Messages

Your comment should have been "I have experience with this type suspension and it APPEARS there is a problem with the spring." Leave it there and let the BUYER do his due diligence.

    Yes, you're right. 

    But some observations are truly without question.  And it is because so many of the participants are not so knowledgeable, the goal here is to try a convince the potential next care-taker that just because the statement will likely be made: "that's the way it's always been"  , doesn't mean it "should" remain so, that is for one's health and well-being anyway.   

    But yeah, often times when attempting to aid your fellow man, the "system" will trounce upon you!     

    Scott.

   

      We've had an awful lot of "homeless" top-loaders pass though the shop!

      But, we never thought to look for a "good" V.I.N.! 

      Scott

Buying a car you have not seen is like playing Russian Roulette.

     Oh, totally agree, but depending on the circumstances, it sometimes is just the "gamble" your willing to take.   

     I have two vehicles that were listed on B.A.T., but more recently with their practices, I've kinda gotten' jaded.    

     Scott.

      And then on this vehicle: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1971-chevrolet-corvette-convertible-39/

      Which I really "sorta" I'm looking to own one, cause I think my other vette is lonely!   

      But then I entered a comment, that although I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any declarations on the validity of I.D. & V.I.N. stampings, I question the surface texture of the machined deck about the stampings on the block and of the supposed "as cast" surface on the transmission, again about the V.I.N. stamp?

      B.A.T. pulled my comment!     Of course the "Seller" has had "461" vehicle listings previously, so just maybe we're playing favorites? 

      But now others are commenting on the validity of the car!    

      Scott.

There is a specific way to wire the Pertronix so it doesn't fail. Check their website for the diagrams.

    +1     And it's not complicated!   

    We have sold, installed, utilized Pertronix for decades and have found it to be quite reliable, when wired properly.  But also, I do like to couple it to an MSD box; . . . . . always looking for more ya'know!   

    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.

    Not always does just increasing the engines' capacity result in more H.P.; but it does most often create greater torque numbers. This is as you are perhaps successfully transforming a smaller capacity, higher R.P.M., automotive "performance" engine, into what amounts to a larger capacity, but lower R.P.M. capability, truck or tractor engine!   

    If considering the rather conservative nature in flow capacities of the "S.B.F." inline-valve cylinder heads, this including the "C6FE" castings, and noting that this has always been a problem for allowing greater H.P. from these engines, one should realize that at some point the engine's volume capacity is going to out-run the cylinder head port flow capability (and camming) and at that point any gain in horse power at R.P.M. just isn't going to be had, even possibly reduced with the lower R.P.M.'s at which the engine might reach it's peak. 

    But again, torque numbers across the board (until the limited air flow kills the upper R.P.M.'s) will be up, and in a suitable application, even with less peak H.P., the greater torque can produce faster lap times.   

    Scott.

I prefer the points system. I don't put on enough mileage to make it a burden to run it. Frankly, I think that the Ford dual points gives equal voltage to the plugs as any aftermarket system does.

Points for the win. They worked. They won races as part of a system back in the 60s. You and Uncle Tony agree.

    That all sounds good, but the simply stated the old '60's "20,000 volt" points system, that as compared to a more modern "40,000 volt" aftermarket electronic system, will provide "less" in overall performance and peak power. . . . . . period!   

    Scott.

Fairly sure it is an 86 engine that was built for drag racing.

    This would generally mean we have no idea what the makeup might be; and the original year of production is irrelevant.  So what camshaft is in that engine now? 

But using a composite gear is compatible with everything so I am leaning toward that option than risking premature wear of one of the gears.

    The advent of the "composite" gears was/is due to the flood of import camshaft cores and that no one knows what'll work with what!  And I've been aware of many a scenario where they "didn't" work 

     And believe it or not, in the earlier renditions of the hydraulic-roller from Ford they initially utilized a "bronze" gear; but that didn't work to well in the long-haul, as anybody whom had used them with their mechanical roller cam could have told them! 

    Scott.

That clamp is the mount for the front of the springs.

    I'm quite familiar with vintage vehicles and the "quarter-elliptic" springing system, both that of the two and of the four spring stack setups, which had some popularity many decades ago, this particularly in smaller vehicles, as it is more compact and lighter in weight as compared to the full length "semi-elliptic" leaf spring we're all more familiar with.  And yes, clamping the leaf spring stacks, other than that as required in the mounting system, does change how they function and has been a popular practice in all forms of racing when what might be present isn't deemed satisfactory and might need "tightening-up".   

    But what I'm attempting to point out is the not as originally intended, seen as the added four gold "hardware store" bolts and two pieces of flat-plate mounted where the main-leaf spring appears to be separated (BROKEN!  ).  This apparatus seems to have been instituted in the attempt to keep the broken main-leaf in position and from allowing the axle to move fore or aft or to rotate;.  But which if any additional significant influence might be exerted, at best might "just" allow the axle to get crossed-up under the car, or perhaps once things start going badly, the entire axle just comes flying out from under the car!        

    Scott.

    P.S.  Typically as described a "cantilevered (rear) leaf spring" suspension is of a makeup where a full-length "semi-elliptic" leaf stack is utilized and where one end is attached to the vehicles' frame (generally forward of the axle), the other end is attached to the axle, and the center (but not necessarily symmetrically) of the spring stack is also attached to the frame (again generally forward), but on a pivot. 

    For example: as utilized on the late 1920's into the '30's Ford Model AA truck or the Rolls Royce "Silver Ghost" up to the mid 1920's or so.   

   There was some recent discussion of B.A.T. with comments on some of their practices, and perhaps just out of frustration, I thought I'd vent here (just what everyone wanted to hear, I'm sure)!   

   There is this vehicle:

      https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1932-auburn-speedster-special-2/

   Kinda "cool"  , so I was looking it over and noticed and then attempted to post this comment:


 "It appears in photo #26 that there is a fabricated clamp on the spring stack, and this for the purpose of attempting to hold the broken main-leaf in place?

This should be addressed without hesitation, via replacement, not as has been done!  Remember, in this sort of suspension, the main-leaves act as the training arms which have the responsibility of maintaining the rear axle in place. And at minimum when one leaf is broken, particularly the main-leaf, this throws the suspension function and balance off, which can cause unappreciated instability and handling woes.

Also, since it probably isn't going to be a simple matter to be able to duplicate the singular broken example, and then considering that if one broke, others may not be far behind, it'd be better and wiser to realize that all four sets should be replaced together."


     The purpose of my message isn't for the purpose of disparaging the car nor to hinder the bidding, but rather just pointing out the issue as a safety concern, and that this should be addressed differently, this before the axle comes flying out from under the car!   

     The result is that B.A.T. won't release my comment into the event, again!      I mean this is a "safety" issue, but they still seem more intent on aiding in the auction event and the sale!  And I realize that someone saw to it that a photo showing the failure was presented in the gallery, but in today's age of litigation, it would seem they're still opening themselves up for potential trouble in blocking of comments attempting to point out "safety" concerns should the issue progress into a full-blown failure with injuries or worse.    

     Besides, the old gal has survived this long, let's not fold her up now due to a stupid thing like this!   

     Scott.

      I'm not sure based on the photos as provided, but it seems that there are remains of striations across the pad where the nomenclature is missing which may lead one to be under the impression that the nomenclature had been ground-off? 

      Also, I'm pretty sure the hole in the #8 inlet runner, currently with a steel plug inserted, was not as executed in production, rather someone, somewhere along the way, needed a vacuum port and made accommodations.   

      Scott.

The Gurney Lotus 19 at Daytona 1965 ran that particular engine...ran as the "rabbit" to burn out the competition.

    Yes, I had read that somewhere; and that the "325" had obviously been selected for it's performance advantage due to it's greater capacity, but also as this presented an opportunity for further testing under the conditions stipulated, and then that they didn't really expect nor really intended that it would last the duration.   

    Scott.

    A "mid-80's 302", . . . . . well '85 was the first year for "hydraulic-roller camshafts" in the "5.0" ("302"), so be sure that yours is such.  Then if it "is" the O.E.M. steel-billet hydraulic-roller camshaft, then yes, you will need to utilized the appropriate "steel" distributor driven gear vs. the older "cast iron" gear as was of previous flat-tappet usage. 

    Scott.

Ex uncut drag car with all original metal but the hood that hangs from his wall
With an ugly big hood scoop molded to it but his car is the exception to the rule. 

    Yeah, that's "sorta" like mine: ex-drag car, no rust, low mileage, well mine is a "bit" higher at 30,000 +/- (but then I'm not sure if the previous owner ever "corrected" the speedometer after the "5.67" gears got stuffed in?    ) , and yep, a "ugly big hood scoop"!   

     And I did go down to the Ford Parts Dept., way back when, and bought a new hood for it! 

     But I'm not sure if I've got any space on a wall to hang the old one; if I ever do get around to swapping them! 

    Scott.

   

      Not begging the question, but there's a lot to take into consideration in what might seem as a simple "I'm just going to turn the scoop around", that 's why I was interested in the why, and if there was any testing data.

     Some of the topics might be:

       Overall aerodynamic effect on vehicle?
       Effectiveness as a fresh-air "scoop" at actually grabbing the atmosphere?
       The one that isn't so often considered, at least initially, that is the effect the scoop's air routing has on the carburetor function?
       Of course, there's the presentation acceptability?
       And I'm sure there are others. 

     Scott.