Forums
-
OzFalcon
-
- 859
- posts
-
- By Outback Jack
-
- 7,259
- posts
-
- By hendrixhc
-
- 1,203
- posts
-
- By 2redrovers
-
-
General
-
- 62,361
- posts
-
- By deankdx
-
-
Merlin's Metalcraft Emporium
-
Panel Beating Tech
happy tappy...
- 214
- posts
-
- By Big Blue
-
- 58
- posts
-
- By 63falcon
-
-
Technical
-
- 15,669
- posts
-
- 9,137
- posts
-
- 1,011
- posts
-
- 765
- posts
-
- 3,992
- posts
-
- 4,282
- posts
-
- 3,608
- posts
-
- 227
- posts
-
- 2,271
- posts
-
- 3,886
- posts
-
- 628
- posts
-
- 2,841
- posts
-
- 252
- posts
-
- 1,407
- posts
-
-
Projects
-
- 9,045
- posts
-
- 87,367
- posts
-
- By 2redrovers
-
- 4,572
- posts
-
- By Ando81
-
- 1,057
- posts
-
- By 408WPN
-
-
Trash 'n' Treasure
-
- 1,369
- posts
-
- By XDWAGS
-
- 3,693
- posts
-
- By gromet88
-
- 188
- posts
-
- By Outback Jack
-
- 4,485
- posts
-
- By scottly
-
-
Forum Statistics
8,106
Total Topics266,064
Total Posts -
Member Statistics
-
Who's Online 0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 44 Guests (See full list)
There are no registered users currently online
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
That is true about the heater hoses in the firewall getting in the way, since I had a clevo in a 85 XF,.....but a work around is ( if your not interested in A.C ), is to plumb the heater hoses into the AC core...........( some hunting in supercheap for S bend heater hoses did the trick )and I guarantee you 100%.......you will get better heat in the cabin, thanks to the bigger AC core....and i just cut the ends of the original heater core and plumbed them up............ -
didn't know these electric water pumps existed.......might be worth looking into....
-
If you can fit an elec water pump in the lower rad hose area of the bay, then you could cut the whole front off the pump and cap it up. -
Thanks @ashXFute @gerg  e-series would have the same problem as x-series, unless they released a different floor tunnel for the v8? OR as I was thinking earlier - could possibly be that the back of the windsor motor is mounted further forward that the 4.0l? - exactly what gerg said.  Ive reached out to CRS but not in detail about this. Let me have more of a proper conversation with them and Ill get back to you all. -
I think it might be to do with engine placement of the V8 vs 6, or parts availability of the V8 bellhousing (Mustang). The difference in input length is 5/8” (16mm) I believe.
Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk
-
The v8 input shift is definitely longer.
I had both manual boxes sitting side by side at 1 point.
The v8 factory bellhousing was deeper, I'm assuming for a bigger clutch assembly.
Can't remember if there was much difference in shifter extension but the v8 box would have sat back a bit further just from that
Sent from my SM-N981B using Tapatalk
-
The V8 t5 isn't any better than a 6 cyl t5 as far as strength is concerned, I don't know why they are longer, there could be a bunch of reasons for it -
I don't know, I've never come across a V8 flywheel to check
-
Thansk all   @Thom @gerg Does this mean the e-series v8 box would not fit in the xf behind a windsor, as it would be shifted back too far as it has a longer input shaft?  Keen to know this, as I will make sure not to go down this path even though the box is better. (unless I can shorten the input shaft).  **** also I would assume in the e-series for the v8 engines, is the shifter mounted further back? Or does the 4.0l sit more forward than the windsor in the eseries? There has to be a reson why the input shaft was longer?
-
The question I had for you@Thom was what flywheel tooth count did the later E-series Windsors have? I seem to remember you saying that the BTR auto ones had the 164 tooth flexplate like a clevo (and were 50oz vs clevo 28) but were the manuals also 164 tooth or 157 (like the other small Windsors)?
Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk
-
-
Popular Contributors
