Messages

I'm afraid the picture wasn't attached (at least I can't see it). I live in Sweden and the Mustangs delivered here (at least the early ones) got the export brace and the shock upper mounts with the weld on washers. I'll keep my eyes open if I ever see those adjustable shocks. They're the ones with the rings with the small holes, right?

Ford didn't install Koni's and the shock mounts with the washers were designed for use on export Mustangs like the export brace was. These cars used adjustable Gabriel shocks like the majority of the 66 GT350's.

Do you mean that the adjustable Gabriels were part of the "Export package" (and thus different from the ordinary Handling Package Autolite shocks) on regular (export) Mustangs?

The pound ratings above are absolutely comical. The fronts are approximately triple and the rears are a little more than triple. Realmongo needs to stick his head in a toilet.

      Roy

They are load ratings (like you said in your later post). For the coils it was the load it requires to compress them to a certain height representative for ride height (9 inch for a 65-66 IIRC, taller for the different 67+ shock towers). The leaf spring load rating is the load it takes to flatten them.

The large difference between front and rear is that for the front, the leverage of the suspension needs to be taken into account (the spring does not sit on the ball joint but somewhere halfway down the A arm). 

For the front: 1413 x 0.6 = 848 x 2 = 1696 pounds
For the front:                      650 x 2 = 1300 pounds
Total:                                                   2996 pounds 

The spring rate (stiffness) is the extra load it takes to compress the springs another inch.

They are Lincoln MkVII rear brakes. Also used on the Mustang SVO and some Saleen models. They were popular for use in disc brake conversion kits in the 90's and early 2000's. I guess they became less popular when these parts became harder to get and custom brake hardware (= not OEM based) became more common.

The car later became Charlie Kemp's "World's winningest Shelby", extensively described in Alex Gabbard's "Fast Mustangs" book

If I remember correctly they had a 1964 Mustang shipped over from UK to Koni/Netherlands, I will need to find again, which one it was.
Acc to this article (thanks to Arjan Nugteren/Dutchmustang.nl) Koni developped  a variety including a  6 damper upset (2 guide the rear axle better)  (Autovisie 30/1965)
On sale for 325 dutch guilders.

Interesting info about the rear axle dampers. They're also discussed here: http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=7795.15

I thought they were hydraulic replacements for the solid overrider bars but now see in Ed's link that they were intended for below the axle, just like Traction Masters. They would probably not fit anyway in the override position, considering the small slot in the wheel housing they need to fit through.

I realize this thread is kind of old now, but I just noticed these shocks have Oud Beijerland stamped in them, which is the Dutch town where Koni is headquartered. I've never noticed that on Konis before, but I'm no expert on early Konis.

Speaking of 67 GT350 carbs, did the automatics get the Autolite 4100, like they did in 1966, or did they all get the Holley?

   It was to counteract the heavier rods ( big end weight) It was also used on other "non production" engines like the Tunnel Port 302 and Boss 302 T/A engines.

I read that the reason for the hatched was to move some of the counterweight a little more inwards. The increase from 28 oz.inch inbalance to ~30 for the Hipo made the front end counterweight too heavy (too much bending forces) and so a 25 oz.in damper and 5 oz.in hatchet were used instead.

Any truth to that? It sounds logical in one way, but also like a lot of effort for a modest improvement.

One issue with the specs for these old mechanical lifter cams is that you never know how they measured them and what lash they took into account. For the Hipo cam for example, I've seen durations of both 310 and 290 degrees and ~.470" lift (lobe lift x 1.6, probably) and ~.450" lift (actual valve lift)

Take aways:

The squid he gave a ride to really  enjoyed himself or soiled his pants. I couldn't tell....

Thanks for posting

I doubt he soiled his pants. This is his daily driver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1HnCeA2ljY

You can still track your car, they track vintage Ferrari's worth more then twenty times the value of a 65 gt350.

True, but when one of those super valuable F-cars get banged up, does everyone wring their hands and complain that the car no longer has it's "born-with" parts or do they just fix it and move on?

🤔

I sometimes get the impression that for super rare cars, originality becomes less important. With rare cars I mean very low total production of the model.

For special versions of high volume cars, originality of the details is (highly) important, because it's the details that makes it rare. To give a Ford related example: A Mustang K-code coupe is (somewhat) rare, but without the original engine, most of what makes it special is gone and it's just another Mustang. A GT40 on the other hand will always be 1/~100, even after 4 crashes and 10 engine swaps.

I have a quick change pot on another carb so I'll probably install that some time and test to find out the best spring. Installing the heavy one was more a matter of let's see what it does.

I agree that the chart is just an approximation with many variables. Or rather, the Holley table is probably accurate for that particular carb on that particular engine and serves as an approximation for other applications.

I didn't check it, but it's a regular 289 fuel pump. I did rev it up to max with the sight plugs off to see if fuel level rose abnormally but it stayed were it was so I called it good.

I had a look at Holley's chart for secondary springs which listed the start of opening and fully open engine speeds for a 350 and a 402 with a 3310 (750 cfm) carburetor. The different values scaled almost perfectly with the difference in displacement between the two, so I recalculated them for a 289, also taking into account that secondaries are a little larger and thus flow a little more. The results are in the chart. For the black spring it actually said that it didn't fully open so I had to make a guess here for the "fully open RPM".

As I wrote yesterday, manifold vacuum was just about to creep up (an inch Hg or so) at 6000 RPM with the black spring installed. The theoretical air consumption of a 289 at 6000 RPM is ~500 cfm, which matches the chart almost perfectly. Maybe dumb luck, because I made several assumptions, but still fun to see.

Mine are now at the equivalent of .0323 but still a little rich, at least for my engine. On an actual GT350 it may be different.

I wonder why they made those idle feed restrictors so large? I understand that they already did that during the 60's?
Do you know if they increased the secondary idle feed as well?