New member here

I ha<O</Ove a 5.0 which came out of a 1996 Explorer and is going in my 1964 Ford Falcon with a T5 5-Speed. The Explorer 5.0 had an automatic with a 164 tooth flex plate and I am sure is a 50-oz imbalance.

<O</O<O</O
The T5 from a 1994-2004 3.8 V6 Mustangs are very easy to find with low miles and a lot cheaper and the torque rating is the same as the old fox body T5. The bell housing from the 3.8 V6 T5 has same bolt pattern as the V8 and will bolt up. Since the 3.8 V6 used an 11" flywheel with 164 teeth where the fox body T5 used a 10.5" flywheel with 157 teeth, the starter mounted on the V6 bell housing would never engage the smaller flywheel. Also 3.8 V6 fly wheel will not bolt up to a 5.0.
<O</O<O</O
After little research, I found that a 1989 F150 with a 5.0L and a 5-spd manual transmission used an 11-inch flywheel with 164 teeth and it is a 50-oz imbalance which is same imbalance as the foxbody 5.0. I believe all 5.0 are 50-oz imbalance regardless if it is an automatic or manual.
<O</O<O</O
The pics below of a 3.8 V6 Mustang T5 11" clutch sitting on top of a 1989 F150 5.0L 11" Flywheel. All holes lines up! The V6 starter should work fine.
<O</O<O</O
I am not sure how much performance will suffer on a Mustang 5.0 with little larger flywheel. I guess the larger flywheel works fine on the V6 Mustang!
<O</O<O</O
Ford increased the T5 input shaft lenght on the SN95 Mustangs starting in 94 with both the V8 & V6. The V6 with T5 was used up to 2004. However, 94-95 was the last two years ford made the Winsor 5.0 V8 with a T5 and it had a special bell housing to use the smaller 10.5" flywheel and those are rate.
<O</O<O</O
Why?
<O</O<O</O
Has anyone used a 5.0 from either Explorer or Mustang with a larger 11” flywheel in their F150?

<O</O<O</O
Any concern with imbalance / performance issues ?

<O</OThanks

<O</OWaid <O</O

<O</O

 

It sounds like the Mustang T5 always used the smaller flywheel so it makes sense that's what was used right to the end of production.. using up parts they already have.

There will be no performance difference directly attributable to the 11" flywheel with this powertrian in a truck, but the extra weight of this vehicle over a mustang will have a noticable effect.

 

I am not worried too much about the performance.

I am little concerned about the balance part. I would think the larger F150 flywheel with 11" clutch would have more holding power than the smaller 10.5".

Waid

 

Balance won't be an issue as long as you use a 50oz balance flywheel. If the larger flywheel is slightly heavier(this is a separate spec from balance) then there is more "flywheel effect" so the engine won't be as quick to rev, but as already stated this would be overshadowed by the much heavier vehicle weight so it's not something you would notice except when free revving the motor in neutral.

 

Paul, the 96 Explorer 5.0 is going in to my 64 Falcon. I think the 64 Falcon is lighter than the foxbody Mustang.

Waid

 

Oh... maybe.. though the Fox was unibody and was pretty easy to get down to or below a 3000lb curb weight.. depending upon body style and options and without stripping it bare like a drag car. My recolection says they used heavier sheet metal in the '60 and I have no knowledge of those old Falcons besides what they look like so all this said it could still be in the average range for a Stang which was anywhere between 3000 and 3800lbs.

 

If the flywheel on the 11" is the same as the one on my truck I would not use it.
It is a lot thicker than one on a passenger car.

351's had 11" flywheels and an 11" is a upgrade on a 302, so it would be reasonable to assume you could get an 11" flywheel with a 50* imbalance.

I would call D&D out of Michigan or McLeod.

64 Falcons are awesome !

I would get an aluminum flywheel for it.

 

<ARTICLE> </ARTICLE>

 

I know you would like to get it together,but I would keep your eye out for an aftermarket flywheel that will accommodate a 50* imbalance. 8lbs. is a lot of weight in the reciprocating assembly.

 

You will have no issues using the larger flywheel. The weight difference is negligible once it's in motion. There were many manual transmissioned 5.0's in the late 80's to 1997 that used the same larger flywheel with their M5ODR2 transmissions. As for the 50 oz being somehow different in between the 157 and 164 tooth flywheels, the size of the counterweight is different to compensate for the change in the weight's location (farther away from the centerline of the crank). The things to watch is the thickness of the flywheel matching the 3.8's wheel so that you don't run into issues from the deeper bellhousing in regards to clutch engagement.

 

baddad457, you are correct.

I looked up a flywheel for a 1969 Ford Mustang with a 302. This is what I came up with on Valeo's webiste:


14.250 OD, 164 Teeth, 30Lbs
Fits
66 - 70 Ford Fairlane,
68 - 70 Ford Falcon,
68 - 73 Ford Mustang,
71 - 73 Ford Torino

Since my block is on the bench right now upsidedown, I can play with the bellousing and check everyting out.

The whole motivation for V6 T5 is that it has same spec. as the foxbody V8 T5 and there are tons of them out there that are not abused and not beat to death with low miles for lower price!

Waid
<!--end maincontent--><!-- <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="cartlinks"><tr><td>Shopping CartMy Account</td></tr></table> -->

 

I have a FRP scatter shield in my capri that can take either the 157 or the 164 tooth flywheel, I will be going with the 164 simply because the tranny/clutch combo that i have came out of a 69 mach 1, which had the bigger flywheel (and going with the bigger flywheel is an easier/cheaper solution than buying another clutch when it came with a new centerforce)

as long as you are using the correct balance of flywheel (50oz) there wouldn't be any balance issues.

unless you are competitively racing, there shouldn't be enough of a performance loss to really notice, and if nothing else the car will drive smoother on the street because of the additional inertia.

iirc the sn95 v6 tranny did have a deeper bell, but also had a longer input shaft. although i'm not sure why either! didn't know they used the bigger flywheel, but if so i don't see you having any problems with using what you have.

I agree that Falcons are awesome! although my tudor is just a wee bit smaller than yours, i doubt its more than 3000 with me in it and a full tank of gas. I have the s10 shifter for the "someday t5 swap"

 

Hey waid, im doing the same swap into a 77 bmw 320I and im curious as to what flywheel/clutch combo you ended up going with? Also did you just use the stock engine harness and computer to run the motor or did you use a piggyback for it? Thanks, Matt

 

Don't even think about using a flywheel for a '69 Mustang. All pre-'81 302's were 28oz imbalance like the 351w, not 50oz.