Mustang and Ford Performance Forums banner

Aluminator Gibtec Build

448K views 789 replies 65 participants last post by  eschaider 
#1 · (Edited)
Thread update: Table of Contents

Since this thread has gotten long and I've received many PM's on Facebook and e-mail with questions about the build, I figured a ToC would help anyone searching. It is based on 15 posts per page, and is also broken down in groups and now with hyperlinked post numbers. In the event some quick info is needed, this should make it easy! Also, all hyperlinks, other than the obvious cut-and-paste links are bold so they stand out and are easier to recognize, especially when not logged in.

p.1 (Posts 1-15): Short block, pistons, heads, '98 Cobra cams, bearings, ARP parts list, oil pump & windage tray
p.2 (Posts 16-30): Oil cooler gasket, block heater, head gaskets, more on ARP
p.3 (Posts 31-45): Timing components, cam bolts
p.4 (Posts 46-60): Timing cover bolt modification (aluminum block), upgraded secondary tensioner
p.5 (Posts 61-75): Cam degree tools
p.6 (Posts 76-90): Misc. chat
p.7 (Posts 91-105): Oil slinger discussion
p.8 (Posts 106-120): Oil slinger cont., rear main seal
p.9 (Posts 121-135): Rear main seal cont.
p.10 (Posts 136-150): King bearing tech from Ed
p.11 (Posts 151-165): King bearing tech cont., GT-500 rockers, timing cover hole (Cont. from P.4)
p.12 (Posts 166-180): Degreeing the cams, '98 specs
p.13 (Posts 181-195): Degreeing the cams cont., timing cover, cam follower install
p.14 (Posts 196-210): Primary tensioner ratchet modification
p.15 (Posts 211-225): Primary tensioner spacer modification (update to P.14)
p.16 (Posts 226-240): Primary tensioner spacer modification cont.
p.17 (Posts 241-255): Valve cover mock-up, exhaust manifolds
p.18 (Posts 256-270): Tensioner spacer info from Ed, ready to pull "old" engine
p.19 (Posts 271-285): Oil cooler, PCV fitting for aluminum block
p.20 (Posts 286-300): Quick Seat info
p.21 (Posts 301-315): Old vs. new piston trivia, valve covers
p.22 (Posts 316-330): New engine installed, Centerforce clutch
p.23 (Posts 331-345): Crank damper, accessory belts
p.24 (Posts 346-360): Transmission install, accessory belts cont.
p.25 (Posts 361-375): Power steering pump and A/C install notes
p.26 (Posts 376-390): First start!
p.27 (Posts 391-405): First start cont.
p.28 (Posts 406-420): Notes on PTW clearances from Ed, Vampire introduction
p.29 (Posts 421-435): Rod clearance notes from Ed, block bore information
p.30 (Posts 436-450): OE piston trivia
p.31 (Posts 451-465): Misc. oil pan discussion
p.32 (Posts 466-480): Head stud info & torque notes from Ed, wideband install, PCM harness info
p.33 (Posts 481-495): PCM connector notes
p.34 (Posts 496-510): Gauge install, oil pressure sensor, billet oil filter
p.35 (Posts 511-525): Oil and pump discussion
p.36 (Posts 526-540): Head stud re-torque
p.37 (Posts 541-555): Head stud re-torque cont.
p.38 (Posts 556-570): Head stud re-torque cont.
p.39 (Posts 571-585): Project cost sheet, Vampire install completion
p.40 (Posts 586-600): Vampire adjustments
p.41 (Posts 601-615): AFR and piston notes from Ed, Vampire gauge addition
p.42 (Posts 616-630): More from Ed on detonation, new CAI
p.43 (Posts 631-645): Vampire gauge video clip
p.44 (Posts 646-660): Dyno tune results and video clip (11/1/16), new oil separator
p.45 (Posts 661-675): Switch to Mobil1 0W-40 & UOA, piston wrist pin discussion, updated alternator
p.46 (Posts 676-690): General alternator discussion
p.47 (Posts 691-705): Bolt torque & #5 thrust bearing comments, upgraded tensioner, Whipple 2.3 on the way
p.48 (Posts 706-720): Whipple talk, new intercooler, more fuel system chat
p.49 (Posts 721-735): More on the Vampire, 4.6 vs Coyote discussion, intercooler pictures
p.50 (Posts 736-750): Eaton removed, intercooler comparison pics, Whipple installed, intercooler tech
p.51 (Posts 751-765): Some e85 talk, first drive with the Whipple and new intercooler
p.52 (Posts 766-780): Visit to Gibtec, some info on Prolong
p.53 (Posts 781-): More on Prolong, new Explorer ST to go with the Cobra.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This project had been in the works for a while: started a few years back when I picked up a brand new set of FRPP heads and a like-new Aluminator block for less than $2,000, which sat in storage until now. The smart thing to do would have been to sell the goods and make some money, especially since my OEM engine only has 21,000 miles on it, but who can resist tinkering. Adding to that, when you can make something leaps and bounds better, might as well enjoy the fruits of your labor while you have the chance.

I'll actually begin with a shot of where I am as of the date I decided to start this thread (fall of '15), but will go backwards to the early stages and update it little by little with as much tech as I can. Since there are not a lot of Aluminator builds out there, hopefully this will be helpful to anyone considering this route. Here's the long block:

Automotive tire Motor vehicle Automotive design Automotive exterior Engineering


Before moving on, I have to pass on a world of thanks to Ed for designing the finest 2618 aluminum piston out there through Gibtec of Denver, and for his willingness to help out so many on this forum with the encyclopedia of knowledge he possesses!! For those that haven't seen the Gibtec "Custom ModMotor Piston" thread, here are my specs (0.002" oversize) and pics added from it:



Gas Circle Plastic Electric blue Liquid


Camera lens Camera Camera accessory Digital camera Lens


Helmet Sports equipment Automotive lighting Sports gear Audio equipment


I also intended to add an Aluminator build page up on my own site, but for now it just serves as a link back here since this got long. For anyone curious about the Aluminator block, this Castings page has a bunch of information on what makes it such a great choice! Stay tuned, more to come...
 
See less See more
5
#544 · (Edited)
To add some numbers (and hopefully clarity) to what is happening we can do a quickie approximation of the block/head growth and additional squeeze it applies to the gasket.

An ARP stud for our engines is 9 inches long. The co-efficient of thermal expansion for aluminum is 0.000023 (m/m˚C) and steel is 0.000012 (m/m˚C) or about one half that of aluminum. Because these coefficients change over temperature it is not as simple as just multiplying a couple numbers. To help in the calculation we can use a calculator over on the engineering tool box website to do the work for us. Click here => Online Thermal Linear Expansion Calculator and scroll down.

When you do the calculation for a 9 inch long steel stud from 68˚F (20˚C) to 212˚F (100˚C) the answer comes back 0.0086" growth. The same calculation for a 9 inch length of aluminum comes back 0.0166" growth. When the aluminum attempts to grow 0.0166" but is constrained by a stud that only grows 0.0086" the compressible gasket between the two is further compressed and the entire assembly is put under additional stress (clamping force) induced by the limits to the allowable growth imposed by the ARP stud.

This additional squeeze that is applied to the gasket further compresses the gasket creating a new and tighter stack height for the multiple metal gasket layers. When the engine cools the gasket does not spring back. This means the next time you start the engine it is af if you did not fully torque the head studs and the gasket seal is diminished compared to what it previously was.

When you retorque the studs you restore the stud's clamping force to the head, gasket and block bringing it back to what it originally was. Additionally at the gasket's new skinnier stack height it is significantly more resistant to additional stack height reductions. The net, net bottom line is the gasket seal you originally had, has been restored for operation after the first heat cycle and retorque of the studs.

Normally on a n/a engine the gasket seal is not as fragile as a supercharged engine. Engines with very high compression and/or thin gasket webs between the cylinders like a Pro-Stock engine are n/a exceptions. They will have increased difficulty maintaining a good gasket seal. Blown engines because of their elevated cylinder pressures have consistently been among the most difficult engines to properly seal up - especially as boost levels and load increase.

Hope this adds some visibility to the mechanics behind the issue and the reasons for retorquing.

Ed
 
#547 ·
Ed speaks the truth here (again!). For many years I had problems with head gaskets seal, three I think I build and had some kind of problem there. Then, one the last one, I finally went ahead and re-torque the heads after a couple heat cycle, and a racing night (but I shouldn't have done that...). This is the first engine I have no problem at all with head gasket seal. It really just work, in theory and in practice. I will do it on all engine build from now on.
 
#548 ·
Here's a crazy question. How much could the sun heat a engine up if it passed over it for a day. I know the metal body of a car can very easily burn the skin. I live in the south and mid summer days is brutal with the humidity. I guess the obvious answer is to buy a infrared thermometer and set some aluminum out. See what happens.
 
#549 ·
I understand the head gasket compresses further due to temperature increase thus causing a loss of clamping force when the engine cools. By re-torquing the heads you are restoring the clamping force. My question is this... After you re-torque the heads and go through a heat cycle won't the gasket suffer the same loss of clamping force as before the re-torque procedure.
 
#553 ·
The stack height reduction from the first heat cycle pretty much takes the mls gasket to it minimum stack height. After the retorque the stack height reduction from additional heat cycles is to small to matter.

Ed
 
#550 ·
Painlessauto.... I am no metallurgy expert, but I do know a little something about physics and metal stiffness (crush) from when I was a technical accident reconstructionist. As long as you are applying the same force back to the gasket it will reach a point where it cannot crush any further without additional force being applied. Even if, during the subsequent heat cycle after retorquing the same aluminum versus steel expansion situation takes place it would have to be significantly reduced because the metal being squeezed has a new density from being crushed a couple of times already (initial install and a heat cycle) and thus a greater resistance to being crushed any further. For example... Beat on a piece of metal trying to make it flat. At some point to get it any flatter or change its shape you either have to apply more force, apply heat, apply force from a different direction, etc.

I re-torqued my heads tonight to the recommended 90 ft. Lbs. I noticed that out of all 20 bolts from both sides only 3 took 90 ft lbs to remove... (yes I did them one at a time Ed) The other 17 did not make my torque wrench click when loosening them. They all snugged right back up to 90 and I have to say that the peace of mind is well worth it. It only took me about 2.5 hours to do both sides, and it cost me nothing. (sorry if that isn't very long Joe).

As far as the debate goes.... I guess I'd ask why wouldn't you do it? What's the downside except for a little bit of time?
 
#552 ·
Painlessauto.... I am no metallurgy expert, but I do know a little something about physics and metal stiffness (crush) from when I was a technical accident reconstructionist. As long as you are applying the same force back to the gasket it will reach a point where it cannot crush any further without additional force being applied. Even if, during the subsequent heat cycle after retorquing the same aluminum versus steel expansion situation takes place it would have to be significantly reduced because the metal being squeezed has a new density from being crushed a couple of times already (initial install and a heat cycle) and thus a greater resistance to being crushed any further. For example... Beat on a piece of metal trying to make it flat. At some point to get it any flatter or change its shape you either have to apply more force, apply heat, apply force from a different direction, etc.

I re-torqued my heads tonight to the recommended 90 ft. Lbs. I noticed that out of all 20 bolts from both sides only 3 took 90 ft lbs to remove... (yes I did them one at a time Ed) The other 17 did not make my torque wrench click when loosening them. They all snugged right back up to 90 and I have to say that the peace of mind is well worth it. It only took me about 2.5 hours to do both sides, and it cost me nothing. (sorry if that isn't very long Joe).

As far as the debate goes.... I guess I'd ask why wouldn't you do it? What's the downside except for a little bit of time?
I have a 5.4 steel block with Trickflow heads. Torque mine to 110ft/lbs so I am not too concerned with re-tourqe. This thread just got me thinking. I have ran 21# boost with no issues. This season I am running 24# with a whipple 3.4 so I figured I would ask.
 
#551 ·
Can't the re-torque theory be tested by checking the torque of the headstuds after a heat cycle?

Re-torquing certainly makes sense, but maybe 90ft lbs is enough to squish the stack height into a sufficiently un-squishable height. I figure the gasket manufacturer would test this before claiming that no re-torque is required.
 
#554 ·
Can't the re-torque theory be tested by checking the torque of the headstuds after a heat cycle?

Re-torquing certainly makes sense, but maybe 90ft lbs is enough to squish the stack height into a sufficiently un-squishable height. I figure the gasket manufacturer would test this before claiming that no re-torque is required.
Gasket manufacturers do their level best to produce gaskets for normal use that do not require retorquing. The discussion is not a favorite topic for them. The belief is that if one manufacture does not recommend retorquing and the others do, customers will buy the gasket that does not because they do not want th aggravation of retorquing.

Real world is that most n/a engines will not require it. Most supercharged engines should absolutely do it. Our chamber pressures can be 2x or more the pressure in a n/a engine and they can be there right from the hit with a PD blower.

Ed
 
#556 ·
Glad it has helped! My apologies for being a bit delinquent lately, but I'll have some pics up of the driver's side head re-torque soon enough just to keep it going. After that, I really need to get John's Vampire tapped in and then wait for all the snow in these parts to quit so I can get back out for another drive!
 
#558 ·
It's really helped actually. Like... a lot. Makes me not so sketch about doing the degreeing myself and also good to know the 96-98 intake cams can perform so well and about the advance.

I'm on way more of a budget than you but I suppose now I have to find $600 somewhere for one of those Vampires... I will not be running a ton of power, just about 500-600 on a freshened B headed motor with a Novi 2000. Also a silver car, Steeda special edition build #48 from model year 2000 with think every available option from Steeda that year.
 
#559 ·
Nothing at the moment. Still need to get the driver's side head buttoned back up, but with work and the tax deadline coming up, I've been a bit busy. There were a couple video links several pages back of the engine running if it helps - has been completely smooth. I'll try to get some more clips in the upcoming week, especially since the exhaust has a bit more of a rumble with the extra flow.

It's really helped actually. Like... a lot. Makes me not so sketch about doing the degreeing myself and also good to know the 96-98 intake cams can perform so well and about the advance.

I'm on way more of a budget than you but I suppose now I have to find $600 somewhere for one of those Vampires... I will not be running a ton of power, just about 500-600 on a freshened B headed motor with a Novi 2000. Also a silver car, Steeda special edition build #48 from model year 2000 with think every available option from Steeda that year.
Very cool - keep everyone posted. If you dive in to the degreeing process, you'll be amazed how it will fall in to place. If you do get stuck on anything, however, there is a ton of help available here. With all the insight Ed has lent to me on this project, I'm glad to pay it all forward as much as I can.
 
#561 · (Edited)
Apologies for the sabbatical over the last few weeks, but between Bronchitis, stuff at home, work (once I went back) then tax time, it's been crazy. Fortunately, things slowed down a bit today and I was finally able to dive back in to this re-torque project. I did start on the driver's side before I began hacking up my lungs, but essentially wrapped it up today and just have to put it all back together sometime tomorrow.

While the driver's side is a pain thanks to the master cylinder and hydro-boost unit, it's only slightly bit more of a nightmare than the passenger side, that is if you don't enjoy cracking open the fuel line and lifting all that stuff out of the way. At least on this side, once you wrestle with the hydro-boost, there is a bit more room since the strut tower is a couple inches farther away.

In any case, here's some of the play-by-play...

Crawl under the dash and start with the three studs holding the hydro-boost on. Fortunately, they are only torqued to 19 ft/lbs, so they come off easily enough (the fourth is accessed at the firewall in the engine compartment). You'll need a swivel and some extensions, but it isn't too bad. I also removed the brake pedal position switch connector since it made it easier to get the extension fed up there (the brake pressure switch also comes off soon after). You have to also pull the pin holding the push rod on and remove the switch, but it's easy enough.

Here's the view to get started:

Tire Automotive tire Motor vehicle Automotive exhaust Vehicle brake


What comes off:

Automotive lighting Asphalt Gadget Audio equipment Jewellery


Now for the real fun. The basics first are to remove the COP covers and COP's, disconnect the clutch cable, remove the bolts holding the power steering reservoir, un-bolt the dipstick tube (you have to pull it up slightly to swivel it out of the way), then get some of the wiring and vacuum lines out of the way as you see fit. I found it easiest to separate the MC from the booster (might be the norm), which is preceded by removing the nut in the fender that holds the distribution block in place.

Here's that stud as an FYI with the nut already out (easily accessed by lifting the body up a few inches):

Automotive tire Bicycle part Household hardware Gear Gas


Next, remove the two MC retaining nuts. You'll need an extension and possibly a swivel to get at the lower one, which is on a threaded stud, by the way (the upper is easy). Mine ended up backing out - it's reverse threaded in to the hydro-boost body - but it was actually easier to have it removed. This is what that assembly looks like:

Fluid Automotive tire Plastic bottle Electric blue Gas


From here, you have to "massage" the MC out and forward, which is aided by unclipping the hard lines from the plastic blocks on the frame and under the radiator. An extra set of hands helps here to hang on to the MC (don't grab it by the reservoir!!!), which gives you room to pull the hydro-boost forward and up like so:

Vehicle Motor vehicle Hood Car Automotive design


Lifted up on top of the strut tower (luckily there is enough play in the lines, but be gentle with it). It took a bit of wiggling to remove the valve cover, but it wasn't too bad:

Car Motor vehicle Vehicle Automotive design Automotive air manifold


Just so the MC isn't flopping around, it was loosely mounted back up:

Motor vehicle Car Automotive design Vehicle Automotive fuel system


From there, I broke out the torque wrench and went to work, following in sequence with #'s 11-20 (shown on the diagram in Post #533)

Automotive air manifold Motor vehicle Auto part Engineering Machine


I wanted to experiment with my torque wrench by using it to loosen each stud, and with it set at 85 ft/lbs, I was still able to break each nut loose before it told me I was at the set torque level. I'm not honestly sure if that is normal when using the wrench "backwards", or if it did indicate that the nuts were definitely now NOT at 85 ft/lbs, but I'm sure Ed will chime in on that. In any case, they are all back to the magic number, and I'll check each again in the AM before the valve cover goes back on.

A couple tips on this. First, you'll probably end up stretching the valve cover gaskets a hair, so it's just as easy to splurge for a new set. Since it's a bit of a chore wiggling the cover back in, I put small dabs of silicone in the gasket track and fit it back in, allowing it to dry overnight. It's definitely not going anywhere now, but maybe the Fel-Pro set just has a looser fit than what Ford uses. Don't forget the dabs of silicone at the seams between the heads and timing cover as well. I didn't snap a picture of the driver's side gasket, but here is the passenger side setting up:

Gas Audio equipment Automotive exterior Auto part Metal


Second, since the valve cover bolts have a teflon sealant on them that ends up all over the place when you remove them, I put a small bead around the shaft right under the head as I installed each. I'll do the same on the driver's side, but I wanted to be sure there was no chance of any leaks.

This process was definitely a bit of a chore, but with all that went in to this engine (and the same for anyone else), I'm glad I didn't skip it. Now, it's time to get John's Vampire finally hooked up, put some more miles on, then get ready to have the tune tweaked. More to come soon, hopefully with some video in here as well!
 
#562 ·
... I wanted to experiment with my torque wrench by using it to loosen each stud, and with it set at 85 ft/lbs, I was still able to break each nut loose before it told me I was at the set torque level. I'm not honestly sure if that is normal when using the wrench "backwards", or if it did indicate that the nuts were definitely now NOT at 85 ft/lbs, but I'm sure Ed will chime in on that. In any case, they are all back to the magic number, and I'll check each again in the AM before the valve cover goes back on ...!
The torque wrench should read accurately in both directions Joe because we would use it for both right and left hand threads. I think the distinction between tightening and loosening is the coming up on the torque target and the coming down from the torque target. On the way up as the torque increases the wrench will click at the target you have set as you hit it. In a loosening process even if it was at 85 ft/lbs as you began to loosen the fastener, each increment you move the wrench the fastener is at a lower torque value. Unless the nut is stuck because of a frictional set that it took after torquing it is improbable you will ever see the target torque during the loosening process.

Ed
 
#563 ·
Thanks, Ed. Left-hand threads: didn't even think about it - that's what I get for taking time off!! I thought the wrench may have given me a slight click as I intially pulled, but it makes sense that it would be gone the moment the nut went below the target. Not a big deal thought, they are all back where they need to be. Glad this is about over!
 
#565 ·
Agreed that break away torque is different.... The wrench probably won't click if you use the same setting to remove a nut as what was originally applied.

The part I was referring to in my earlier post about my wrench not clicking when loosening was just an indicator / clue to me that something had loosened up from what I had initially set them too. Or I could have just been tugging on the wrench differently when loosening them.

If you torque to 90 ft lbs I have found about 75 to 80 ft pounds to break it loose. When I was torquing my rod bolts to 75 ft lbs it only took about 68 ft lbs to break them loose.

I guess the above is also why bolt stretch is such an accurate way of measuring bolt torque. The friction of the nut or bolt head is dependent on so many factors, and those factors affect what torque is applied, or what the wrench tells you, whereas stretch doesn't lie.... Too bad it is nearly impossible to measure stretch on a head stud because they tend to move slightly while tightening.
 
#567 ·
Agreed that break away torque is different.... The wrench probably won't click if you use the same setting to remove a nut as what was originally applied.

The part I was referring to in my earlier post about my wrench not clicking when loosening was just an indicator / clue to me that something had loosened up from what I had initially set them too. Or I could have just been tugging on the wrench differently when loosening them.

If you torque to 90 ft lbs I have found about 75 to 80 ft pounds to break it loose. When I was torquing my rod bolts to 75 ft lbs it only took about 68 ft lbs to break them loose.

I guess the above is also why bolt stretch is such an accurate way of measuring bolt torque. The friction of the nut or bolt head is dependent on so many factors, and those factors affect what torque is applied, or what the wrench tells you, whereas stretch doesn't lie.... Too bad it is nearly impossible to measure stretch on a head stud because they tend to move slightly while tightening.
Great way to sum it up and complement what Ed added - many thanks, Mike. I wasn't really sure what to expect when breaking the nuts loose since this was my first time with a head re-torque, let alone use of studs instead of bolts. It probably would have made more sense to check each in the correct direction, but then again, it would have been useless trivia at that point. In any case, I'm glad I tackled this - I'll definitely feel much better when I start putting more RPM's on the engine, especially since the nice weather has finally arrived. Now, time to get on with the Vampire...
 
#568 ·
Everything went back together yesterday and I ran the engine for about 30 minutes - all is well and it's running incredibly smooth. Since the weather was so nice, I would have gone for another drive, but the passenger seat is unbolted as I get ready to wire in the Vampire. Will be out of town a few days for work and will be back at it when I return. May snag a couple video clips soon as well, but for the most part, it's just a matter of putting some easy miles on then having the tune adjusted at some point. Overall, everything has worked out great - time to start enjoying it!
 
#570 ·
After seeing how much work it is to pull the valve cover in the car I think I will make a run stand and do it with the engine out of the car before I even reinstall it. I am going to look into making an extension wiring harness from junk yard salvaged bits so I can run the engine 10 feet from the car and still use all the car's electronics. Unless I just use the salvaged computer and all the sensors too. I will probably regret this.
 
#575 ·
So I'm kinda inspired from this thread now that I have to find monies somewhere in my "budget" build for a Vampire... if a 600-700hp build can even be considered budget... Especially since I am near literally the only public E85 station in this part of my entire state and likely going to get a 93 and E85 tune and a switch to change between the 2. 25 minutes to E85 station=filling with 93 at a station 5 minutes from me if I'm lazy or just out of fuel.
 
#577 · (Edited)
Agreed, probably just run 93 and only go to gas stations I trust to not put 87 in all the tanks...

Also from this thread I mentioned to a local builder that a lot of ppl use about re-torquing an all aluminum motor after the first initial heat cycle and he said with ARP studs it isn't required... even with 8740 studs. I read this thread multiple times now and to me the re-torque does make sense and better safe than sorry...
 
#578 ·
Also from this thread I mentioned to a local builder that a lot of ppl use about re-torquing an all aluminum motor after the first initial heat cycle and he said with ARP studs it isn't required... even with 8740 studs. I read this thread multiple times now and to me the re-torque does make sense and better safe than sorry...
While it is not "required", it is great insurance. Despite this last step being a bit of a pain, I'm real glad I did it, and I'll be much more comfortable when winding up the RPM's. With as much money that goes in to these engines, there is just no sense in cutting ANY corners!!!!

On that note, while the cold weather and rain has settled in here in NE OH, I decided to peruse my "Build Binder" to tally up all the money that has gone in to this project. I was fortunate to get deals on a lot of components, and selling some things off paid down or paid for others. The OE cams in the new heads were sold for $200 which covered the '98 Cobra cams, for example, and the OE long-block brought in some decent coin. That definitely helped, as well as spreading the costs out by acquiring some items over a drawn out period while I waited to get started.

This project definitely had a lot of "bang for the buck" in it, but it could have been a lot worse - which will be the case for a lot of guys diving in to it. I also left out all the specialty tools I acquired, along with miscellaneous nuts, bolts, RTV, assembly lube, etc., so the figure below is just a base. My starter tune was also a freebie, but I'll plan on going back to that shop at some point for some dyno time and an updated tune, so that will probably be a few hundred dollars more, at least.

The bottom line: there really is no cheap way to build a mod motor!!

Font Number Parallel Document


P.S. No progress on the Vampire, but hoping to get back on it tomorrow. Pictures will definitely be in order soon enough.
 
#579 ·
That's about the same price for me... But I also did a tubular K-member and A-arms, and Kooks long tubes and H-pipe... My total is around $10,000 start to finish. That includes specialty tools and the offset of selling other parts and pieces from the old motor.

I consider this a bargain considering a friend of mine did a 2014 GT500 motor in his 2010 GT for $25,000, and that's doing the install himself.... . I make more power, did all the work myself, and spent a LOT less.
 
#581 ·
That's about the same price for me... But I also did a tubular K-member and A-arms, and Kooks long tubes and H-pipe... My total is around $10,000 start to finish. That includes specialty tools and the offset of selling other parts and pieces from the old motor.

I consider this a bargain considering a friend of mine did a 2014 GT500 motor in his 2010 GT for $25,000, and that's doing the install himself.... . I make more power, did all the work myself, and spent a LOT less.
There's definitely an expensive k-member underneath as well, along with a whole slew of other stuff that's been done over the years. I basically turned the car in to the version that I consider perfect. All the details in the links in sig from my other sites! Loving the car even more now, just wish the wet weather would get out of here!

Nice, saved that pic for a reference of how much more $$$ I need to finish mine. If you think you are on a budget... you should see my price list lol. I'm even sticking with the cast crank for free. I just picked up a fully finished WAP block .020 over, decked and line honed and only a few hours on the dyno for $300 locally... Got my Cobra intake and low mileage B heads and FRPP shorties for free after selling the stuff they came with. Cast crank is free... Got my entire fully optioned 34k mile Steeda GT with the Novi 2000 for $5500 (bad wrist pin). Craigslist for me or this skrit isn't getting done...

So basically opposite of what you are doing lol. I am going to pony up for the Cobra Engineering stuff tho and obviously new ARP stuff, Stewart pump and 3V oil pump/boundary gears after reading this thread tho. Again, this is legit the most useful thread I have ever read online for real, I'm not just saying that. And I started in Mustang forums all the way back in 2001 on the Corral... #backintheday

CL ftw!
Glad this thread has helped! I was fortunate to have the time to lay out all the details in between updating pages on my own Terminator site, but the writing does take a lot of work. Even though I went the Aluminator/Nemak route, there is still a lot to benefit guys that will use a Teksid or WAP block.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top