SHO Engine Swap

[andyofcolumbusmerkur]

I had a dark green 95 SHO for a short time. I think it was the only used car I didn't lose money on.

[thesameguy]

If you want a manual SHO conversion, there is a outfit that makes an adapter that gets you to a standard SBF pattern.

But then you have work out trans mount, clutch, and driveshaft.

Personally I don't prefer a manual in the Scorpio. But I would like more power.

I'd do that Ecoboost, personally. Even a 2.0l would be more power. A 1.6l would probably feel like more power! Seems a shame to match a 7500rpm V6 to an automatic. Well, an A4LD anyway. High revving slushbox hurts my ears.

[DAReese]

It was a T9 in the 5spd Scorpio. 1989 model year only. No 5spd for the US in 1988.
The most commonly passed around rumor I've heard repeated multiple times is that there were 200 5spd cars.

That website thinks there are some 1990 model year Merkurs, too.

There were 1990 MY Scorpios. They just weren't sold. The improvements for the 90MY a HO 2.9, MT75, mono colors and airbags were all going to be offered.

Easy enough just stick a Merkur badge on the 1990 Granada and take a picture. Like the 1988 Merkur Scorpio brochures that show the wheels we never got, or some of the initial single page print ads that show Merkur Scorpios with glass headlights.

Take that picture and type the new 1990 Granada specs on a piece of paper and viola! Instant 1990 Merkur Scorpio press kit. I'm not sure the 1990 Merkur Scorpio went much further than that. Especially considering this was the tactic used when the car was introduced for the 1988 model year.
I'd like to be wrong, if someone can prove it.

They were Ford test cars IIRC. They had to certify the airbags, smog, etc. Ford was to the point of producing literature for them as well. I recall reading that they scrapped them. I have a training manual for the MT-75 transmission that lists includes the Scorpio. It doesn't mention Merkur anywhere, which is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere. The plans after axing the XR4Ti was to keep the Scorpio and kill the Merkur brand.

[brokencase]

I'd do that Ecoboost, personally. Even a 2.0l would be more power. A 1.6l would probably feel like more power! Seems a shame to match a 7500rpm V6 to an automatic. Well, an A4LD anyway. High revving slushbox hurts my ears.

I have a sports car if I want to wind through the gears - The Scorpio is a Grand Touring vehicle. Recall they only put the A4LD behind the Cosworth Scorpio in Europe, which, performance-wise is very similar to the SHO.

I hear you, I like the 2.3L ecoboost, but the swap would be too much work - more energy than I think I have at this point in my life.

The SHO is a "same vintage" motor. Most of the work will be in the wiring, It uses the EECIV and you will be able to re purpose most of the pins on the connector. Just have to wire in some additional sensors and wire in a new injector harness. A/C compressor is on the same side as the 2.9.
Power steering is on the same side as the 2.9, Intake throttle body is centrally located like the 2.9.

The rest is just ancillaries, motor mounts, and exhaust.

I do wonder if the SHO oil pan will clear the cross member, and if it is too tall to fit under the hood. Will have to investigate those items further.

[brokencase]

I think the oil pan on the SHO motor is going to interfere with the cross member or the steering rack on the Scorpio.
You can see some pictures here about halfway down and see what I mean.
https://shoforum.com/index.php?threads/ ... ost-972105

All the other engine dimensions look OK.

[john keefe]

An SHO/Yami would be nice. Unfortunately in CA, the engine has to be installed in the same configuration as it was in the donor car. So, other than an Audi S3/S4 FWD, you couldn't put a FWD transverse engine into a RWD, longitudinal layout. But, another option here would be the Duratec V6 or V8 out of a Lincoln LS, which was RWD-longitudinal, and performed nicely.

Those LS's were nice, sleeper cars and handled PDG. Started off as a bargain vs. BMW 3/5 series, MB C-class, Lexus G, etc. Then typically, prices started climbing. On the other hand, Ford/Lincoln never really made a big deal out of the performance the car had, so I think the public kinda' considered them American FWD pretenders in the Acura/Lexus entry level.

[andyofcolumbusmerkur]

Those LS's were nice, sleeper cars and handled PDG. Started off as a bargain vs. BMW 3/5 series, MB C-class, Lexus G, etc. Then typically, prices started climbing. On the other hand, Ford/Lincoln never really made a big deal out of the performance the car had, so I think the public kinda' considered them American FWD pretenders in the Acura/Lexus entry level.

Ya but you can't get the manual Lincoln with the bigger engine only the auto.

[brokencase]

Unfortunately in CA, the engine has to be installed in the same configuration as it was in the donor car.

How did you ever find out about that rule?

The later engines you suggest are all great suggestions. But none are an easy path to more power in the Scorpio.

BTW - The flexplate solution for the SHO swap is to either take a 3.0L Ranger auto flexplate and weld the holes shut and re-drill for the SHO crank OR
to take the later auto SHO flexplate and drill new torque converter holes.

Here is a good link showing the A4LD bolted up to the SHO.
https://shoforum.com/index.php?threads/ ... res.88292/

[Bob Weir]

If you're curious about more power from the 2.9, search Janvanv [John Vanlandingham]

[brokencase]

The only way to get more power out of the 2.9L is to stroke it with the 4.0 OHV crankshaft and install Chrysler pistons.
You will end up with a 3.4L. You might get by with decent performance with the stock eeciv with higher flowing injectors.
When you are all done you will make, at best, about 180 hp.

That is a heck of a lot of work. You have to buy new pistons...you have to grind the block. you have to machine and re-balance the crankshaft...etc.. And when you are done the eeciv tune may not be very optimal.

Now consider... You are going for more power, so you're going to have to get the tranny "monstered" with the 4.0L parts from PATC - NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. This is about $2300.

A used SHO motor is pretty cheap. I've seen a used SHO Taurus close to me for around $1000...might be able to offer $800 There is a beat 3.2L engine up on ebay for $250. The motor cost is no big deal and they seem to last. Figure the most you might have to do is install new bearings on a used motor. But you will need the harness and ECM as well.

The oil pan is the only hurdle. I looked under the Scorpio today and the pan "hugs" over the steering rack and cross member. The stock SHO oil pan is cast aluminum and it hangs very low. It will have to be cut and welded. Probably the pickup will have to be altered as well.

Granted - this is all arm chair discussion at this point...and I might not attempt this until I run into some sort of major transmission or engine problem on my current Scorpio.

But all it takes to put a SHO into the Scorpio is...
1) PATC trans build with 4.0L parts
2) Swap/add connections on EECIV connector, adapt SHO fuel injection harness.
3) Fab motor mounts
4) Drill 4 holes in 3.4 SHO flexplate to mate A4LD torque converter.
5) Modify oil pan/oil pickup
6) Splice A/C fittings to SHO A/C compressor.
7) Fab exhaust. No EGR required.
7a) Splice power steering fittings.
9) There is a coolant fitting on the firewall side of the SHO engine. A tighter elbow is needed to provide more clearance.
10) Electric cooling fan conversion.
11) Cruise control?

That's not too bad. Considering what you end up with.

[john keefe]

How did you ever find out about that rule?

I owned a couple SHO's before. Even wrote some articles for the SHO Registry way back when. I really wanted to put that one in my XR, but when I researched the rules, and called CARB, it's in their rules about what you can and cannot swap, and changing the configuration/layout is one of them. You have to have all the same gearing, smog, exhaust/cat arrangement as the donor car, and the exact same cat layout. Just like you can't drop an engine from a truck into a car, even if they had the same base engine. Something to do with gearing, and different smog allowances. So, the 5.0L out of a Mustang was the obvious solution for me.

The smog ref even looked up the block number on my 5.0L, according to him, "to make sure I hadn't got it from an Explorer, and just put 5.0L Mustang intakes, et al in it." I have no idea what differences he expected in the blocks. Different intakes and flows I understand. Different blocks? BS.

My XR was an auto, and the ref asked me all sorts of questions about the gearing in the T5, looked up what Ford offered in that year Mustang, and compared it with the rear diff ratio to make sure I was close to the stock 5.0L gearing. Fortunately, somebody had told me they might do just that, so I was prepped with answers about the T5 "gear numbers" in the WC case, and made sure he knew the stock XR auto diff was 3.36 (not 3.64).

[thesameguy]

An SHO/Yami would be nice. Unfortunately in CA, the engine has to be installed in the same configuration as it was in the donor car. So, other than an Audi S3/S4 FWD, you couldn't put a FWD transverse engine into a RWD, longitudinal layout. But, another option here would be the Duratec V6 or V8 out of a Lincoln LS, which was RWD-longitudinal, and performed nicely.

I don't think that's accurate. California doesn't distinguish between orientation... I have a transverse FWD engine mounted longitudinally in my Saab 900 and a longitudinally mounted RWD engine mounted transversely in my Fiero. Both have BAR stickers, both are legally smogged.

You can run into problems getting the exhaust configured in a legal way, but in most situations it can be done... unless you're talking OBDII motors where it can get difficult.

The two major factors in determining eligibility are passenger car vs. light truck and manual vs. automatic transmission. You can't put a light truck motor in a passenger car (or vice versa), and if an engine wasn't sold with a particular transmission type, you can't have one.

[john keefe]

SameGuy, I'm glad you had better luck with the swaps. I have no complaints about my 5.0L, other than just wish it were lighter, more flexible and high revving like the SHO.

The answer I got from CARB was absolutely no, unless I wanted to use the SHO in the same FWD layout and transmission it had stock. Yes, same basic rules as you stated on engine and trans types allowed, but no leeway on the tranverse vs. longitudinal layout. Not doubting you at all, just saying they wouldn't allow me to do it in 2000 (mine's a 1988 XR, re-titled as a 1990).

Trust me, I REALLY wanted to do the SHO swap. I had access to a good, inexpensive one with decent miles that we found to swap into my neighbor's ailing SHO, but which unfortunately got totaled. I exhausted every scenario/loophole I could think of when talking with the CARB rep. Smog ref told me the same thing after I passed the 5.0L cert, when I mentioned I originally wanted to do an SHO, not the 5.0L.

At that time, the only way you could do it is if you were building a true custom car to qualify within the 600-or so "smog exempt" custom cars allowed each year. It wouldn't qualify if it was an iteration of a production chassis. So, I couldn't take an XR, cut most of the body panels off, and make a fiberglass special and call it "custom" as satisfied CA. It could use some components, but the primary structure would have to be a one-off tube-frame, or some kind of custom monocoque.

Maybe the rules have laxed as they realize there's a lot of great, smog-efficient engines that would work in either transverse or longitudinal layout. Why not... it's the smog impact they're concerned about, so what's the difference if you put a good transverse engine into a longitudinal application (with proper stock trans gearing) if it's a vast improvement (smog-wise) over what you're replacing.

The two major factors in determining eligibility are passenger car vs. light truck and manual vs. automatic transmission. You can't put a light truck motor in a passenger car (or vice versa), and if an engine wasn't sold with a particular transmission type, you can't have one.

Agreed

[thesameguy]

The Fiero swap is around 14 years old - I'm not the one who did it, just the beneficiary. The Saab swap I did October of 2018. I called the regional supervisor, told him I wanted to put a 1994 transverse motor in a 1985 longitudinal car, gave him both VINs, and explained my one point of concern: I needed to use the longitudinal motor's exhaust manifold on the transverse motor to put the turbo in the right place. He said as long as it was a factory part with a visible part number and not aftermarket it "Should be no problem" since 1994 is not OBDII and can use generic cats & flexible placement.

I did ask him while we were on the phone about LS swaps in Fieros, and he told me it was impossible - the LS4 is the only transverse LS motor but it only came with an automatic transmission so it's a nonstarter (for me), and the LS2/6/etc. all have packaging problems with the exhaust in a transverse application. He was very clear, though, that the problem was with the exhaust (which I anticipated) and not the orientation. He suggested the e-rod motor which is "only" $10k, so it seems like a good approach.

When I got the Saab inspected, I showed up to American River College with my $8 and my documentation (VINs, wiring diagrams, etc.) and 30 minutes later he gave me my car back with a sticker. I had it smogged for the first time just a couple months ago by a Star station and they ran it right through, no issues.

I could see things being weird 20 years ago - I think that's around the time they kicked off Smog Check II but before they got all the ruled dialed in circa 2006. The process I went through seemed fair and reasonable … and painless!

[john keefe]

Ahh... OK. Post smog check II sounds like things may have changed. Wish I had that SHO in there, still. A little tight with the 5.0L (see pics I posted under "5.0 Scorpio"). If you like motor sounds, it was just really cool when the SHO short-runners opened up and power kicked in. Like a turbo, but without all the racket.