How bad of an idea is this?

I've been a Fox body notch fan for decades. Since I saw my first Indiana State Police Mustang erupt in a brilliant flash of red and blues. Everyone here also knows how big of an LR4 fan I am. So why hasn't someone put these two magnificent pieces of automotive awesomeness together?

THe '92 Fox notch made 205hp@4200/275tq@3000. The 04-06 LR4 made 285@5200/295@4000. Intake swap (to clear the hood) to a FAST intake, a cam to bump up the powerband and you're looking at a 350hp/325tq engine that loves to rev. Would the World Class T-5 hold together? Yes it makes more overall power, but it's higher in the RPM range so you're not stressing it with massive amounts of torque off idle. My gut says "Yes, it will".

So... now someone needs to do this, finish it to about 85% then sell it to me for a loss. Who's first?

There are no bad ideas, just bad execution.

They all last for a while.

I had a lowly T top '85 with a fairly new WCT5 gears. It was probably making all of 200hp and barely 13.5's. At the dragstrip I broke the case of the T5 completely in half. Hurst Shifter snapped off rotating around and took out the drivers window. Console full of pennies flying around inside the car like a bomb went off. The rest of the transmission banged around/thru in the tunnel 'til I got it stopped. It sliced the tunnel open like a can opener every time it came around.

I did have a (front and rear), driveshaft safety loop, hooked to subframe connectors that helped control the bad situation.

I probably still have doo doo in my britches from that one.

Lots of LS'x' swaps into fox bodies (and everything else!). Plenty of parts available for the swap. But if you're going to the trouble, why not the LQ4 at 6.0L instead of an LR4? They're readily available as they came in so many trucks/SUV's and not exceptionally pricey. Yes - you're moving beyond the rated torque of the T5 - but they seem to hold up pretty well depending on the level of abuse.

Most of the 5.0HO Mustangs were rated at 300 lb-ft, and they used the T-5. So you'd technically still in compliance with that transmission's torque capacity even at 295 lb-ft, unless I'm missing something. Of course, it's more than possible to blow up a T-5 using only a stock Mustang GT, and this would be equally true of your new creation.

I have no experience with a T5 behind an LS engine but it all points to being a bad idea. The cost savings of going with a T5 is pointless when it does not last. I have a T56 in my LS powered car. It has out lasted 2 clutches. If size is a concern go with a 4 speed.

What is the budget?

There is also the T-5z if you are worried about the WC not holding up, they have a little higher torque rating. That being said, I have a WC T-5 in my FFR Daytona with 450 lb-ft at the crank and it hasn't blown in a couple thousand aggressive miles. Just don't slam through the gears or do clutch dumps with sticky tires and I see the transmission holding up just fine.

PHR did a truck LS into a fox Mustang project about sixish years ago. Really in depth articles. I gave my copies to Thundercougarfalcongoat or I'd send them to you.

LR4? LQ4? u guys lost me...happens a lot

I came in here expecting a something really dumb like "SMF kia or hyundai product"

Doesn't the LR4 take boost ridiculously well? Like 900whp-on-an-un-opened-motor-well? Do it. It'll be awesome without boost and triple the awesome with boost.

In reply to plance1:

GenIII GM truck V8 . . .

• LR4 = 4.8L
• LQ4 = 6.0L

i think a 4 speeds with the right set of rear gears would do well, it will hold the power and versus the price of a t56 it seems like a good option

Strike_Zero wrote: In reply to plance1: GenIII GM truck V8 . . . - LR4 = 4.8L - LQ4 = 6.0L

Adding - LS 'style' architecture, cast iron block, aluminum heads.

What about the T-45, TR-3550, TR-3650 or TKO-600? They kind of get forgotten between the T-5 and T-56.

edizzle89 wrote: i think a 4 speeds with the right set of rear gears would do well, it will hold the power and versus the price of a t56 it seems like a good option

Yes this, plus the transmissions are smaller, lighter, as well as generally cheaper.

To add to RossD's suggestions, A built T-45 or TR-3650 (http://www.thet45source.com/) would offer smoother shifts and a lower cost than a T-56.

I've read a lot about T-5 longevity. It seems like it's a crapshoot, but the things that will most likely lead to an early demise involve hard launches on sticky tires. The T-5 and T-45 don't include internal stops, so you'll want to buy an aftermarket shifter with external stops if you go that route.

thinking "on a budget" here. We already know the short stroke LR4 likes to rev. 7k is the easy button on stock internals without sweating it. A T-5 car would be cheaper initially because every thing is already there.

Why not an LQ4? WEll, I don't want it. They cost 3-4 times as much as an LR4 and they don't like to rev as freely. I can source a 4.8 locally for $3-400. LQ4 is pushing the $1200 range for a good one, $1000 for a ragged one.

Tis true . . . Price wise to get a complete 4.8L is sometimes cheaper to pick up than a 6.0L shortblock.

The prices of 4.8L have been creeping up since all of the successful boost to stoopid power articles and stories surfaced.

In reply to edizzle89:

the truck 6L came in either Aluminum block or the iron block. I know people seek the iron block because its got more forged components for boost.

Strike_Zero wrote: In reply to plance1: GenIII GM truck V8 . . . - LR4 = 4.8L - LQ4 = 6.0L

Oh, I was picturing a Land Rover engine in a Mustang. Makes A LOT more "sense" now. Carry on.

RossD wrote: What about the T-45, TR-3550, TR-3650 or TKO-600? They kind of get forgotten between the T-5 and T-56.

I had a Mustang with a TR-3650 and I liked it a lot. It was very easy to shift and amenable to clutchless shifting. It survived many dozens of quarter-mile passes without any trouble at all.

Had I swapped in a T-56, as so many of the "cool kids" did (or were always planning to do...), I would have had to shift three times in the quarter-mile instead of just two. I liked the way the TR-3650 was matched perfectly to the quarter-mile distance: two shifts required, with the tachometer needle just reaching the redline at the end of a good pass. And it's not like the lack of a 6th gear affected top speed; that was limited by power, not gearing.

Lr4. Why no land rover in this thread?

With a puny 4.8 i'd rather have as many closely and evenly spaced gears as possible.

Yup, only 4.8 Liters. That's why all mustangs until 2011 sucked, right? Because they were EVEN TINIER THAN THAT AND HAD NO TORQUE! Now with 5.0L they have 'borderline acceptable torque'.

In reply to Vigo:

As if you can consider a mere 5 liters enough.