The Converse kit says for 'mustang EFI 5.0L', but has anyone done the conversion with a carbed 302 windsor? I thought the 5L mustang was simply a modernised version of the windsor block?

Or how about the conversion with a cleveland block?

As much as I would love an EFI V8, importing a crate v8 into my country (Australia) would be far too expensive (about 12 times the price of a carbed v8).

What kind of tools would I need for the conversion? I have a fair amount of decent tools to work with, but I want to make sure.

What else would you recommend that isnt in the kit? or different from what is in the kit?

If your 351 cleveland engines are the same as our early '70's 351C's then the engine mounts are the same as on the 302W's. I swapped a '72 351C into a '78 Ford pickup that was originally equipped with a 302. The engine bolted up to the stock 302 engine mounts. The 351C also uses the windsor bellhousing bolt pattern so you can use any windor transmission bellhousing. The 351M and 400 engines use the larger 429/460 big block bellhousing bolt pattern.

Personally, I would stick with the 5.0 litre engine or a stroked 331cid or 347cid and install a good set of aftermarket cylinder heads on it along with a matching camshaft. The 351C is an old design engine and many improvements have been made to the 5.0 engine in the past 30+ years. Why reinvent wooden buggy wheels when we have modern radial tires?

Good luck with your project!

The small block Chev seems to be a better fit. A chap here in Tassie has fitted both Chev and Ford V8s to 240's and found that the firewall had to be pushed back a bit to fit the Ford. In terms of kw-per-kg the Chev is a better proposition also. Adapters are available to fit the Ford gearboxes, including the toploader, to the Chev. Fitting a one-piece tailshaft is apparently a wise move as is a diff from a V6 (264) or a Ford 9 inch. One disadvantage of fitting a V8 is that the extra weight makes the handling worse, the steering heavier, and can cause high rates of front tyre wear. Power steering is a 'must have'.

As others have said, The Ford is a better fit. It's narrower and one won't have header clearance problems as significant as with a Chevy. And since there's no distributor in the back, one doesn't have to provide room for it. The Ford is lighter by about fifty pounds. I would bet than on a kw per kg basis, the Ford is better than the Chevy. Notice I didn't say anything about kw per dollar...

A one piece driveshaft is not a good idea in my opinion. It limits suspension travel - everyone I know that used one has had to install some type of pinion snubber or spring spacers to keep the driveshaft from hitting the tunnel. A one piece shaft can also limit top speed depending on final drive. It's much more effective to simply build a proper two piece arrangement and bolt it in the stock location.

One doesn't need to change rear ends unless one's looking for ratios unavailable from Volvo. I put a Dana 30 PowrLok in my 945 diff and I've got 245mm tires on the back and 440ft/lbs in the front... The axles are bigger than a Camaro's, FWIW.

My car gained 150 lbs from the swap (NA Volvo four and autobox to aluminium head Ford V8 and T5) and has 53.5% of its weight on the front wheels. The car handles fine. The rate of front tire wear isn't noticably higher than before. I doubt the front end weighs significantly more than a 965.

Peter

I'm no expert on these conversions, but from what I've bee told and have seen there may be sufficient differences between LHD and RHD cars to make the Chev a better proposition for Australian circumstances (RHD). We might have slightly different versions of the engines here 'downunder' too (?).

You're right about one piece driveshafts hitting the tunnel - the car I drove did just that. A most disturbing noise!

I think the idea of fitting a Ford 9" has more to do with the strength of the crown wheel and pinion rather than the axles.

Please bear in mind that I'm only reflecting the opinions of the rabid Ford/GM loonies down here and, since most of 'em are quite insane, I'm probably dead wrong :)

Hey Peter, how are you doing?

I think the problem with the driveshaft is that most people who do a one piece shaft are using too large diameters, like 3". This, as you say, causes clearance problems. I am talking about 240, but it is probably similar for 700/900.

I run a 2" one piece, which has no clearance problems at all, but it's disadvantage is that you are limited to 120mph top speed because of the critical frequency (or something like that) of the shaft. (It has a somewhat low critical frequency because of it's longish length and the small diameter) You probably are aware of this already.

The ultimate solution with absolutely no problems (aside from cost) is a one piece 2" carbon shaft. This is what I will get eventually. And IMHO, it's not that terribly expensive.

The problem with the 2 piece shafts is that Ross Converse was having some kind of knocking problem on acceleration as the rear axle wants to shift. And I like not having a center bearing and the extra U-joint. The one piece setup (especially carbon) probably is lighter than the 2 piece config. Maybe someone else can clarify exactly what the problem was with the 2 piece setup.

See ya around!

Greg

The problem with a two piece shaft is the center bearing. The stock Volvo rubber bearing carrier tends to degrade quickly when pitted against significant HP. AFAIK, stock-ish V8s haven't taxed the center breaing carriers that much.

I replaced the center carrier and bearing with a Spicer unit designed for trucks. I don't expect any problems.

Peter

That's interesting, what exactly is this Spicer unit that you mention? Is this like a heavy duty center bearing setup? Did you have to modify the shaft further to be able to fit this Spicer unit?

What diameter is your driveshaft?

Thanks,

Greg

Greg,

The Spicer unit is designed for truck use - I don't know which truck. The shaft did need to be modified. It uses a Spicer splined section and bearing. It's not a direct replacement for the Volvo. It does mount to the stock crossmember, however,

I could've had this center "assembly" installed in the middle of the Volvo driveshaft, but in the end we just made a whole new drivehsaft with more easily available, cheaper and stronger u-joints. The whole thing was about $350.

The drivehsaft sections are 2.5 inches.

Peter

Yeah, maybe you have that backwards, I know for a fact that the Ford fits without firewall mods, and I've heard that the chevy needs firewall hammering.

Also, depending on which rear end the car has originally, he probably won't need a rear end swap. Not for strength anyways. But a swap is a good way to get a different ratio.

As for weight, the handling can be affected, but there are ways to minimize that. With aluminum heads, Converse claims that the ford 5.0 swap only adds 50 lbs. That is not much at all. In fact, with the suspension mods, my car handles MUCH better than it did stock. I do not expect much difference in front tire wear at all. And there is a guy on this board who switched TO manual steering on his V8 240. And he drives the car daily.

I would agree with you that the Chevy engine is probably easier to get more power out of, and is easier to have a better power to weight ratio, but the ford 5.0 seems to fit better. And I am not a loyalist to Chevy or Ford. I'm a Volvo guy!

Greg

The conversions I mentioned are on right hand drive cars (Aussie). Maybe that accounts for the easier fit of the Chev over the Ford? A near neighbour has a 'Chevolvo' and the engine fitted without modification to the firewall. With around 450 bhp it goes indecently quickly too. Felt like I was driving a slug when I stepped back into the 242GT :)

Oh, that's a good point! Maybe you are right. I don't even know if the Converse kit will work on a RHD car, because I think the engine sits over to the right just a little bit.

450 bhp?? That's awesome. Is that a 240? Did your neighbor have to put in a Ford 9" rear end? I think that's when I would start to get nervous about the Volvo rear end.

Greg

The car is a '80 (I think) 244, now with a '350' badge on the back. The original owner/buider fitted a 500 bhp engine. Braided hoses everywhere, all the good stuff. It originally also used the standard 4 speed Volvo gearbox and diff! The engine would redline in 4th at about 150 mph. The box lasted sursprisingly well until some idiot decided to practice burnouts and split the casing. Its fitted with a 260 rear end, a Ford 4 speed toploader, and a modified Ford prop shaft. It wears Simmons 3 piece 15" dia alloys about 10" (!) wide with 265 low profile tyres. Manual steering, tiny steering wheel and handles like an absolute dog. I pulled some arm and shoulder muscles driving it. Its for sale. Almost wish I had the cash...

The original 500 hp engine was enlarged to 8 litres (!) had a turbo added (!!) and nitrous (!!) and ended up mid-mounted in a Mitsubishi van (!!!). Estimated at around 2000 bhp. It did demonstration burnouts at the local racetrack that went on forever. You could feel the ground and air vibrating from over 100 ft away. Absolute animal act.

I'm almost certain you have this backwards. The standard chev 350 requires firewall modifications due to it's rear mounted dizzy. The Ford does not require firewall mods.

-Kenny

A carbed version conversion would be no problem. There are numerous folks that have done it.

I don't know about the Cleveland block as far a mounts go, but the taller deck height and wider cylinder head spacing (plus the extra weight) may prove problematic depending on the car it's going into. Certainly right side header clearance is already a problem with the 5.0 block - the Cleveland's got to be worse. I considered this block before building my car (stroked 5.0 945) but decided against it for the preceding reasons.

I didn't use the Converse kit, but have heard good, if not, great, things about it. I suspect that a carbed 5.0 into an early Volvo using the Converse kit would be about as starighforward as one could get.

Peter

The cleveland block won't fit (well, you could make it, but it a b*tch)

The 351W is basically the same external casting as a 302, the cleveland has the same displacement as a windsor, but is otherwise a different anmal completely. Go 302 HO or 351W for less headaches.

-Kenny

You might want to try a visit to the Converse web site -

www.converseengineering.com

Some of your questions are answered there.

yes - i went there first. there was no email address , asking questions though snail mail would be slow and tedious. and phoning the other side of the world is right out.

thats why im asking the questions here. Hopefully somebody may have at least some of the answers.