Messages

The aluminum Shelby pan on your GT500 should hold 7 quarts plus the one quart for the filter. So every oil change should require 8 quarts.

No factory 60's GT500 regardless of year used a aluminum oil pan.

If it is the Ford steel oil pan you need 5 quarts including the filter. The TSB only applies to 1969 - 70 engines.

Just to be crystal clear for those reading, that means 5 qt total . No extra oil is needed for the filter.

Ah! The TSB refers to a "correction" to previous "advice". It is true that completely stock FE's only run 5-1/2 quarts but what happened was Ford started taking too many "waranty hits" with the introduction of the CJ.

"All of a sudden" people thought that they had "race cars" and the oil pans were getting pumped out of oil with not enough capacity.

In the true tradition of Ford's, "lets fix this cheaply", they decided the simple fix was just to add more oil. Not change the oil pans, just change the reading on the dipstick to indicate needing more oil at the original old "full" reading.

In fact, this adding more oil necessitated the introduction of the FE add on windage tray, simply because the oil level was now high enough to have the crankshaft spinning in oil. That was deemed, "not a good idea".


So really the answer to your question is a tricky one. It depends on what model year level that YOU want to run it at?


Two additional points. When you run a 428 at a SAAAC event, it is recommended that you add one additional quart. That is good advice.

Second. There were never any FE cast aluminum Cobra lettered oil pans made for the FE by Ford or Shelby. That was a product of Randy DiLisio's Super 'Stang Shop in the mid 1970's. Those pans will have a SSS moniker cast into them.

Current new versions are available from Tony Branda and have a TDB moniker.

There have been issues with the Petronix. There is no debate about that. Many have carried extra Petronix units with them.

Much of the issue is that the Petronix uses 12v to the coil and the Ford does not. The yellow top is a 6 volt system and measures 9v while cranking. It is powered off a resistance wire that runs directly from the ignition switch which reduces the 12v voltage to the coil by the time it gets there.


Ford ignition points are a simple system but you need to use the Ford yellow top coil along with the Ford resistance wire (pink) from the ignition switch.

One of the issues with the Ford system is that you can "burn out" the yellow top by leaving the ignition switch on with the engine not running.



I've run both the Ford points and the Petronix. The Petronix is more of a problem. It will exhibit these starting issues inexplicably at any time under any circumstances. I've also run the Ford pointless system and that is superior to either the points or the Petronix but it uses a separate "brain", control box, and as such looks different then the original vintage system.


One of the unspoken issues is that Ford distributors are driven by a gear that aligns to the drive gear on the camshaft. That is not an infallible system.

There are two items that can fail that will give you false signs of an ignition failure.

1) the balancer can slip. It is made in two parts. An inner and outer ring. They are held in place by being press fit and having an rubber sheet in between. The rubber ages, cracks and shrinks, the counter balance outer ring then moves by inertia to where it wants. Sometimes as much as 45°.

2) the distributor drive gear is held in place by a roll pin. The original Ford pins are very sturdy but on rebuilt distributors, care is not always taken to use a pin with the correct metal hardness. The inertia in the assembly can bend that pin and I have seen that change the timing 40 to 45°.


In these cases, you can pull a plug wire to test for it firing and see it fire, and yet the car will not start. Somehow the timing has slipped to where it is firing way off, yet the engine does not backfire. This is caused by one of the two "slipped" scenarios.


Also with either the Ford yellow top coil or the Petronix coil, if you leave the ignition on, walk away and forget about it, that will kill the coil. Positively. Dead. Morto bene.


Points themselves are not the culprit in any of these instances and the Petronix module will not save you from these pitfalls. I actually prefer the points. The Ford dual points have more tension to them then the single point and probably will need some attention at around 20,000 miles or so.


In the "old days" before solid state ignitions, I saved many a stranded car with locked up points. All you needed was a piece of sandpaper, a matchbook cover and a slotted screw driver, and you could be on your way in about 15 minutes. If the Petronix fails, you have to change it or get towed in.

Points are better for that reason alone.

Well, since I've had my '68. April4, 1972. Since the first meeting with other owners, probably the most discussed and disagreed upon topic is the ride height in general and the rear ride height specifically.


I honestly can't remember seeing two cars together with the same rear ride height.

So exactly the "correct" ride height is likely never going to be completely agreed upon.

The only thing that I know for sure is that the "original" as delivered rear posture on the Shelbys was butt down, giving the car a "speedboat" in action pose.

If there is actually a documented number that was stated, "as delivered" I'd like to see that published and standardized.

I'm not sure if a "Concourse dimension" in black and white actually exists where you can take a tape measure and prove it?




In the past there has been issues with re-arching the springs in that it seems to shorten the life expectancy from that point on but that might just be my personal experience? Just something to consider. I only have 50 years of experience with this subject so consider that others likely may know better. 

I used the Type S 100% wireless one & made  a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_

Thanks for the information.

Finding space for the "viewing monitor" in small cars is always going to be the issue?

I'm trying to find the combination for my Pantera where the monitor is the rear view mirror and the screen is 100% of the mirror, not a 2" x 3" miniaturization? At this moment, that screen size is the limiting factor for me.

Technology marches on and probably it is just a matter of time before the right combination appears?


As far as the GT's being wrecked, I'd take an educated guess and say that the percentage of total wrecks is similar to the '60s wrecked Cobras, Corvettes and all other "performance" cars, not to mention motorcycles?

With vehicles of this performance magnitude it is just going to happen probably even to some "qualified drivers" but there are no drivers ratings like for aircraft. The qualification is just that you can afford to buy the car. The percentage of unqualified's now is probably comparable to the 1960's, just a larger base population to draw from?


A fair comparison might be the discussion about private persons being able to afford paying the $12-20 million to take a ride into space? The thought is that there are enough people that can afford that to create a waiting line?

When Ford decided to cross over into manufacturing "super cars" they understood that it was a different market and the customer's a  different customer. It wasn't a '65 Mustang "Secretaries car" market. While there is certainly "old money" in the world, a term that I remember was "nouveau riche" and the "spending orgy" that entails with it's onslaught initially?

"Captains of Industry" fit in there somewhere as well but it looks like they are more responsible? Maybe?

3
Doug, I believe there are mirrors out there that come on for the rear camera when backing then revert to a normal mirror while driving forward.

Yes but the size of the image is generally 2" x 3" whereas the mirror is 2-1/2" x 8". That small image  makes it difficult to see the detail needed.

Considering the cost of the system, it's best not to have to compromise on something like that?

There are systems like that shown in the video, that use a good size non-permanently mounted monitor and whereas that would work great in your new pickup truck, back fitting the system into these small cabin GT's, the monitor will just take up the entire console if you want to permanently mount it and forget about anything else in the console.

I'm still looking. Likely it is just a matter of time? I try to pick everyone else's brain. I'm not proud.

I used the Type S 100% wireless one & made  a little video i posted on the Gt forum
https://youtu.be/DGSu-Nf4TY8?si=OvdKxUf9HOY1Fyu_

Thanks for the information.

Finding space for the "viewing monitor" in small cars is always going to be the issue?

I'm trying to find the combination for my Pantera where the monitor is the rear view mirror and the screen is 100% of the mirror, not a 2" x 3" miniaturization? At this moment, that screen size is the limiting factor for me.

Technology marches on and probably it is just a matter of time before the right combination appears?


As far as the GT's being wrecked, I'd take an educated guess and say that the percentage of total wrecks is similar to the '60s wrecked Cobras, Corvettes and all other "performance" cars, not to mention motorcycles?

With vehicles of this performance magnitude it is just going to happen probably even to some "qualified drivers" but there are no drivers ratings like for aircraft. The qualification is just that you can afford to buy the car. The percentage of unqualified's now is probably comparable to the 1960's, just a larger base population to draw from?


A fair comparison might be the discussion about private persons being able to afford paying the $12-20 million to take a ride into space? The thought is that there are enough people that can afford that to create a waiting line?

When Ford decided to cross over into manufacturing "super cars" they understood that it was a different market and the customer's a  different customer. It wasn't a '65 Mustang "Secretaries car" market. While there is certainly "old money" in the world, a term that I remember was "nouveau riche" and the "spending orgy" that entails with it's onslaught initially?

"Captains of Industry" fit in there somewhere as well but it looks like they are more responsible? Maybe?

Very cool!

I take exception to your "anti-feline" rhetoric. Cats are good people. Leave them alone. Fascist.

If I haven't told you "great job on that website"

Tony,

Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.  I'm still writing up the procedure on how to flush the block.  There will be plenty of pictures to illustrate the process.  And instructions on how to duplicate the tooling I had to build to do the job properly.  Nothing exotic, just simple hand tools.

How to flush the block?  Information I need to know.

There are small pipe plugs in the side of the block. They have square drive heads on them. One on each side of the block. I think they are 1/4npt threads but as of this writing, I forget exactly.

Those are the drain ports. Those can be replaced with "petcocks" like used on the radiator to make it easier in the future to drain the system.

The petcocks are more susceptible to road damage so caution should prevail with casual users.


If you flush the entire system according to the manufacturers (of the flush) instructions you really don't need to remove the block drain plugs or install petcocks.

The value of the petcocks is for removing the cylinder heads without flooding the piston cylinders. That doesn't happen for most often. You would likely need to be more of a racer where tearing down the engine often is more common.

So, in short, most should leave the factory block plugs alone.

I take it that what you did is called a rollerized setup.

The rollerized setup does not reduce the load on the z-bar. Theoretically it is just a smoother operation.

There is no way around it, you have to reinforce the long arm. How you do it is the only controversy.



Oh, that reminds me, what exactly is a "sponger"?

I need to really learn the ins and outs of carburetors first.  I have two Holleys sitting around and plan to deconstruct one to see what makes it tick.  I have a rudimentary comprehension of how they work but need to take the deep dive.

There should be no parts left over when you are re-assembled.

Remember the numbers? I have them tattooed on. I thought everyone else did too?

If on your arm(s) hopefully you wear long sleeves when out and about.

 I had them installed in a safe place. You can only read them when I am...excited. So generally speaking, they remain hidden safely.

Somewhere there is a picture of Jeff Burgy's '66 GT350 with the 3x2 intake and a Cobra oval air cleaner.

He has the Monte Carlo bar running through the air cleaner. It can be done.


As far as heads go, there are lots of reasonably priced aftermarket aluminum heads available that out perform anything from the '60s including the factory race heads.

If you are thinking of going that route I will point out that the 3x2 intake manifold itself is not cabable of flowing the same numbers as the current aftermarket heads.

For example, the heads that I am using are AFR 195's. Out of the box they flow 296cfm @ .550" valve lift. They come fully CNC ported with 2.02" intakes and 1.60 exhausts.

The 3x2 intake will not match up flow wise with that. At best you are looking at 225cfm ported. The restriction is in the intake manifold itself.

You need to go to the 2x4 Trans Am intake to get into the ball park and that is only good for about a 255cfm flow.


Apparently the '66 has less hood clearance for these multi carb set ups. My 68 uses the Monti Carlo bar, the Cobra air cleaner and the C60E 2x4 intake and has room to spare.

Bring the car to me, a suitcase full of cash and I'll get it all to fit and work.

Aluminum block weight drops down to about 160 pounds and the aluminum heads combined to around 55 pounds.

Don't forget the "427 Lightweight" used a magnesium PI single 4v intake, and aluminum water pump and a aluminum HUB balancer.

It still couldn't compete with a lightweight 289 totaling around 450 pounds.

I don't remember anything about an aluminum flywheel or clutch cover back then but even the "lightweight 427" was somewhat of a monster for racing.

The big FE "bell" was cast iron v. aluminum for the 289.


I always wondered what the reason was for in casting the Holley carbs out of zinc rather then aluminum? There must be a technical reason for that since it seems so obvious to save weight there?

I had the same question in the past and after researching it a little found out that it is more economical first and foremost in large production.First off you should know that Zinc die cast has a significant part of aluminum in its alloy.The zinc die cast is not much heavier the aluminum die cast.Zinc diecast has a lower melting point which has advantages in the mold process when compared to aluminum . Zinc diecast has more corrosion resistance when compared to aluminum.Aluminum diecast is about 4 times stronger then zinc diecast. Aluminum is certainly the better choice if you require a strong and durable item.
Zinc is a superior material choice if you need parts produced quickly and economically. Aluminum diecasts are typically 3 to 4 times more costly compared to zinc diecast.

I can totally understand that for production carbs. I would have thought there would have been lighter Holley carbs for racing purposes.

Compare the weight of a Weber 48IDA to any Holley. They are very light.

I will have to cogitate on this a bit to decide what I wanna do. Is it possible that this condition could arise from one of the accessory components in the rear suspension besides the springs themselves, like a bushing or such? Thanks again, Steve.

More likely the spring steel is just loosing it's temper on the one side.

I've seen this happen on the station wagons more then the Mustangs but they also will break either near the front eye-bolt or right under the axle from fatigue.


If you change out the springs, save the small bottom leafs with the date codes and engineering numbers on them and reuse them.

Aluminum block weight drops down to about 160 pounds and the aluminum heads combined to around 55 pounds.

Don't forget the "427 Lightweight" used a magnesium PI single 4v intake, and aluminum water pump and a aluminum HUB balancer.

It still couldn't compete with a lightweight 289 totaling around 450 pounds.

I don't remember anything about an aluminum flywheel or clutch cover back then but even the "lightweight 427" was somewhat of a monster for racing.

The big FE "bell" was cast iron v. aluminum for the 289.


I always wondered what the reason was for in casting the Holley carbs out of zinc rather then aluminum? There must be a technical reason for that since it seems so obvious to save weight there?