Messages

I used tinted primer, original on left restored on right.

That looks great

The three different springs that were used on 69/70 Shelby had to do with usage at different times in production and had nothing to do with if fastback or convertible.

On the 69/70 Shelby it was the same rear leaf spring regardless of convertible or fastback.

Right, but thats not the "story" 😉

That's right a different story than what has been written. Back in the early 90's SAAC sponsored a Caribbean cruise that CS attended. During one of the get togethers that Ed Meyer,myself and about 20 others had a Q+A session with CS.The question was asked about the Cobra chassis story and CS proceeded to explain that during a interview he told a reporter about the remaining CSX3000 vin numbers from the 1960's that he could legally be able to finish building and that he was going to finish the run. The reporter didn't understand the novel concept at the time of VIN numbers only on paperwork and being able to complete the run to use them up. He must have assumed that the vins were attached to the tube chassis hidden somewhere. He wrote that up in the story and Shelby said that when he read it that it sounded better than his real story that he explained during the reporters interview and so he didn't correct it. He wasn't asked to proof the story before hand and CS said he decided to just let the story run because it sounded better than his real story. He also said that since he didn't make the mistake he couldn't get in trouble for it as long as he didn't confirm the report. He laughed about all of the free publicity the reporters mistake caused. Good or bad it was still free publicity. I think it was PT Barnum that said there is no such thing as bad publicity.   

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

Just a note:

    I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350. 

    Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

No argument by me but in this case experience should out way theory. It is in explicable why seemingly identical manifolds have fatal variations.

Those two intakes are not identical. Why would you presume identical results? I've always used the 15-20 number as the guide arriving at 18 as the one with a safety factor but as always, do what you want to. If you aren't asking for experienced advice, why ask?

I didn't .    

Just a note:

     I believe the O.P. inquiry was intended to be relevant to a 1969 GT350.   

     Scott.

Given Fords 1969 service specifications indicate that the torque specs for the 351 and 302 cast iron intake are the same as the 65 service specs for the 289 cast iron intake it would seem safe to conclude that the 69 GT350 aluminum intake torque specs would follow the same specs as the 65 up 289 aluminum intake. 

The left rear corner of those intakes are very susceptible to breaking off. It is better to have it a little down on torque then broken.
Also I think 20lb-ft is for the iron intake?

In the "olden days" before many owned torque wrenches we used a 12 point box wrench and just snugged them up. Man am I old or what?

23 -25 is the Ford listed torque setting for the cast iron 289 intake manifold .According to SA in their intake manifold instructions, instruct to torque to 8 pounds first and then using the intake manifold bolting sequence to 15 pounds and in bold it says EXCEPT NUMBER 11. That is the back ear should remain to only 8 pounds. It also goes on to indicate bolts 9,10,11,12 are unsupported and should be careful with. I should have gotten the book out first instead of relying on my memory.

I am looking for what the general consensus is on when in 65 production the starter solenoid bracket changed from being stamped with the FOMOCO in the oval to the FOMOCO in the rectangle.

The "Turd"?

Not very flattering.

Does anyone remember the funny nick name that some at Shelby assigned this 25 million dollar expected hammer price  car?

And after they bringing a premium priced authentic looking upper control arm to market they use that funky shaped boot with the bold MOOG lettering that ruins the look. I would have to give it a hard pass.     

I want to install a repro lower rubber boot for the 4-spd shifter.
Not sure how to correctly attach it.

Does the upper lip of the boot, with the 4 holes attach underneath the floor opening or is it somehow worked above the shifter opening and secured under the upper boot?
My car did still have the original when purchased but it was shredded and barely hanging on.
I was unable to determine how it was secured.

Thanks,
TonyS 

To properly attach the lower boot the upper lip folds up over the shifter opening lip inside the passenger compartment and is secured under the upper shifter boot.

1969 GT350 intake manifold torque spec? 20lbs?

Yes. Start with 10 then 15 and finally the 20. The sequence to tighten each bolt is in the shop manual.

Want to but a NOS Autolite 289 Hi PO temperature sender for my GT 350
  P/N C6B OR C6DZ10884-B (SW552) 
     Must have the red insulature and the teeny tiny "autolite" stamped in.
  PM with price in your first message.  Not in a hurry, my GT 350 runs cool anyway.
   If I have that P/N incorrect, post it here.

NOS is ideal but I would not limit yourself to that if it were me. Nice used ones are a viable alterative and easier to find IMO. Used ones seldom went bad and they can be found still attached to old intakes.
 If the insulator is faded the red color can be brought back to life by a number of different methods. Best of luck on your search.

Fitting 67 bumper less nose.

Why the two piece front nose ? I think that joint is going to stand out in a negative way.