aftermarket options

why use some old Duntov or Crane cam grind when you have newer more modern profiles and camshaft design

personally Id rather spend more to get more

>>16200583
I'm going to make this easy.
an ls swap will take lots of time and lots of money just to get the motor and put it in the car. And then what do you have? a bone stock 5.3 l motor. whoopiefukindo. will it be faster than the 5.0? sure. but if you put the same money into building the 5.0 the 5.0 would stomp the shit out of it for the same(probably less) time and money spent.

>500 cfm summit carb
>edelbrock performer intake, or wieland equivalent
>HEI ignition conversion
>headers longtube if you can find em, but shorties and mids work well to.
>gt40 heads.
>lunatti voodo camshaft, the 256 would probably be about right for this build.
>flat top pistons.
> for the exhaust, i like x pipes, but true duals will work, don't straight pipe. Flowmaster 40 series sound nice.

This setup will get gobs of torque, respectable horsepower, decent mpg, and excellent drivabillity.

File: 1474857378967.jpg (69KB, 419x610px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 419x610px

Restore it to factory condition.

File: images (19)-fourchan-o-16170617.jpg (16KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 512x288px

Turbo and weld the Diff