Messages

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?

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

There is an internal impeller that can break.

The rear springs can be re-arched to make them equal.

Personally, I have my '68 since 1972. I have the original rear springs in the car.

I always found them to be inadequate. They would bottom out too easily and in the days when it was my everyday car, putting anyone brave enough to venture to sit in the back seat, the car would ride on the bump stops.



The original rear springs are described by Ford as "competition springs". The natural pose the car would take was to have the nose up because of the arch of the rear springs.

At some point I experimented with solutions and the one that is still installed in the car is what many of the R models used, i.e., they installed an extra long leaf in the rear, taking off the clamps.



It does disable the "ass down" stance and makes the car look level. It ends the bottoming out. It does not make the ride harsh. In fact it softens the ride.



The other thing that works well with this solution is switching to Cure Ride rear shocks.

If you do your research you will at some point come across the fact that SA did a project with Cure ride and that rear shock valving was a result of it.

Of course none of this is Concourse correct but neither are radial tires so at some point you need to make a decision on which way to go? Either it can look original or you can make the car a lot more enjoyable to drive?

When you are running out of gas and need to come home, try to get the camber set at -1/2°. Toe in, which is always just an "approximation", so no need to use a digital computer to set it to within .001", set at 3/16" total.

Positive caster is better the more that you can get but I think about 1-1/2°+ is all you will be able to get without the tires hitting the front fender lips when turning.

You can get up to about 2-1/2°+ but the tires will definitely hook on the fender opening moldings.

With power steering you can live with only the 1-1/2° but the car probably will start to wonder at around 130mph. Considering you will also start to get lift there, that is probably the practical top cruising speed you should consider?

The '65 R models dialed in as much castor as they could get but the fender lips were already trimmed back. It gets tough to steer with no PS with 2-1/2° and more. It only wants to go straight, so with those cars you can't be afraid to steer with the gas pedal as well.

I wasn't following this thread so if this was said already, I apologize.

You won't see the actual ride height of the car until you put some mileage on it.

Sometimes just going around the block a couple of times will do it but suspensions need to settle into their ride heights.

When you disassemble the suspensions completely and just reassemble them, they won't be at the actual final ride heights.

Had a friend come over who knows Mustangs and said the equalizer bar is bent and the lower connection rod does not engage straight but off at an angle.  It is also touching the header very closely.  I am inclined to get a fortified bar this time around and he will install or I will install under his watchful eyes.
Was looking into this...
https://opentrackerracing.com/shop/mustang-roller-z-bar-and-clutch-rods-289-302-hi-po-small-block-v8-1965-1966/

In my experience the stock z-bar can be repaired and reinforced.

What I do is double up the top s portion. You do that by welding the new piece on and in the process you temper the metal by squelching it in a bucket of water. Everything else stays the same.


As Bob said, if you can't do the work yourself, a simpler solution would be to purchase a reinforced bar but I'm not sure that simply adding gusset plates (the triangular piece added) will clear everything there so I question the design of the reinforcements shown in those pictures.

I am surprised that Cobra Automotive can't supply one? This is a common failure. Mine is a simple and obvious solution.

Frankly hydraulic clutches present issues in the Mustang mounting them since they get mounted to the sheetmetal firewall which really is inadequate for supporting the mechanism. I do know of one person here that tried them on a '67 GT350 and had to remove it.


I did "roller bearing" everything in the system and although it works, it isn't an improvement in operating effort but it is an improvement in longevity over the original bushings. Those will have to be replaced eventually anyway so using bearings is a good solution.