Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

In the process of building this kit but need advice on engine mounting. If you've built this one I'd like to know what you've done. As you can see in my first pic instructions just have you glue trans in trans mount. The crossmember I have pictured with the frame was in the kit but not shown anywhere and not even listed in the numerical parts list. I'm thinking it is needed as the engine sits perfectly in it. In pic two it's not shown either, all that's there is the sway bar. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Posted (edited)

OMG! I'm up to page 6 and still reading about roof issues!  

Well nothing useful there.:angry:

Edited by shoopdog
Posted
7 minutes ago, Jantrix said:

If I'm not mistaken it comes with two front suspensions, stock and tubular. 

It does have the two suspensions but I'm not sure how that would affect engine mounting.

Posted

No clue. That is definitely the front crossmember for the stock suspension. I had a 1:1, and the motor mounts, lower control arms, coil springs, and rack & pinion all mount to it. Don't see what you are supposed to do when using the coilovers and tubular lower arms.

Posted

I have seen other builders create an engine plate in some of their builds. What they had was a thin plate that would attach to the front of the engine as if bolted to the water pump area and slimed down on each end to a new mount on the frame or some other support structure on either side of the engine compartment. This way it would have no connection to the stock front cross member or any other front suspension you are using.  

Posted (edited)

Keith, you don’t use that piece. Unless you don’t want the tubular k frame. I remember my engine seemed like it sat in there pretty sloppy, but as the build came together it all worked out. It was a bit confusing and I also remember the struts being a pain too. 

Here is a pic of mine. Hope it helps. 

73965C70-9DE8-423C-8F94-E59BC448B60D.jpeg

Edited by Brutalform
Posted
16 hours ago, Brutalform said:

Keith, you don’t use that piece. Unless you don’t want the tubular k frame. I remember my engine seemed like it sat in there pretty sloppy, but as the build came together it all worked out. It was a bit confusing and I also remember the struts being a pain too. 

Here is a pic of mine. Hope it helps. 

73965C70-9DE8-423C-8F94-E59BC448B60D.jpeg

Do these suspension braces support the engine eventually?

image.jpeg

Posted

Tom, thank you very much for taking the time to post up your pics. I think I got it now, I can see how it would be a little sloppy til that point. Oh, I forgot to mention what a nice looking Mustang you have there!  Thank you again.

Posted

You are very welcome, Keith.  Now that I think back, it was pretty confusing for me too. IIRC, I even took a break from it because of the front suspension. Have fun and be sure to post pics when it’s finished. 

Posted
On 3/21/2019 at 2:18 AM, Brutalform said:

This is the stance it has, which looks pretty good, I think. 

24A5147C-BCEB-4BE8-8309-C1A8A4DCDC21.jpeg

i had a 1:1 almost identical to your model with the exception mine had a 468 bbc with 2 kits on it.

Posted
3 hours ago, Scott8950 said:

i had a 1:1 almost identical to your model with the exception mine had a 468 bbc with 2 kits on it.

What kind of number did you run with it?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Scott8950 said:

6.30s 1/8 mile... driving the car to the track and back home.

Cool, that probably equates to high 9s to low 10s. 

I had a 92 Firebird Formula that ran 11.40s  @ 122 with a 436 SBC EFI naturally aspirated. I did my own eprom tuning, with a wide band O2, and Tunercat. I drove mine to and from with the A/C on. 

I figured you would be crazy fast with that light of car. Stangs are cool cars. If I ever got back into it, I most likely do a Ford this time around. 

Posted (edited)

Probably even faster than high 9s. I’ve been out of racing for about 13 years now. I used to know that stuff off the top of my head. Lol

Edited by Brutalform
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Brutalform said:

Cool, that probably equates to high 9s to low 10s. 

I had a 92 Firebird Formula that ran 11.40s  @ 122 with a 436 SBC EFI naturally aspirated. I did my own eprom tuning, with a wide band O2, and Tunercat. I drove mine to and from with the A/C on. 

I figured you would be crazy fast with that light of car. Stangs are cool cars. If I ever got back into it, I most likely do a Ford this time around. 

im about to build another but this go around it'll be a turbo ls. I've got a buddy that drives his to and from the track, 80 mile round trip. it runs 5.40s on a 29×10.5 and still has power windows.

its a stock bottom end 5.3 with a 140k miles. it has a little head work, texas speed cam, kooks headers, intake but i cant remember the brand. and a 80mm turbo... 400 turbo trans. with a brake in it.

Edited by Scott8950
Posted

Yea things have changed a lot over the last decade. Turbo is the way to go. 

When I hit the lottery, I’d like to have a NRE  build me a twin turbo Ford, for a big old Galaxie

Posted
11 minutes ago, Brutalform said:

Cool, that probably equates to high 9s to low 10s. 

I had a 92 Firebird Formula that ran 11.40s  @ 122 with a 436 SBC EFI naturally aspirated. I did my own eprom tuning, with a wide band O2, and Tunercat.

I am just getting into eprom tuning for the early GMT400 trucks with TBI. I had a custom chip burned for mine but have since put tuning my own on hold until school is done. Certainly is a whole different ball game with prom chips! Might have to pick your brain sometime. Seems like no one my age messes with them anymore..

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...