Messages

Why so much? https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1993-ford-saleen-mustang-sc-convertible-2/

    It's simply the scenario of B.A.T., MECUM, Barrett Jackson, ie. the "auction fever" reaction by bidders of just going "all-in", no matter what the cost vs. actual value might be! 

    But I sure wouldn't want to be that guy, if the intention was to flip that Saleen for a profit; any time soon that is! 

    Scott.

    Though I do believe that the "FOX" Mustangs have proven to present elevated values over last few years, and this is to be expected, as historically in this "vintage" automotive industry, the teen-aged public of when these cars were new, are now at that point in their lives that they often seem to wish to revisit that period of their lives and are in a position money-wise and available-time-wise to do such, and this is why we're seeing the current value trends.  But at 40 "big-ones", he might be already collecting the enhanced value that could be anticipated in only say five years down the road.   

     The biggest consideration might be, when and if one chooses to move their FOX "investment" along to the next taker, whom down the road might this be?  Truly historically significant cars have done well for a few generations, but ask nearly anyone whom has paid attention to car values, as to how well the often as identified "prewar" (WWII, which in my book means "inter-war" period and "pre-war" would actually be before WWI!) and then also of the "post-war" and "cars of the fifties", they'll tell you investment-wise, you'd be better off picking up some swamp-land in Florida.   

     And remember your considering buying this as an "investment" not as a "collector" or as with your own personally whim interest, and I'm not sure that the "Saleen" moniker really adds anything monetarily significant to the mix.  Yes, the Salesman is always going to expound the significant rarity and enhanced value, but the truly receptive audience for such is, as I believe, not that great.  Besides, as I recall, most Saleens were bought by the then older generations (they could afford the markup!) attempting to be "hip", solely for the perceived "bragging rights" and "one upmanship" value in that number on the front bumper!   

     Scott.

       

      Yes, in this day of such an array of possibilities in camshaft lobe profile grinds, unique requirements for the intake vs. exhaust lash settings isn't unheard of, but so typical, that being based on the "grind".   

      In the instances where the lash/clearance specification varied from the intake valvetrain side to the exhaust, generally one will have found that it was the exhaust side that specified a "bit" more, often a sum of say .002" to as much as .004", and this was deemed necessary as in operation the exhaust valve runs significantly hotter than that of the intake, this resulting in it's greater expansion and lengthening between the seating face and stem tip, and for which this extra clearance value is intended to provided for.   

      Scott.

      Even though there might be "a number", this for a supposedly "properly" setting of the lash, you actually have a fare sum of latitude as to what will work.  In defining this, what we're saying is a setting that won't lead to any sort of accelerated wear or damage but still might be a deviation from the as listed value.   

      Typically, in this period (assumably 1967) .018" to .022" was pretty popular (performance cams generally more), but with the latitude as mentioned, this having been say, and somewhat safely, approximately .004" +/- (if not even more), this means there's a fare bit of latitude to work with.  The manufactures needed this range to cover manufacturing deviations and a possibly not so accurate effort in the setting process by the human being and not to mention functional environmental conditions that created variations; so their number is just targeting somewhere in the middle of the cam-lobe "take-up-ramp" which presents a certain sum of distance.      

      This has also proven to have been a tuning tool for the racer's; as with your car being "dialed-in" at the track, you could tighten the lash (some) to provide a minor sum of additional cam-effect or open-up the lash to reduce such, and which reaped the improvement in performance provided the owner with the simple notion of whether the camshaft was "not big enough" or "just too big" for the application.   

       Now, I generally default for "tight"; as this if anything, it might provide an additional duration of distance and time that the lifter will spend on the take-up ramp, meaning that at this point where the lifter is transitioning from stationary (vertical motion) to being "bumped-up", there's perhaps a softer start to the action, but of course, one would have to study the lobe profile to determine this in absolute terms.   

       But whatever you choose to do, do be consistent throughout!   

      Scott. 

    I'm at a bit of a loss, this on the difficulties some have had reaping a successful outcome with the standard two-piece seal and then others whom just fear the idea of having to deal with it? 

    Now, I'm also not the smartest guy, but I've never had any problems with these nor trepidation at the idea of them, and certainly not to the point of adopting the notion of recommending that "everyone" should convert (machine) their blocks to accept the one-piece design. 

    Scott.

    "Hank The Crank" didn't come about until the early '70's and apparently founder Henry Benchtloff worked for the Crankshaft Company in Los Angeles before he hung out his own shingle. 

    The ol' '70 Shelby had a Ford steel 427 crank that had been reworked by H.T.C.; welded, stroked and had the extra center counter-weight added. 

    Scott.

   

It appears that Tasca is using the Ford specs for their 505 project.

    In the description, the use of "exact" and "also" prostitutes the intent. 

Somehow we'd need to find their crankshaft source. Was it a Ford experimental part or a local crank maker?

    I'm guessing but perhaps:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/434525774318705/posts/449082129529736/

    Scott.


   
     

Found this article about the 325 cid engine from Tasca Ford.

    Great find! 

    But, I wonder if rather this article might be describing "a" 325 cid engine (Tasca's version) and not necessarily "the" 325 being discussed here? 

    Anyone know what version of Holley carburetors the "540 C.F.M." units might be?  R1847's maybe? 1848's were rated at "465 C.F.M."; 1849's were rated at "550 C.F.M." (smaller venturi size) maybe a "recalibration" due to . . . . . . ?  Just some numbers to keep others confused?   

    Scott.

. . . . . they are 450 CFM mechanical secondary carburetors,

    Hey John,

    Are those "450's" the one's 'without' the accelerator pump system on the secondaries? 

    If so, in my experience, just toss 'em now and save yourself some grief!    They seem to generally work "O.K." if the package is way under-carbureted providing good draw, this for the transitional throttle engaging the mechanical secondaries and to have the "mains" function reasonably in the low to mid range, but then if so, it's going to run out of breath on the top end!  So in other words: they just "suck"!   

    In comparison, if wishing for a small C.F.M. Holley, in this case a pair of 'em, I've always done better with the 390 C.F.M. "NASCAR" unit; of which for esthetics reasoning, in order to present an "in-period" presentation, this would be an old model, the "0-6895".  But if rounding up "old shyte" there also the R7411 @ 370 C.F.M. and the R7410 @ 340 C.F.M., and although the C.F.M. rating assignments varied the throttle bore sizes didn't, so . . . . .?   

    Of course, the new H.P. "stuff", here the 0-80507, would probably be better and easier to come by, if you just don't mind the modern look.  And then, Quick Fuel does have a 450 C.F.M. "double-pumper"! 

    But in the end, this discussion is actually perhaps moot, as how do you put a 4150 series carb. on that intake?  So maybe, you'll just figure out how to rework the main bodies for an accelerator pump system; c'mon it can't be that hard, . . . . . right?     

    Scott.

       
   

     If I may ask:  What were the "List" numbers & "date codes" on the carburetors?

     Scott

    Just note, that although your "probably" O.K. lifting the engine and its' associated weight from the manifold, it never was the intention by those who engineered it. 

    Scott.

     Once you decide to straddle the engine with the O.E.M. exhaust manifolds, much of anything else, as long as it is at least "reasonable", further down the line really isn't going to make any difference in the vehicles' actual performance; at that point your choosing based on looks, sound and price.   

     Scott.

Cast iron alloys vary.

    And this has a great deal to do with whether the effort will be successful. 

    The next issue will be the condition of the casting, and note that generally the crack failure isn't something that 'just' happens, rather this often is a result due to fatigue.  In the case of exhaust manifolds the fatigue comes from the expansion and contraction due to the extreme heat differentials generated in the engines' periods of nonoperation vs. during those of operational, and isn't relegated solely to the immediate area of the crack. 

    Heating the casting is considered mandatory for success, this at least to that of a dark "cherry-red" color; and then after the filler material has been added, a controlled slow cool down that minimizes localized shrinkage that will impart stresses that may result in further cracking. 

    The stainless rod is popular for castings as it is high in nickel which aids in neutralizing some of the pollution present in the casting (cast iron is considered a "dirty metal" and another reason it is considered a non-weldable material) and reducing the gassing out, this making for a lesser effort requirement and better appearance and soundness in the welding.  It also is somewhat softer that the general steel rod filler materials which being more pliable aids with a reduction in the forces created by shrinkage particularly in the cooling-off period.  But it will definitely be visible! 

    The best filler material is cast iron; not just because it'll provide a less apparent repair, but because long term, a like material will move more equally with the parent casting and this will provide for less stress and the likelihood for a crack recurrence.   

    Now, some of the "miracle" welding rods for cast iron that "guarantee" success for the most novice of welders, most often actually don't provide for a true "welding" process, rather are a "brazing" process. This which has less effect on the parent casting and aids success by eliminating to great degree particularly the otherwise resultant "heat effected zone" that is most often the cause of further cracking post the welding operation in the cooling down period. 

    Scott.   

The inner circumference on the balancer outer ring was machined to accept the wider 3-sheave pulley, but the imbalance remained the same. Looking at the back side of the balancer, you will see that the imbalance weighting of the hub part of the balancer is unchanged. Only the outer ring on outside of the elastomer was machined = no change in the balance.   There would be no reason to change any balancing or removing of hatchet to accommodate for AC.
I suspect hatchet was removed to allow for wider timing chain, probably accompanied by a rebalance.

     +1   
 

The fact remains that the C7ZE balancer was relieved of material to allow it mount closer the block to provide clearance for the 3-row pulley for the A/C compressor and/or CA air pump drive. This makes this balancer unique to A/C-equipped '67 350s. The same applies to the associated 3-row crank pulley. This isn't really conjecture, it's simply fact.

My way of thinking is that this did indeed alter the mass of the balancer relative to the non-A/C C5OE A balancer that it was machined down from, albeit if only very little. Given the the counterweight clearance was minimal to begin with, this likely drove the decision to incorporate the obviously less robust narrower timing chain and gears on all K-code engines. On a related note, the narrower chain and crank gear also likely weigh less than the wider standard OEM 289 parts. This probably accounts, in part, for the more massive C5OE balancer on the K-code engines.

All I'm saying here is that the notion that the rotational mass was in balance is likely correct in both A/C and non-A/C-equipped cases. However, the total mass of the rotational assemblies was obviously not the same. This starts to look suspicious on the A/C-equipped engines when one considers all of the variables of additional mass mounted on the center line: 3-row pulley, machined C7ZE balancer and the "hatchet' counterweight or not.

    Not to be stickler for details, but first lets' rectify the vocabulary that might be a participant in the confusion, that of "balancer".  There's no such thing!  At least not as properly applicable terminology in this discussion.  It is properly identified as a "harmonic/vibration damper" or simply a "damper"; though some damper assemblies "may" consist of a counter-balance feature (as is the case here) and it is this that has led to the moniker of "balancer" or even "harmonic balancer", etc., both of which are really not a good choice.   

    Now, "changing the mass of the balancer", not specifically any counter-weight feature, doesn't really change the "balance", nor does that as effected by adding or subtracting other features such as pulleys or T.C. gears, this as long as they themselves don't inject an unintended imbalance; though these may change the frequency of the "critical" vibratory feature within the mass of the whole assembly.  This meaning that to narrow or reduce the diameter of the inertia ring or to open-up the internal dimension of the hub, symmetrically, isn't going to greatly effect the balance requiring a correction such as the addition or removal of the "cookie-cutter" weight.   

    Next, the reason for the requirement of the narrower chain & gear when the additional counter weight was added on the H.P. engines was because the stacking length of componentry as mounted on the nose of the crankshaft had to remain the same under the retaining bolt head; so with the .150" added in with the counter weight, this sum had to come-off somewhere else.
   
    So, did the "damper" assembly actually get moved rearward, "closer to the block"? If this had been deemed a reasonable possibility there wouldn't have been a need for the narrower chain & gear concoction, just turn .150" off the damper snout and we're done! Or is it that the timing cover and water pump changed and got closer to the damper and this coupled with just choosing to adopt the specified larger inertia ring damper ("dampening" value), and this for expediency just being barrowed from the earlier 289 H.P. engineering, which being wider, brought it into an interference scenario and which was most expediently solved by machining the damper inertia ring "some" to fit, as the engineers understood that it wouldn't greatly effect the "balance"?   

    Or maybe something like that?   

    Scott.

   

I have an early 1967 GT350 equipped with factory A/C and the associated re-stamped C7ZE A harmonic balancer.

It would assist me greatly if a more experienced source could elaborate on an early 1967 A/C-equipped GT350's timing chain and gears configuration,

The misnomer here remains the over-stamped C7ZE balancer and I'm holding out hope that another forum participant might have knowledge of just how these early 1967 GT350s were modified to accommodate the air-conditioning system.

    If you're perhaps under the impression or just exploring whether these components may have been of a different makeup for A.C. cars vs. non, this would not have been the case.  Yes, dampers were sometimes unique to a particular chassis or sometimes due to different belt-driven accessory componentry, this to provide for better fitments and/or in an understanding that those items being driven via the belt(s) do also participate in "damping", but not "balance" value items and hence here the change of unique timing chain & gearing.   

    As is often stated: "the "cookie-cutter" counter counter-weight was added for improved high R.P.M. balance", . . . . . this is not accurate.  The actual reason was simply that the "289 Hi-Po" had different connecting rods & pistons which weighed more; and as attached to the same crankshaft casting (yes, "selected for higher nodularity") which was engineered and intended for something less, there needed to be an additional value added somewhere, and the "cookie-cutter" installation was deemed the most expedient solution.  And this would not have been deletable just because A.C. was added.    

    Scott.