Messages

 

And it has the correct livery for a 65 G.T. 350.

    And don't forget the Goodyear "Bill-Boards" too! 

    Oh, but for the "collector-guys", it's not "numbers-matching"! This as originally it would have had two four-cylinder diesels (Detroit 4-71's) instead of the as now installed single V8 (Detroit 8V-71), so there's no need of looking for the "numbers"!   

    But then, maybe I'm just trying to torpedo the auction, so I can buy it cheap!   

    But since it's already bastardized, I wouldn't feel so bad about what would amount to a relatively straightforward engine swap "hop-up", that of swapping out the Detroit 8V71 that's in there now, for a 8V92TA (bore: 4.25" vs. 4.84" + turbo), which would be good for something around 50 percent (or so) more power!   

    Ya' know, you gotta get to the camp-ground early, to get the 'best' parking spot!  Besides, some "whipper-snapper" with a new Prevost (Volvo power) might need to be but back in his place!   

    Scott.

     

   O.K., it's a bit off-topic  , but . . . . . .

   Since this is a group that likes the auctions, and of course, we 'do' look at "other" things while wandering about (some not even car related!  ), but keeping it "vehicular" anyway, man , take a look at this! 

https://www.mecum.com/lots/1173059/1954-gmc-pd4501-scenicruiser-passenger-bus/?aa_id=810677-0

   Now, if I were to have a "motor-home", this as a conversion would be "the cats' meow"!   

   And as for a "collectable", it's claimed to be 'the' very "first-one", number "001"!   But the question might be:  How 'big' is your garage?   

   

   Scott.

No Reserve this time.

    Well, maybe. . . .   

    Scott.

     If at first you don't succeed . . . . . . . 

     Scott.

    I don't know, but these days if only spending $100K, it probably wouldn't cover doing the bottom-side! 

    Scott.

    Thank you, Master!   

    I'd offer that I won't do it again, but "F-ing-Up" seems to be my specialty!   

    Scott.

but Ford (in 1969) went to the passenger side

Im confused by this statement. In 1969 the VINs were on the drivers side

    Thanks, yes, it's a "typo"!       My error, should have been 1968 that Ford positioned the V.I.N. on the passenger side and changed in 1969.   

    Please don't beat me!   

    Scott.

Regarding that cylinder head design, . . . . .

    One interesting but probably less popular aspect in this cylinder head retrofit is the coolant plumbing.  You'll note that the flow is exiting from the cylinder heads, as originally intended by Ford, but the outlets are at the back of the engine vs. at the front.   

    The original coolant flow path, as engineered for the S.B.F., enters at the front of the block from the water pump, flows the full length of the blocks' water jacket to the rear, then, with the exception of that detoured upward though the block decks through what were intended as solely flushing pathways for the purging of aeration and the possibility of steam pocket formation, enters the cylinder heads at the rear and flows forward until exiting the intake manifold (and thermostat) on to the radiator (heat exchanger). 

    So the question becomes, how did we redirect the flow so as it exits at the rear and still provides adequate flow coverage in the overall system?  Now these DeTomaso examples present what appears to be a water manifold running the full length on the head, but I question whether this is just a conduit from the front just to provide a rear exit locationing.  Rather, I'm more inclined to suggest that likely the head casting doesn't provide for a from the rear to the front flow path, and rather than Ford's horizontal flow layout, these heads convert it to a vertical one, where the manifold picks-up flow volumes in its' length to the rear destination?   

    The consideration in this execution, is that the coolant flow must be regulated to a greater degree, particularly in the transition through the decks flowing from the block into the cylinder heads, this so that adequate flow is maintained all the way to the rear of the engine.  So how is this being accomplished?  Whom at this point in history is aware of what the pumping requirements (volume & pressure) might be; and then the directed flow requirements, generally this being supplied by regulated orifices at the block and/or cylinder head decks and this more commonly by a specially engineered head gasket?   

    Hummm . . . . .   

    And just of my own personal preference, that remote thermostat needs to be closer to the actual engines' outlet.  And considering the vehicle value involved here, I'd probably see a way to create an aluminum manifold that handled: the 180 degree turn at the firewall, the merging of the two exits into one, providing for the thermostat mounting, and this eliminating a lot of those hose clamps, that are destine to leak!  And it 'might' even just look better too! 

    Oh, and I'm not so sure as it might just be the perspective being presented by the photographs, but, the "degas" vessel (with the radiator cap) needs to be the highest point in the cooling system, certainly above the radiator.  And I know it's practiced, but I've never understood the idea of the hose connection from that vessel to the water pump's heater hose inlet/return nipple, as this just causes inefficiency in proper coolant flow efforts.   

    Scott.

The Feds standardized the number system and location in 1968. . . . . . . . but the VIN for registration today is the one on the dash you can see through the windshield.

    Just to clarify, as I understand it, it was the "location" that in 1968 the Feds initiated the policy requirement, that of vehicles presenting a V.I.N. that was viewable though the windshield, but unfortunately with not greater stipulations of specific location or format.  This resulting in for example, GM placed these on the drivers side of the dash, but Ford (in 1968) went to the passenger side, and thus resulting in the belief that the ruling was vague and needed to provide additional guidance.  So it was in 1969 that the Feds added regulation stipulating that (as of 1970) in all instances the V.I.N. will be located on the drivers side.   

    As for the "standardized number system", this didn't come about until 1981, with the institution of the the required "17-character" V.I.N. format, that is still practiced today.      

    But, if one looks hard enough you'll find exceptions.    

    Scott. 

    In any event, it'll move on and off the trailer just fine! 

    Scott.

Regarding that cylinder head design, will it make for a lighter piston, reduce combustion chamber temps, or improve air flow over conventional . . . . . .

    Just a couple of thoughts would be:

    No, due to the added complication of the reversed-dome combustion layout, and the fact that it is generally going to be subjected to greater sums of heat, one would anticipate that the pistons would be heavier.   

    As for the combustion chamber temps (cylinder head), though one might anticipate that they'd be reduced, this has a lot to do with many other variables within the relationships of the combustion withing the enclosure as a whole, but being that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and hence the face area of the Heron head being exposed to combustion heat is reduced, this would be the initial thought.   

    The subject of air-flow again is more complicated than just expecting a "tit for tat" response in an overall design change that also effects other "stuff".  But, as in most Heron" designs, the valve angle relationship to the cylinder tends to be more straight up than that of typically wedge chambered cylinder heads and with the lack of chamber shrouding of the valve, one might anticipate particularly low-lift flow value sums be improved.  But for example, since the valves are positioned with less or even no angle deviation from the cylinder bore centerline, this often, and particularly in "V"-type engines, lends to more acute angling of the short-turn radius in the port runners, not to mention greater runner length, which can hurt flow values at greater velocities and hence peak performances.  Also, when it comes to the valve head diameters, being in-line and actually in the cylinder, there are greater restraints here also.   

    Then there is the complication with the Heron head in it's relationship to the piston dome engineering, and this becomes a significant concern for the rebuilder, especially in the arena of odd examples, and most often leads to poor results. 

    Scott.

. . . . . .The other car, Possibly a Jordan?

   Possibly, but overall the lines seem later than Jordans' existence (1931)?   

   Scott.

    Just to add:  I think that the C5AR-7003-G, which seems might cross to a tag number of "HEH-R" and is also referenced as being originally intended for the 427 Galaxie is likely of the same makeup as the "HEH-BY" as the "street/production" 427 Cobra transmission (earlier cars).  Whereas the C5ZR-7003-AA & AB & AC, are probably numbers for the "nonstandard" production examples intended solely for the racing programs.  Among other changes made for competition usage the "AB" & "AC" units as listed above also are of nonstandard gear ratios.   

    Scott.

I don't know why they switched.

    I seem to think I remember that there had been failures with the Daisy's?   

    Scott.

    I believe originally there was the Torq-Thrust "R" developed for the GT-350R models, this being something in between the straight-line spoke of the T-T and the curvature of the T-T-D and engineered for "racing" vs. simply "street" usage.  And I've been told that the more recent (chinese) production Torq-Thrust "D", which they don't replicate exactly, more closely represent those. 

    I think later the "R" was displaced by the "Trans-Am" spoke profile, this spoke seeming being flatter overall but with more curvature rate leading into the rim.  And then further down the road that by the "T70R" style, this in 1969-'71 era.  Of course running along side the latter were the "200-S" "Daisy" wheels too; but I think those showed up more often on the Camaros.   

    Scott.