MG Sports Cars

This maybe a silly ? but how far back is too far back? is it say a rule of thumb that when the shifter on the tranny is centered to the stock shifter opening that is where it goes or does it need to go back further for better weight dist. and more clearance I have'nt seen any referance in the forums on this subject or I just did'nt pick them up.Thanks Rich

Rich...A lot of the posters (and some im-posters) on the BBS are attending the V8 convention in Wisconsin this week. Upon their return, I'm certain than one of the Blue Oval guys will chime in with some advise for you...Better yet, drive over here tomorrow (Wednesday) and talk to them and take some pictures and measurments. There are several Ford 302 conversion here this week.....a bit of a drive for you, but well worth the trek.

I think it's up to your preference and goals. Stock motor position gives close to 50/50 (49/51 in a GT). Some remove the heater shelf and go way back - the fast cars setup can keep the shelf but needs some firewall tweaks in CB cars. The crossmember mod can minimize firewall mods, but leaves you more in the stock location - so more like a 52/48 or 53/47 distribution - then again a heavier rear end could counter that. Part of the distribution may depend on head choice - aluminum saves 40lbs. Suspension tweaks and wheel/tire choice can also overcome a little bit of a front bias (heavier front can introduce more oversteer - heavier rear sway bars - fatter rear tires...). T5s are pretty easy to modify as far as shifter position. A bigger determining factor may be how low you set your engine and where you may run into interference issues with the harmonic balancer and steering rack/crossmember and oil drain. Your starting point may be more related to your crossmember/front suspension. Deleting the heater shelf and going way back can avoid crossmember issues, but introduces firewall and footwell issues... How will you use the car - track, cruising - start there, consider options/tradeoffs, skills and cash and you can start narrowing your priorities and choices.

Hi Richard,

With a 302 you have a few options. Assuming you're using the stock front cross member (notched for oil pan clearance), you have two basic choices; a 3rd if using an after market front suspension cross member...

1. Position the motor so the bottom of the harmonic balancer & the front lip of the oil pan saddle the steering rack. There's pretty much only one place it'll fit if you do it that way. For an excellent example of that approach, check out Graham Creswick's car here...[www.britishv8.org]

2. Position the motor so the balancer is fully behind the cross member. This requires modification to the firewall but eliminates the need to modify the front cross member. Surprisingly there's still plenty of foot room. Check out Leonard Marshall's car for a great example of that approach... [www.britishv8.org]

3. If you're using an after market front suspension like the FastCars or Hoyle IFS (or potentially adapting a typical hot rod mustang II style IFS), you can go between those two -- essentially clipping the corners of the firewall so the engine can move back an extra couple of inches. If you use Ted's (FastCars) IFS with intregral motor mounts for the 302, this is what you'll end up doing; not sure about the Hoyle unit.

As for shifter location you could end up a few inches in either direction depending on
a) which of the above engine locations you choose
b) which T5 you choose -- the '94/'95 5.0L mustangs had a T5 that has a longer input shaft & bell housing by about 1"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2008 11:42PM by rficalora.

RE: weight distribution... i would definitely recommend aluminum heads. Assuming you have those, I wouldn't worry about weight distribution on for any of the above engine placement choices. There are several of each already done & they all perform extremely well.

If you are using the stock crossmember and rack, the relationship of the rack and motor will also somewhat depend on what front pulley system you're using. I'm using '94-'95 mustang front pulleys, and there's really not much room for movement. The rack will just fit between the damper and the oil pan, with a little clearance fore and aft. I even ground about an 1/8" off of the oil pan lip so I could set the motor down as far as possible. In that position, the shifter using an '87-'93 bellhousing pretty much lines up in the stock shifter hole. On a chrome bumper car, this engine position did require quite a bit of firewall mods, but I did keep the heater shelf. If I ever get the car on the road I'll have to report on whether it drives like a dumptruck, because I'm keeping the iron heads for awhile. Somewhere around a grand to save 100 pounds isn't in my budget yet. Dale Spooner built one of the first small block ford mgb conversions, and he ran with iron heads (and an auto tranny) for quite a few years and felt that the driving difference with aluminum heads was negligible. I try to be realistic about how I'll drive this car, and at least in the near future I won't be too concerned about hitting apexes. Well, in the near future it'll probably still be on jackstands!

Ryan, you & I need a contest to see who can finish first... i've been at it 2 1/2 years... could have had it on the road in 6 months if I knew then what I've figured out since... focused too much on doing all the changes at once instead of engine/tranny one year, rear end another; A/C & dash another, etc. How much longer do you expect? Work allowing I'm thinking I'll have mine on the road sometime this fall.

No chance mine will be on the road by the fall, unless I suddenly come into extra income and can afford to have someone do the paint for me. Believe me, I've thought of just putting it together in various shades of primer, aconite and e-coating, but I know I won't do that. The sick thing is, it's SOOO close! All the hard fabrication work is done. But I'm finding that all the little details kill you in the end. Not to mention it has been sitting untouched since March when I decided to rebuild the 1800 in my roadster. Oh well - I hope yours is done soon! I really, really, really wanted to drive it to Wisconsin for the meet this year, but I'll be lucky if it's driveable by next summer. There's just too many nights and weekends when I end up playing with my sons instead of out in the garage. I need to get some pictures up just to prove that I actually do have a project!

Thanks for the replies,I've already removed the heater shelf as of yesterday and have the motor sitting back quite far I'll have to try the front crossmember to see the relationship to the motor, I'm using the stock trans mount bracket with the mustang trans mount works great, the 302 will put enough heat out by itself, air cond. on the other hand will be manditory, I was going with the Fast cars set up but my budget took a dump, right now I'll have to go with the stock frontend since I already rebuilt it for the restoration project for the 1800( before I seen all the hot conversions and I just had to hot rod it) besides I restored a 71 bgt to original a few years back it's fun but nothing like this will be,all I have to do is the clearance mod. if needed. I'll also put the alu. heads on for the finished car, but it's never finished as all of you know more of a work in progress and that's a good point about doing the conversion in pieces there's always the long winters here in Mi. and it's easier to save the cash, as long as I get the body work done the mechanical work can be spread out,motor and tranny first than the rear end and the Fast cars setup would be nice.Here's a couple of pics.Thanks again

Your motor looks to be 2-3" further back than mine. Would be easier to tell if I could see the back of the motor in relation to the firewall, but my oil filter boss on the motor is a little forward of the front cross member mounting holes & your appears to be a little behind it. If that's right, you'll definitely want to put the cross member on -- including the steering rack to be sure your balancer is fully behind the steering rack. Doesn't appear your far enough back to eliminate the need to modify the cross member like Leonard Marshall did, so you'll likely still need to do that mod if you haven't already to clear the balancer & front sump on the dual sump oil pan. When you mock that up, pay attention to where your front sump drain is. It may be difficult to get to since it'll be in the cut-out area of the cross member & the balancer & pulleys will be in front of it. You may want to consider modifying the oil pan to tie the front & rear sumps so you can drain it from the rear & still get the oil - there's a write up in one of the back issues on doing that. Alternatively you might just want to fab a nipple/pipe extension of some sort to make that drain plug easier to get to.

Hello,as of last night I cut out crossmember and installed it,what do you think?

Hey Rob I was just looking at your build up(very nice, I wish I could rotate mine ,much easier) you used fast cars setup but the? is which motor mount did you use with it, I was thinking of useing it seems easier than the comet mm which leaves very little room an interferes with block huger headers if I go that route.Thanks Rich

And to you Ryan have fun playing with your sons because they grow up and you can't get that time back but there will always be time later for projects.Been There Done That! Rich

Hi Rich, Ted has a motor mount option for his IFS when using a 302. The motor mounts are integrated into the cross member & the motor mount option comes with a tranny mount as well. It's a pretty simple idea & could be done with the stock cross member too I'm pretty sure (conceptually could but I didn't measure to see where things would fall & how much room there'd be there). I'm on my wife's pc right now, but will post a pic tomorrow so you can see how the motor mounts work on Ted's IFS.

Just read an article by Dan Masters and he had a pic of an easy motor mount that is somthing that I was thinking of when I saw Ted's setup,connect the two bolt holes with apiece of angle than use a round mount in between, would free up alot of room instead of the comet mount.Great idea! I think I would move the mount closer to the front to free up more room for headers what do you think?

That would work fine. The mount Ted has on the IFS is sort of similar. Take a look at the pic from the write up on my project (lik below) & you can see the mount on the ifs. There's a hard rubber (it's not rubber but the material it's made of is escaping me at the moment) bushing that goes in that round hole. Bolt just runs up through the bottom of the mount & into the front mount hole on the motor. That plus a stout tranny mount does it.

[www.britishv8.org]

So if I fab a perch up that would do it,seems easier than the other option's and adding a piece(engine steady bar) to the drivers side like Graham did to stop the motor torque would help.The plan is in place Thanks. Rich

Yeah, if you use a mount like the one Dan showed or the type Ted uses, there's no big rubber block so the motor doesn't move enough to need an engine steady bar. It's sort of a compromise between the regular rubber block mounts & solid mounting. There are several styles of mounts along these lines... this one might give you some ideas too. It's one I'd set aside as an idea before I decided to go w/Ted's IFS...


Another place to look for ideas (maybe even source some of the parts) is www.autofab.com... they cater to folks doing engine swaps on Ford Broncos & have mounts for both Chevy & Ford motors.

You can get some more ideas & also find suppliers for the rubber parts by just doing a google search on things like "Ford 302 Motor Mounts" or "Hotrod motor mounts".

Be sure to share what you come up with! I think the only thing keeping more folks from doing 302 swaps is fabbing the motor mounts.

This is just what I was looking for, thanks for the tip seen the one in the pic but this place has the weld in frame bracket and the bicuit mount all I have to do is make the piece that bolts to the block and look at the location of the manufacture.Thanks again

Check this Lister's engine set back