Messages

Bob, thanks a lot for the info. I'm happy to hear my suspicions we're justified and sorry to hear you had that much trouble. I will know what to expect when i get to that step.

68blk500c, absolutely amazing! Judging by the description in the other forum, that seems to be exactly the document "Realmongo" was reading off of. I will read into it.

Huge thanks to everyone!

Hi everyone,

I am gathering information for my project and discovered from someone's forum post, claiming he is reading this info from a 1960-1968 ford parts catalog in his possession, that the "GT special handling package" had different front coil spring specs depending on what options the car was equipped with. I imagine this slight difference was lost in time, just like the Koni shock valving got stiffer for heavier engine cars, i guess the available springs must be stiffer for the heaviest cars out there to avoid customer comebacks and/or accidents. My intention is to get the closest to the balance and ride quality the 1965 gt350's originally had.

My question is this:
- What are the exact specs & dimensions of the front coil springs for a 1965 gt350?
(So i can get Eaton to make custom front springs that matches the specs of a 1965 mustang fastback / 289 / manual 4 speed / no A/C / no power steering)

Here is the post i found on stangnet.com by user "Realmongo":
-  The Coupes and fastbacks used the same front springs and there were 2 versions for '65 that were used in the Special Handling Package which was included with GTs and K Codes. It also could be ordered separately on all V8 models. The C5ZZ-
5310-E spring was rated at 1491 pounds and was identified by a brown stripe. These were used with power steering and W/ and W/O A/C or manual transmission with A/C. The C5ZZ-5310-F spring was rated at 1413 pounds with a red stripe and were used with manual steering and no A/C.
There were 2 sets of rear leaf springs used. The coupes used 1 style, while the fastbacks and convertibles used the other as they were heavier in the rear than coupes. The fast back and convertible used C5ZZ-5560-E rated at 650 pounds load rate, while the coupes used C5ZZ-5560-F rated at 610 pounds load rate.

Link: https://stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/1965-mustang-front-and-rear-sprin-rates.910350/

According to that information, i should be looking at the:
- C5ZZ-5310-F front spring
- with a red stripe
- rated at 1413lbs

Another piece of information i found on shelbyforums.com by user "Texas swede".
(But I'm not sure if he was describing the spring i am looking for):
- Springs were Ford HiPo (K-code).
Fronts are 8 1/4 coils with a free standing height of 13 7/8". Coil diameter is 0.60"

Link: http://www.shelbyforums.com/threads/what-springs-came-on-the-66-shelby.8418/

Thank you in advance!

Shawn.

The knowledge on this forum never ceases to amaze me. Thanks a lot for the clarification, all makes sense now!

Those PSengineering wheels really give an amazing look Earl 👌🏻

Meanwhile Vintage Engineering gave me details about his tooling for sale in case someone is interested, here is his reply:
-    The tooling is 4000$.
This tooling creates the sand molds that the magnesium pours into.
From there you need to machine the rough casting to finished dimensions
Machinery is not included. Depending on where you live. Finding a shop to machine is not difficult. Ray

Hi,

I have been trying to find an answer to my question. I am trying to find the exact dimensions of the original magnesium wheels on the 1965 gt350r. I found contradicting information on other forums and need clarification, especially on the backspacing:

American racing TTD: 15x7x3.75BS

PS engineering trans am: 15x7x4.25BS or 4.5BS
(read somewhere that 15x8 were maybe used on the rear for the 7.00-15 tires)

Vintage engineering: 15x7x3.75BS
(magnesium wheel replica)

Just got an email reply today from Ray Franklin of Vintage Engineering who used to make replica wheels, this is what he said:
– We did in magnesium. Out of stock. We no longer make these due to retirement and the tooling is for sale. Our wheels were modeled after an original wheel and has a 3.75" backspace.
Ray, Vintage Engineering

Wonder if anyone has the definitive answer.

Thank you, Shawn.

Thanks again for the information Randy!

Hi! I'm wondering what shelby did about the exhaust cross-over under the intake?
- Did he block the cross over ports inside the heads by filling and smoothing the exhaust ports?
- Blocked with plates on the intake gaskets?
- Did he leave them open like stock?
- And why?

Other forums on the internet seem 50/50 split on the exhaust cross-over dilemma. Some say an engine NEEDS heat to atomize the air/fuel mixture. But i feel that is non-sense. I have never seen an ATV, motorcycle or any recreational motorsport vehicule using some kind of heated intake beside some rare models of snowmobiles having coolant heated carburetors (for obvious snow and temperature reasons)

I watched an episode of engine masters where they found out lowering fuel temperature in the carb bowls increases output. i imagine keeping the intake cooler by blocking the cross-over  would limit that effect and reduce the chance of fuel boiling if you get caught in a stop and go situation during summer.

What are your thoughts and experiences?
Thank you!

Any input is greatly appreciated... while we are talking about heads, what did shelby do about the exhaust cross-over under the intake? Did he leave them alone? Did he block the cross over ports inside the heads? And why? Other forums on the internet seem 50/50 split on the exhaust cross-over dilemma

This is why i come to SAAC forum Randy! Good to know the blocks get blocked there as well. I have contacted Larry at Valley head service, maybe they didn't weld them in 1965, but he said he can do the welding on the banana water ports.

I did not know that! Totally makes sense now. My previous car, 1969 mustang 351w 4v, forced me into a complete rebuild because of head gasket failing in the steam hole. If i can eliminate that possibility on my next project, i would be better off!

Oh, that is good to hear! Thank you so much for your input 

Ok! That makes sense... Would it cause overheating issues from airpockets that could get trapped?
Or filling the coolant with the car at an angle to make sure air wasn't left in the system is something they would do to prevent that? Some people who installed aftermarket aluminum  heads without matching the steam holes to their blocks don't have overheating problems... and using a quick compression calculator the GT350Rs seemed to have a compression ratio of around 10.77:1 to 11:1 which doesn't seem too high comparing with engines today. I guess from what you said, the water port welding was done to enhance gasket reliability during races, in other words, probably not worth a thing for a street driven car

Hi, I'm thinking about getting a set of 289 heads built by valley head service like they used to do in 1965 for the first cars. I found Out shelby had the steam holes welded in the heads. Why did he do this?! With all the talk about matching the steam holes with aftermarket aluminum heads to your block or it could potentially cause overheating issues, i don't understand why shelby would do this on his race cars. Enlightenen me please!
Thank you!

Bob gaines, i already sent them an email. i will have to call them, not sure if they sell parts...

Hi,

- I just found out you can purchase the OVC peter brock redesigned front valance from NPD p/n:17A939-1PBA
- Now I'm wondering: Can we get the OVC peter brock redesigned rear plexiglass without the hump?

Thanks for answering, super helpful forum, gold mines of information!

I emailed Ryan Falconer and he replied "sorry i do not remember".