Messages

+1  . Roy's description is correct and consequently there is not 12V going to the tach but only going to the Pertronix module. Using the correct wiring that Roy described there is an extra wire with 12v that runs out to Pertronix module .

Just to be clear, in this setup, the tach receives 12 VDC as it is wired in SERIES with the ignition switch and BEFORE the resistor wire. The coil receives 9 VDC (or so) as it is wired AFTER the resistor wire. The tach receives 12 VDC because it is wired between the switched ingnition wire and the resistor wire. And the PerTronix receives a full 12 VDC as the splice for that is AHEAD of the tach and the resistor wire. It is easy to get lost in this scheme as we are talking about two different voltages: 9 VDC to the coil, 12 VDC to the tach, and 12 VDC to the PerTronix unit. Splicing off of a new wire inserted in the circuit BETWEEN the switched ignition wire (which is 12 VDC) and the tach insures that the proper votages are routed to where they are supposed to go.

I hope this is all clear enough. If I can find my spare slice, I'll post a picture of what it is supposed to look like.

Kent,

I don't think that is  quite correct. Stock 1966, 1967 and 1968 tachs gets power from the 12 vdc ignition line before the resistor wire (I'm not sure about other years but I'm assuming that they are similar). That is, the tach is wired in series with the 12 vdc ignition lead and the resistor wire, which then goes directly to the coil. When I wire the PerTronix, I run a 12vdc line in parrallel with the resistor wire, only I'm taking power for that line ahead of the resistor wire so the PerTronix unit never sees the 9 vdc or so that goes to the coil. Instead it sees a full 12 vdc. I've got two cars wired this way and I have no problems with either the PerTronix units or the tachs.

There is a specific way to wire the Pertronix so it doesn't fail.

Yup, and if you do  it correctly, it is pretty easy.

+1     And it's not complicated!   

    Pertronix is susceptible to damage from voltages in excess of 16V, so ensure that it doesn't experience external charging (battery charger or jumping) voltages much over 15v and also check the voltage regulator function and the alternator's out-put under "full-fielding"   

    Cause you really shouldn't be having this problem.     

    Scott.

+1. I've used PerTronix on both of my cars for many years. Mostly because I don't like setting points, especially dual points. Not that it is difficult, just annoying. I alway take the 12vdc off the ignition circuit BEFORE the tach and resister wire by plugging in a pre-made single wire with moulded in male and female bullet connectors at either end and then splicing the red wire for the PerTronix into that. That way, there is no damage to the wiring harness and it is easily removable. The Hertz car uses the Ignitor I while I have an Ignitor III in the GT500. And I carry a spare breaker plate in the glove box just in case the thing goes sideways.

It looks like the oil pan rail stamping is
6A12B with a couple of cross engravings

Interesting, my block also had the same date for both stampings (5L3), the letter at the end is supposed to be the machinest/assembler's initial. I requested the those stampings not be removed during the machining process. And they were left untouched. The business owner is a former '66 GT350 owner...

Yes. Mary Queen of Scots is my great-great-great, great-great something or other. So to get to that level. I would have to kill off most of the family that's left😂

       Roy

Well, I'd suggest that we double up to eliminate your superfluous family members, but since my biological family's name is Mille (mother's side) and Sharp (father's side), I've got no skin in the game. So I guess you are on your own. 

King?

Thanks, Roy. From the other Roy on the forum.

For anyone that may not have noticed, there are buttons that You can click or tap to go to previous or next photos.it's beneath the photo in the link.

      Roy

Or put the cursor over the thumbnails on the right, scroll up/down and click on the photo you want to view. Once loaded, if you click on the photo itself, a somewhat enlarged version will load in it's own separate window.

deathsled,

Such fun, almost wish I was doing it all again. Almost.

I went through what you are about two and a half years or so ago. The original block came with my car but was very rusty. I've posted most of the engine rebuild and subsequent installation (more to come) on my website (S-TechEnt.com/Shelby_Web_Pages//66_GT350H/GT350H.htm and click on Engine Rebuild). Be sure to look for the other stamped date on the oil pan rail above the block engineering number. This is thought to be the date the block was machined. Let us know what you find. Best of luck with the build.

I thought that image looked familiar. I shot that picture at SAAC8 in Dearborn, thanks for giving me credit.

The early conventions were so much different than today's. SAAC8 was a fun one, it included a car show, drag racing, and a high speed event at Ford's old Utica test track.

I like the one piece rear main seal. I wonder if that is usable in a 289 hipo block?

Bob, Yes it works on a Hi-Po. We did it on my original block for 6S817 and I'm happy to report that there are so far, no leaks.

During my last through review of the current 1966 registry, I don't recall seeing any with 10-spokes. At least none jumped out at me. However, I could be wrong. I'd appreciate it if anyone with knowledge to the contrary could provide a VIN for the exception to the rule. Thanks.

I help run the lost and found page with Fred Ballard on the hipo mustang forum by keeping a database of vins people are looking for specifically, 65-67 hipo vins.  A gentleman reached out to me, provided a picture of a vin stamped 289 motor to add to my database.  It was a 6R09K vin so I contacted Howard Pardee (SAAC Registrar) who confirmed it belongs to a 1966 Shelby GT350.  Mr. Pardee put me in contact with the GT350 owner (Damon) and I was able to link up the two parties.

This is why I keep a database.  These wins are very rare but I'm a believer the more vins I record the higher the likelihood we can have more success stories like this.

This sort of thing can only help the hobby. When we pool our collective knoledge, we all win! Great job.

I did develop the information presented on my website in part from both of those sources. Taken together, I think they form a pretty complete picture of the differences between the non-Hi-Po transmission and the Hi-Po. The background information on how this rare beast came to be is interesting.

Contact Roy in the posts on this subject he has extremely detailed drawings and modifications to make a c4 for a HiPo

Thanks, Steve. However, you were also a big help on this project.

Can a C4 be built with all the parts that make it a HI PO?

aboss4tg, Check out the GT350H section of my website for a narative of how I converted a plain jane C4 out of a '67 Mustang to serve duty in my GT350H. Much credit for this information goes to Bob Mannel for his amazing book "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8, 1962-1969" (RPM Press, 2014) as well as others that are listed in my atricle. Link to my website is in my signature.

I would say that a 1966 transmission is the best to start out with as there are some minor differences between that one and the 1967 version I used. If you are using a transmission out of a '65 or '66, the shift kit from Transgo will be different than the one I used. Good luck and please let us know how it goes. You may contact me privatley if you think that will help.