1975 'stang

the_great_canadian_monkey · 04-11-2001, 10:51 PM

Ok, there is a 1975 mustang in the bailiff's office, I had posted earlier and said it was a '67 my mistake, huge mistake infact, but anyways, I'm guessing the engine doens't work, and I have seen a couple Ford 302's Will those work, and where would I be able to find more info on these engines? or would you be able to provide me with something. I'm not that experienced with cars, but know many people that would help me stick an engine in the car, As well, this may seem like a stupid question to some, but to me I have no idea of the answer. Can you stick Any type of engine into a that mustang? What modifications would I need to put? All I've heard so far is that I have to change the tranny, but is there anything else? I'm sure there is... but thanks for any help

red · 04-12-2001, 06:07 PM

If the '75 has a 302 in it now then it would be easy to put in another 302. If it does not have a 302, you would likely have to change the whole drive train (trans and rear end) to handle the extra power.

Here is some info. on the 302.

the_great_canadian_monkey · 04-12-2001, 06:13 PM

Hi, thanks for information on the 302... I heard from a friend that a 289 would have better gas mileage? does this sound right? and Could I get info on that as well... thanks,

Tom

Rev · 04-12-2001, 08:34 PM

Also brakes, suspension, and rear axle. If it doesn't already come with an existing original 302, I would look for onr that did. My $.02.

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

the_great_canadian_monkey · 04-12-2001, 08:48 PM

Hey, I was wondering also if you could tell me what kinda gas mileage the 302 can get, thanks again......

Rev · 04-12-2001, 09:18 PM

Mine with quite a few mods gets 12-13. When it was almost new with a 289 with a 2 barrel and single exhaust, it got 16. If economy is important, don't get an oldie. If outright speed is important, you can do better with a newer one. The only reason to get an old Mustang is just because you love them. I doubt anyone will disagree with me here.

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

the_great_canadian_monkey · 04-12-2001, 09:25 PM

thanks, I totally agree with you on lovin mustangs... that's why I'm trying to figure out if it's the right car for me right now. It's the style of the old one's, like I hate the new mustangs every time I see them, and even the old mustang bodies from 198sumthin' to '93, I've always hated those. The only mustang I'd luv to have were the old ones, but as I said, I'm not sure if it's the car for me, considering I don't have much money in the first place, gas prices are rising, and I'm preparing for university or college soon, I might have to stick it out/w a civic or somethin' until I'm ready to go for the 'stang, but I'll see... mebbe it'll be a nice project car for me... thanks for the posts guys, they're greatly appreciated, and information is still nice! help me make the right decision! hehe, laterz,

tom

04-16-2001, 03:32 PM

Hey canadian, if i were you i wouldn't decide to go with a 289 just because of mileage concerns. The 13 cubic inches doesn't make that much of a difference on mileage, it has more to do with how you drive it and the combination of parts you install on the vehicle. The 289 was always a good revving engine because it has a fairly short stroke (something like 2.87" compared to a 302's 3" stroke). The 271 horsepower 289 from the late 60's could rev to the moon becuase it had mechanical camshaft (not hydraulic) with a fairly decent cam (for back then) and actually had decent torque and very good throttle response because of the small port heads, small valves and small 4 Barrel carburetor (it was like a 450 cfm carburetor). I have an '84 (ugly) but i get regularly 16 to 18mpg even with a holley 600cfm carburetor and me behind the wheel. Of course i'm always cruising in higher gears and have overdrive (manual trans.) so i'd guess maybe 14 or 15 in a mustang II. Good luck on your decision

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 T5, FMS aluminum radiator & 180* t-stat, 1 5/8 shortys/2.5" duals, '88 GT tail lights and wheels, Holley 4160 4 BBL, FMS smog pump idler

[This message has been edited by 84stangLX (edited 04-16-2001).]

Brian Browning · 04-20-2001, 02:21 PM

I had a 76 Mustang II MPG back in college. It was basically reskinned pinto and I didn't like it. But, I'm not looking to buy one you are. If that's what you want, you'll be the one paying for it, get it.

04-11-2001, 10:51 PM	#1
the_great_canadian_monkey Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Prince George, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 5	1975 'stang Ok, there is a 1975 mustang in the bailiff's office, I had posted earlier and said it was a '67 my mistake, huge mistake infact, but anyways, I'm guessing the engine doens't work, and I have seen a couple Ford 302's Will those work, and where would I be able to find more info on these engines? or would you be able to provide me with something. I'm not that experienced with cars, but know many people that would help me stick an engine in the car, As well, this may seem like a stupid question to some, but to me I have no idea of the answer. Can you stick Any type of engine into a that mustang? What modifications would I need to put? All I've heard so far is that I have to change the tranny, but is there anything else? I'm sure there is... but thanks for any help

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Car Audio System in a 90 LX V8 stang convertible	ziggy_2k	Windsor Power	2	05-21-2002 12:33 AM
Stang Review by Fbody guy? Why not =)	SkarodoM	Blue Oval Lounge	7	10-27-2001 02:39 PM
Thad's stolen Stang	joe4speed	Blue Oval Lounge	12	04-06-2001 12:20 AM

04-12-2001, 06:07 PM	#2
red Registered Member Join Date: Sep 1998 Location: Millburn, NJ Posts: 310	If the '75 has a 302 in it now then it would be easy to put in another 302. If it does not have a 302, you would likely have to change the whole drive train (trans and rear end) to handle the extra power. Here is some info. on the 302.

04-12-2001, 06:13 PM	#3
the_great_canadian_monkey Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Prince George, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 5	Hi, thanks for information on the 302... I heard from a friend that a 289 would have better gas mileage? does this sound right? and Could I get info on that as well... thanks, Tom

04-12-2001, 08:34 PM	#4
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Also brakes, suspension, and rear axle. If it doesn't already come with an existing original 302, I would look for onr that did. My $.02. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.

04-12-2001, 08:48 PM	#5
the_great_canadian_monkey Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Prince George, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 5	Hey, I was wondering also if you could tell me what kinda gas mileage the 302 can get, thanks again......

04-12-2001, 09:18 PM	#6
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Mine with quite a few mods gets 12-13. When it was almost new with a 289 with a 2 barrel and single exhaust, it got 16. If economy is important, don't get an oldie. If outright speed is important, you can do better with a newer one. The only reason to get an old Mustang is just because you love them. I doubt anyone will disagree with me here. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.

04-12-2001, 09:25 PM	#7
the_great_canadian_monkey Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Prince George, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 5	thanks, I totally agree with you on lovin mustangs... that's why I'm trying to figure out if it's the right car for me right now. It's the style of the old one's, like I hate the new mustangs every time I see them, and even the old mustang bodies from 198sumthin' to '93, I've always hated those. The only mustang I'd luv to have were the old ones, but as I said, I'm not sure if it's the car for me, considering I don't have much money in the first place, gas prices are rising, and I'm preparing for university or college soon, I might have to stick it out/w a civic or somethin' until I'm ready to go for the 'stang, but I'll see... mebbe it'll be a nice project car for me... thanks for the posts guys, they're greatly appreciated, and information is still nice! help me make the right decision! hehe, laterz, tom

04-16-2001, 03:32 PM	#8
84stangLX Guest Posts: n/a	Hey canadian, if i were you i wouldn't decide to go with a 289 just because of mileage concerns. The 13 cubic inches doesn't make that much of a difference on mileage, it has more to do with how you drive it and the combination of parts you install on the vehicle. The 289 was always a good revving engine because it has a fairly short stroke (something like 2.87" compared to a 302's 3" stroke). The 271 horsepower 289 from the late 60's could rev to the moon becuase it had mechanical camshaft (not hydraulic) with a fairly decent cam (for back then) and actually had decent torque and very good throttle response because of the small port heads, small valves and small 4 Barrel carburetor (it was like a 450 cfm carburetor). I have an '84 (ugly) but i get regularly 16 to 18mpg even with a holley 600cfm carburetor and me behind the wheel. Of course i'm always cruising in higher gears and have overdrive (manual trans.) so i'd guess maybe 14 or 15 in a mustang II. Good luck on your decision ------------------ '84 Mustang 5.0 T5, FMS aluminum radiator & 180* t-stat, 1 5/8 shortys/2.5" duals, '88 GT tail lights and wheels, Holley 4160 4 BBL, FMS smog pump idler [This message has been edited by 84stangLX (edited 04-16-2001).]

04-20-2001, 02:21 PM	#9
Brian Browning Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Posts: 86	I had a 76 Mustang II MPG back in college. It was basically reskinned pinto and I didn't like it. But, I'm not looking to buy one you are. If that's what you want, you'll be the one paying for it, get it.