Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums

General => User Rides => Topic started by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 12:33:42 AM

Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 12:33:42 AM
http://s1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/ (http://"http://s1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/")
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 12:36:38 AM
I am learning how to send pics, and it is a new camera. Date is way off. I did manage to create a link for you all to see all of the pics.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 05, 2011, 01:12:41 AM
Nice, clean looking car. Thought it was a stripper at first glance. You can add all of the images by clicking the image on the reply, then copying the image url in. That way you do not have to attach every picture, or link.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 02:03:23 AM
(http://http://photobucket.com/mybird)
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 05, 2011, 02:23:40 AM
i've always liked this color for some reason.. never seen a clean example of it on a bird, though, until now.. looks good! please keep the header with the grill, it adds to her beauty :)
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 02:26:42 AM
All 6 pics are available in both of my posts. I just can't figure out how to get them to show instead of just giving the link.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 05, 2011, 04:23:58 AM
Cick on the picture, and there are options to copy image url's.
(http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/IMAG0001.jpg)

It will say [img before and after, and that is what you copy.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 09:58:21 AM
(http://[IMG]http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/IMAG0005.jpg)[/IMG]
(http://[IMG]http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/IMAG0004.jpg)[/IMG]
(http://[IMG]http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/IMAG0003.jpg)[/IMG]
(http://[IMG]http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/IMAG0002.jpg)[/IMG]
(http://[IMG]http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x344/chrome404/IMAG0001.jpg)[/IMG]

This should be the rest of the pics.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 05, 2011, 09:59:56 AM
Thank U Haystack!
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: cougarman on November 05, 2011, 11:23:08 AM
Very nice!!!
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Dan B. on November 05, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
Looks good'n'clean under the bonnet....sharp!
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: 5.0 tbird on November 06, 2011, 06:24:40 PM
Looks nice and clean!
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: thunderjet302 on November 07, 2011, 01:08:09 AM
Looks great :). Not too many LX T-birds on here.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: The Shredder on November 07, 2011, 08:21:59 AM
Ohh.  Ahhh.  Comfy velour interior.  I have a soft spot in my heart for baby blue cars since my first one was that color.  Very nice shape.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: budnscrap on November 13, 2011, 07:14:49 PM
Love it!!
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: vinnietbird on November 13, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
I don't know why I didn't se this before.yes i do. I was up to my a$$ in electrical distraction. GREAT looking car. What are your plans with it? Leave it alone, or start modding. It looks just fine as it is,though. Just a wheel swap away from "don't touch it".
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 13, 2011, 08:21:48 PM
Wheels, window tint, and sound system. All other mods will be mechanical, but not to extreme.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 13, 2011, 08:32:24 PM
i don't care for window tint.. but the rest sounds good! what kind of mods to you plan?
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 13, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
Not sure yet. It'll be a while before I start on much. I think rear end will be first upgrade. 3.55 or 3.73 would be a major improvement over 2.73. As for under the hood I could hop up the 5.0 or go for a 351.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 13, 2011, 08:45:25 PM
go 351 if you don't mind doing a little work.. great motors, only downside is the low compression.. a nice set of GT40's will turn that around in a hurry
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: 1Bad88tbird on November 13, 2011, 08:56:32 PM
Looks good!
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: vinnietbird on November 13, 2011, 09:32:18 PM
Where's Pampa? I have a 3.73 8.8 rear in the garage needing a home.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: vinnietbird on November 13, 2011, 09:33:23 PM
Never mind, you're WAY over to the West. That's quite a distance from me. I'm in the very South Central part of Oklahoma.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 13, 2011, 10:57:30 PM
Low compression? Factory 5.0 has 8.4:1! 351 can't have much worse. Anyhow, with a good build it could be fixed with pistons and or heads.
Quote from: Shadow;372877
go 351 if you don't mind doing a little work.. great motors, only downside is the low compression.. a nice set of GT40's will turn that around in a hurry
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 13, 2011, 11:51:09 PM
5.0HO's had higher comp.. a 351w has about the same as a 5.0SO.. a simple swap to GT40P's would be a nice compression bump for a 351.. definitely recommend port work though
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 14, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
I'm no expert, but it thought the dished pistons made the s.o's .1 compression point higher then an h.o. the rotating assembly is the same other then pistons, and the heads are the same cc'sa
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 14, 2011, 12:31:40 AM
pretty sure HO's have higher compression.. to be honest, i'm not 110% sure on that, but i have a way of finding out.. give me 5 minutes..
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 14, 2011, 12:43:08 AM
ok.. here are zee numbers.. compared 88 lx HO to 88 bird sport for year and compression comparison..

first, 88 LX

Cylinders alignment:   V 8

Displacement:   4942 cm3 / 301.6 cui

Bore:   101.6 mm / 4 in

Stroke:   76.2 mm / 3 in

Compression ratio:   9.2 : 1


and 88 sport:

Cylinders alignment:   V 8

Displacement:   4942 cm3 / 301.6 cui

Bore:   101.6 mm / 4 in

Stroke:   76.2 mm / 3 in

Compression ratio:   8.9 : 1
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 14, 2011, 01:05:47 AM
I've got to get a better book! My Chilton only lists 1 5.0 for 88 and it says it has 8.4:1 compression. 9.2:1 is great. I need ALLDATA. 351 is a nice idea, but staying 5.0 may be the cheaper way to go. If 9.2:1 is my compression ratio, then it would not take much to wake this thing up. Like I said, mods will take a while, and rear gear will be first, along with brakes.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 14, 2011, 01:53:12 AM
oops.. i didn't clarify.. those numbers are for an 88 LX mustang lol.. your motor only has 8.9:1 and is NON-HO.. you have an SO in your car which is an OK motor for very light mods, but you're better off with an HO bottom end. don't let it discourage you though.. you could turn your motor into an HO by doing a rebuild and opting for mustang OEM replacement pistons. that would be my honest to god only choice of doing it. sure, you can go out and buy a used HO and drop it in, but why? if you know how to rebuild a motor and just swap the pistons, you're starting off with a fresh motor, instead of something someone else has beaten on.. the best part of switching to HO pistons is the fact that they have valve reliefs, which broadens your cam selection by a pretty substantial margin. other than that, to make it an HO, you just need a cam that uses the 302 HO/351w firing order.. then you will officially have yourself an HO.. you may have to run a flat tappet cam, unless your block has the 2 threaded bungs in the lifter valley for the 'spider' that's used for ford's OEM style lifters, unless you want to spend a little more money and opt for aftermarket 'linked' roller lifters.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 15, 2011, 03:04:45 AM
So let me ask you this. Bottom end is identical, minus pistons, which have less clearance on an s.o. motor, so how could the compression be higher without have smaller chambered heads?

I honestly don't belive there is much, if any diffrence in stock blocks other then machining tollerances. I am also curious what cam you cannot run on an s.o. motor, because of the pistons, that you can with stock h.o. pistons.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Chrome on November 15, 2011, 10:01:50 AM
If the cam is too big for the SO motor, it will be too big for me anyhow. What is gained by changing firing order besides a need to change PCM?
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 15, 2011, 01:41:27 PM
Quote from: Haystack;372997
So let me ask you this. Bottom end is identical, minus pistons, which have less clearance on an s.o. motor, so how could the compression be higher without have smaller chambered heads?

I honestly don't belive there is much, if any diffrence in stock blocks other then machining tollerances. I am also curious what cam you cannot run on an s.o. motor, because of the pistons, that you can with stock h.o. pistons.

 

HO pistons have valve reliefs that are deeper than the dish in SO pistons, allowing better PTV clearance, which allows for bigger cams.. i believe the compression distance is the same on both SO and HO pistons, but the dish in the SO pistons drops the compression .3:1 compared to the HO's
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 15, 2011, 01:45:14 PM
Quote from: Chrome;373018
If the cam is too big for the SO motor, it will be too big for me anyhow. What is gained by changing firing order besides a need to change PCM?

the HO firing order produces more power.. i believe it's a 25hp difference, stock cam to stock cam.. like i said, i BELIEVE that's the number, i may be wrong.. i'd have to look it up, but between the small compression jump and firing order change stock to stock, there is a reasonable power increase.. ford detuned the SO for the birds so it couldn't compete with the mustang.. there was a conversation about this on here not too long ago.. lol
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: beast50 on November 15, 2011, 11:25:04 PM
1987-1988 5.0 HO motors produced 225 horsepower, the 1987-1988 SO produced 150 horsepower / 155 horsepower with dual exhaust in 1988. The tubular headers, e7 truck heads,valve relief forged pistons, better flowing upper intake plenum, bigger throttle body and fuel injectors work with the HO camshaft and computer to produce the 225 horsepower 5.0 HO speed density Mustang motor.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 16, 2011, 12:54:10 AM
What I was saying, I have had an h.o. and s.o. piston side by side, and the bottom of the dish was about the same as the h.o. piston top. The ptv clearance is virtally identical between both motors. The power difference is all in the heads(maybe 5-10 hp) intake and throttle body (about the same) cam (10_15) and exhaust (5-10 hp). All of those things working together give you more power. The block has nothing to do with it, because it is the same, minus valve releifs.

Also, the same compressiong on a dished piston will create more power then a flat top with valve releifs. I would bet the machining tolerances are bigger then the differences in the piston height. And if you need more clearance in a s.o. block, just add your own valve releifs. Generally the stock h.o. came is close enough in power, that there isn't much reason to throw in a bigger cam. Especially if you have a good set of heads, intake and exhaust.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 16, 2011, 12:56:34 AM
Oh, and unless you mill down the gt40 heads, they usually have 64cc heads, and stock is usually around 58cc. So you actually lose compression and gain air flow.
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Shadow on November 16, 2011, 01:04:17 AM
are you talking about gt40p's or standard gt40's? because the p heads all have 58cc chambers
Title: Finally got pics!
Post by: Haystack on November 16, 2011, 02:15:09 AM
Every set I have looked at had the 64cc. Not sure which is which.