Messages

FWIW: my ancient files label these as JFK/Idelwild, see attached (despite the thumbnail mis-label jpegs).
Aircraft is a CL-44 of Slick Airways.

I am so impressed to see mention of Valley Clutch on this Forum!
I had the distinct pleasure of knowing both Frank and Pat going back to the Quonset Hut days on Arrow.
Those men live on to this day with the racers of the original Irwindale. Absolute classics! Esp Pat's legendary 'dead squirrel' toupé. Frank passed early and Pat closed up the new shop perhaps 20(?) yrs ago. But boy do they live on in bench-racing circles in these parts.
One of my cars (at 500hp) still has a 'gold' clutch, with numerous disc changes/surfacing and has never slipped. My GT-350 ran a solid roller B302 until recently, again w one of Pat's gold clutches, same, nary a problem and I'm thinking of putting that mid-80's long plate behind the recently stock spec'd original 306hp just out of a wierd 'nostalgic loyalty' (?). I can't come up w a reason why-not-to. Crazy.

Yes, a 52" like out of a 1957~ Ford will work, the tubes do not narrow down so you'll have to switch plates and u-bolts, was very popular mod in the day when '57 Fords were in junkyards.
Granada style 9in housing, w factory disc brakes, are also 52" width is also a popular easy option for a non-concours application. 
Curries' used to use 8" tubes on a 9" pumpkin which was 'ok' but noticeable for those really looking, they may have since changed (?). Mitch Jackson used to supply them to Currie, but he has since passed.
There were 100% reproductions being made a few years ago, when the Hipo K Exchange Forum was up, status unknown now.

https://youtu.be/j03RWXoGoYU?si=eTqLOfJJE6uz_Rlv

...that classroom of girls-sooo cute. where are they now?

PM sent

you have been very fortunate.

to clarify: this discussion is about a 2:36 'Sebring box"' T-10m/l. vice the contemporary 2:43 super-t-10 installed in a phony T-10m cast housing currently allowed in vintage racing.

Lets just say that this 65 had a higher price than other 65 shelby's from Shelby.

That's an intriguing teaser. I'll take the bait.

Perhaps this car is special? even one of the hundreds of special 'prototype' 65 GT-350s?
Seeing that this car was especially equipped by Shelby American with a 1966 RR wheelhouse in 1965 in anticipation of future proposed model changes, I would think could enhance its value.

Scott,

Thank you. Not untrue.

It is my belief that the main web structure/ stress cracking was the effect of the problem, not the cause.

From the effect I would think one would work backwards, especially when a damaged passive piece (such as a block) houses dynamic pieces and their incumbent oscillatory harmonics (such as both a rotating and reciprocating assembly under varied loads and speeds).

A sporting rhetorical question:  the orientation of the axis of the application of their engineering discipline, that's all  .

In my former career we would often simply say: 'what were they thinking ?'.

-Steve A

Never heard of nor seen a C7FE block. Would love to see some evidence.

Here is what I've found (and open to editing):
-XE sm block development was a product of the GT40 program;
-1964 used 255 aluminium which cracked block webbing before the trans' went out;
-1965 used basically stock 271hp shortblocks which blew head gaskets and cracked webbing and 325 cid Bechtloff strokers which didn't hold head gaskets;
-1966 used a robusted 2-bolt block C6FE-6015-A, main web cracking. Repros of these enhanced  2-bolt blocks are presently being cast in the UK being used in FIA legal vintage Cobras primarily because they are restricted to a 2-bolt block;
-1967 first 4-bolt block XE-136136 followed by the XE-136505 which is the pic I posted, these engines too were plagued with internal cracking;
-the XE-136505 was integrated into the parts system as the C8FE used for the 302TP and initial Boss production followed by the D0ZE and the D1ZE.
 

-the thin wall 8.2 blocks have notoriously weak block webbing. Today hi-HP SBFs split OEM blocks due to HP (go boom-boom). In yesteryear, such as GT40 LeMans, the engines were low HP by todays stds (375-400 HP 289s, 400-450 HP GW 302s). Today's aftermarket 8.2 blocks have 40+ lbs of iron in the webbing over a 4-bolt Boss block. It's also weight over the nose.
Sustained externally balanced hi-rpm is what killed these blocks in the 60s, not splitting the block, but stress cracking discovered on forensic teardown. How they missed identifying the source for so long is puzzling. I have heard that Hank's 1965 325 strokers were fully counterweighted billets, but have not verified;
-I presently run a D1ZE, but it's risky sustained over 500 hp;
-I have endured the Boss 302 cracked skirts, passive damage, luckily never scored a cylinder.

XE 289 (attached)

exactly, in ineptly attempting to setup a three-engine go for training they intentionally/incorrectly removed their flight control hydraulic pumps and killed themselves.

"The cause of the accident was found to be poor procedures for simulating engine failures and failure to apply the correct procedure for hydraulic failure, as well as loss of hydraulic power to the rudder in a critical flight condition."

That would be my preferred way to do business.
However, AMR did not have international rights in 1965.
I was always morbidly intrigued w the pic of the  GT-40s shipping out for LeMans 65, because that 707 Combi (N787TW) later went down w all hands on a botched three-engine go.You cannot view this attachment.

prior to picking the grind I would suggest addressing two problematic areas:

-compatibility of distributor gear to camshaft, especially if the solid roller is ground on on an SAE 8620 camshaft;
-which type of roller tappet to employ: ie a needle bearing tappet or a bushed roller.

these are the historic points of failure and there is so much out there based on conflicting fact, opinion and experience that one should be comfortable with these topics, as it will in the end be your decision.

after the potentially catastrophic items above, putting one on the street comes to decisions about lobe ramp acceleration and lash (tight-lash designs). a street application is very different than a track application (which is torn down/inspected frequently). these can make a solid roller 'streetable' (but do cut down the horsepower and tappet-noise of a race roller).

I've been running solid rollers in my 65 GT-350 for decades-and still do.

DD-DC,
I have recently painted my car, after years of research prior, a photo library of hundreds of photos and personal contact with some of the leading restorers.
I could find no consensus. True paint compositions have been long reformulated, homogenized, or consolidated with other colors by the manufacturers. Most leading shops use their own blends which (although all nice) are all over the place.
Attached pics show seven (yes seven $$$) of the different 'Guardsman' blues I did spray-outs on.
FWIW, my car was original paint when I bought it, and I remember the blue as quite dark, but it was faded and opaque, big mismatch w the side lettering, and in years past I always
tinted-up the blue to minimize the clash. But that was over 50 years ago. This time I went back w a 'darker' formulation. -wish I could be more specific.
Glad you didn't ask about the 'white'!

Certainly it could be one of many reasons as mentioned.
It might help if you could determine when you are detonating.
Many engines detonate at peak tq rpm because they are advanced curved for total advance at peak horsepower rpm. Maximum cylinder pressure is at max tq rpm. Max HP is later and it requires more spark advance.
For example, using generic numbers, a stepped curve, set to say 35 degrees at peak tq rpm and then advancing at a rate similar to 1 degree/1000 rpm to peak hp rpm, to say 38 degrees, is how some tailor around peak tq rpm detonation.
This used to be considered exotic/expensive tuning, but advances in things such as a programmable MSD (cleverly hidden) have brought this into the realm of the 'small guy'.