Messages

Actually the BF32 was obsoleted and replaced with the BF42.

The BF32's were recommended for the higher compression engines and the 42's for the lower compression engines.

Either will work but what you may find is that rpm's over about 5,000 rpm's are limited by the hotter 42 plug.


I know that there is a general dislike of the Champion plug. Not that they are inferior, but because that isn't what the "Kool people" run. However, that series offers a greater heat range then most others do, INCLUDING the Autolite's.

I have that using Champions to "tune" a brand new engine helpful.

The only other plug that comes close to that "tunability" is the NGK. If you look at the actual engineering heat ranges of their plugs, it will give you an indication why. The answer is, their design, gives a wider heat range for the same engine.


BF32's have NEVER been the exact right plug for the high performance Ford engines. They have ALWAYS been on the too cold range, noticibly fouling particularly with automatic transmissioned cars used in bumper to bumper traffic, whereas the 42 is too hot and causes detonation over 5,000 rpm.

The Champion can be dialed in better as is the NGK.

Was a J code 302 4V Mustang a 31 Spline 9" inch?

Yes.9 inch, 31 spline, Daytona yoke.

     Any and all "J-Code" examples, are you sure?   

     Scott.

I have not seen "Every '68 GT350". That is standard equipment of the GT Package in 1968 as we know it.

The variation from that is the car that should be questioned as far as legitimacy because IT would be out of line.

At this point, there have been so many Shelby cars that have been brought back from the dead by less knowledgeable people with junk yard parts, it would be disappointing to find an inaccurate restoration, but not necessarily surprising.

GT350 302 4V 31 Spline 9 inch   Was a J code 302 4V Mustang a 31 Spline 9" inch?

Yes.9 inch, 31 spline, Daytona yoke.

At this point you pronably need to actually measure the amount of pressure the calipers are.recieving from the master.

With no boost, they should be around 500psi. With vacuum boost, around 700psi.


Two things.can efect the pressure. Number one is going.to be the bore of the master cylinder.

Stock it should be 15/16". Smaller bore will give more pressure. Larger bore, less pressure.

66 Mustang is 3/4" and wrong for a 67.
I ll bet you the aftermarket lists them with the same part number.

The variation is going to be 3/4", 15/16" and.1".

It is too commom for the 3/4" bore to be substitied and marked as a stock replacement, which it is not.


The sensativity you describe is related to the bore size of the master, not the booster which is obviously working correctly.

You can reduce boost.by lowering the vacuum to it.

Originally, they are intended to work with 20.to 22 inches of vacuum.

Under about 14, they stop working.


A stock.67.GT 500.uses a.very mild cam profile and really is mismatched to the booster as originally supplied.

You will find that if you change to virtually any aftermarket cam, the idle vacuum will drop to about 15, wbich will reduce the boost the system provides and help the brake sensativity.


Sorry for the long post but you.have run into an engineering issue and explanation is necessary.



Additionally, pedal travel changes with master bore. Originally that travel was "correct" if at full travel, you could put one foot under the pedal at.full lock.

The only way you can change that is with bore change. The.larger the bore, the less pedal travel.


Race cars typocally go up to 1-3/16" which makes the pedal travel very short, in fact just touching it, but they are manual with no boost.
That os.more that a race engine typically will idle with about 8 imches so there isnt enough vacuum supplied.

This is all.about the master bore. The rears do not care. They are just along for the ride.


There is a huge differece just between the 15/16" and 1" alone and the only way YOU can decide is to try the combinations.
There really is no simple answer to this.

Comander Scott once commented "you remind me of the man who demanded to be taught the wisdom of the world while standing on one foot".
Don't be that guy.

I'm glad that you worked things out.

In reality, I'm not an individual that is easy to depose but I like to think of it as "I like to take the long road home".  Sometimes I like to try to share that vision.

The way to quiet that tray down is to stuff foam underneath. The cotton insulation blankets used on dishwashers would be very effective.

By contrast, the design of the '66 tray includes some improvements like a front lip and reinforcing strips. It also eliminates the spare tire notch.
It still though had no consideration of sound insulation, just structural improvements.

Those were molded plastic and would warp in something like the Texas summer sun even though factory reinforced with wood 1x3's.


Ironically enough though that the current fiberglass reproductions correct that issue but still need sound deadening.

I suspect that since the tray wasn't a big sales feature, that the concept became more of a PITA then was worth?

Yes, for sure, I do remember the carpeted controversy discussed but it may have even been in the SOA days of before SAAC?
With maybe 6 cars involved it was kind of hard then to come to any conclusions but having it mentioned in the "moments of the meeting" is enough for me to accept that this was a factory modification. Why it wasn't done to the remaining cars in stock, at $4 each, shows how cheap they were being in making decisions IMHO.

I will say that the carpeting does make the '65 panel more useful but using simple pick-up truck bed coating/paint that didn't exist then, solves much of the problem of items sliding around but you best use a cargo net if you were serious about using it as a cargo area?


The original thought was saving the 85 pounds of rear seat that many had complained that it was not humanly inhabitable. The '66 GT350 actually had a curb weight of about 3,200 pound on the scale and far away from the stated 2,800 pounds in the owners manual.

Street use buyers didn't care that much about those details.

But the "reverse 105" castings weren't created until 1972.   

    Scott.

Just when you thought it was "safe to go back in the water", another FE enigma.

Why am I not shocked?

It's not a 1963 block. It has 3 bolt motor mounts, the extra inside web rib, the reverse 105 on front & back, & a 4.13 bore (it's an NOS block). I told him to check for the cast in "428" in the water jackets.

You are looking for a possible explanation. It is more likely that the casting date is incorrect then the ribs being wrong.

Not all 428's have a visible number from the water jackets. That's a 50/50 proposition. As many don't as many do.

Looked this one over today... the block is stamped with the car's serial number....

... it's Shelby serial number 

Now that's memorable 

My question is whether that Shelby number is in addition to the normally stamped Ford VIN or is the Ford VIN completely missing on that block. My engine also has the sfm number stamped on another part of the block from a prior owner prior to the gentleman I bought the car from, but the Ford VIN remains intact on the block in its customary location and matches the Ford VINs on the body of the car. Disappearing original hipo engines on the Hertz cars were apparently a real thing. Some wanted additional assurance perhaps by stamping the Shelby VIN on the block. I can assure you that the prior owner can competently testify that my block is original to my car despite having the extra number on the block, having owned the car before me all the way back to the early 70s. The Ford VIN is on the block. That creates a rebuttable presumption this is the original block unless overcome by other competent and admissible evidence. Speculation does not count.

At some point in the late '70s or early '80s, there were those recommending stamping ID numbers into significant components for theft identification reasons.

How many people did that is unknown.

Having the Shelby VIN stamped into the block is of debatable value or value loss but not necessarily a yellow caution flag.


Presuming that it was done for this purpose, it does raise question as to how someone would attempt to identify the parts since there would be no record of the Ford VIN anywhere.
Somewhat of a conundrum?

Considering the amount of labor necessary to switch out the engine and the limited amount of gain by doing so, I wouldn't think that was very common although a few have "confessed" to having done so.

I would say that the casting date is wrong OR it is a 1963 casting date. A '73 block would have ribs. The molds broke and when repaired wound up with ribs. The 427 blocks have them also with 72 casting dates.

I also think that it is a 390 block, not a 428.Personally I would not consider it without an A or C scratch but I'm not well informed on the truck versions. Plus, you would not want to use that block in anything special.

People have bored those out to 4.13.

So a reverse 105 is a truck block. Its my understanding the ribs were added to extend the life of the molds

Yes.

The ribs appear somewhere in 1972.

I don't believe that there is any factory documentation that mentions specific car cut offs.

The information comes from owners filling out Registry information cards for the SAAC Registry.

Thanks for all that information, Doug. I am going to do a redo on the alignment as far a toe-in but caster and camber are a steeper learning curve. I saw somewhere that replacing the strut rods with adjustable ones makes doing the caster much easier. Something I am considering but need to educate myself on how it is measured and how it all goes together. 843 has a one inch drop that was added by prior long term owner so I went with it. The drop mixed with the 475 pound lowering springs with a 1 inch drop themselves makes the front end sit perfectly. I didn't calculate it that way. I was fortunate.

The caster is the most complex. Camber you can do with a carpenters level IF you can get the car completely level. That isn't as simple as it sounds and why it is done on an alighment table/machine.

You want to set the camber at -1/2° on a street car. That means leaning in on the top and the -1/2° translates to 1/2" on the level.
On a race car you probably would want something like -1-1/2° camber and 2° caster but not on a street car.
Even -1/2° WILL show tire ware on the inside of the tire tread. On a race car, that matters less.

IF you are going to put on new tires, do those first since tire wear is going to effect the procedure and accuracy, and as far as accuracy goes, don't be distracted by advertisements insuring accuracy down to .001". Alignments have ALWAYS been approximate and in particular on a "Mustang". Racers are always screwing with it and don't need an alignment table to do it either.

Incidentally, the rear is set by the factory axle and has 3/16" toe in and -1/2° camber. Caster does not apply there and you wouldn't want it to since camber steers the car and you do not want the rear steering under any circumstances unless you are suicidal. Rear steer will kill you.

Your issues with steering response may be from bumpsteer and you are just noticing it now.


My '68 GT350 upper A-arms are lowered 1-1/2", uses a ball joint shim and a bump steer elimination kit.
Ride height is about 3" lower then stock and uses the Ford "Boss 302 competition" 620/inch coil springs. So it is difficult to compare it to other more stock set ups. It also uses a 1-1/8" front anti-sway bar and Delrin bushings.


The factory pretty much sets the caster at 1-1/2° and to go further you are increasing the steering effort uncomfortably. I found that by going to 2-1/2°, which you would want for very high speed stability, the tires will hit the front of the fender openings while turning.

So to go that high you are re-engineering the car to a good degree and I would not recommend that for a street driven, non-power steering assist car. All you need is 1-1/2°.


Increasing caster will tend to make the car want to go straight and does effect the return to center of the steering wheel, but at some point the caster starts to fight you and not steer from center.


Incidentally, Ford has ALWAYS limited the amount of caster that you can dial into any of their cars to basically 1-1/2°. I'm not sure why but it PROBABLY has to do with customer dissatisfaction with steering efforts.

Even the Pantera that had it's front suspension designed by Gian Dellara, a Formula 1 chassis designer,  to a F1 style specs had Ford intervene and have the upper a-arms redesigned to limit the caster to 1-1/2°. In the original design, you could get 3° by moving the shims. Ford wouldn't allow that. They were the ones that had legal liability and had to warranty the car. We always question the motives of those in power. It was Ford's game but sometimes the "Legal Department" is too involved in the design of the car?

Hope this helps?

Even cars with power steering (mustangs) tend not to return to center on their own.

The total tow in is an approximation and should be 3/16" total. Lots of things can effect that.
Just getting new tires in the front can and usually does.

You need to back the car out of the driveway and then back in to set the suspension on it's normal ride height. Usually you will need help on driving onto your adjustment plates.

Now there will be an argument on whether toe should be set to the tires or the wheel rims but I use the tires. 
For that you will need two pieces of 3/4", nice and flat plywood cut to the edges of the tires. Use bundee cords to hold them in place. At this point you can take you tape measure and compare the distances between the front edge of the plywood and the back. That is where you get the distances.

You always want to end up with toe in. Never toe out. Whether that is 3/16", 1/4" or whatever, as long as it is a closer distance then the rear.


One thing that you have to consider on a Shelby is whether or not it has the 1" lowering points or just stock.

One thing rarely mentioned with the lowered mount is bump steer. With it you WILL have bump steer and depending on the tires used, the severity will vary. Mine was terrible with bias ply tires. Radials help, but the honest answer there is that you likely will NEED a bump steer elimination kit.

What bump steer is, is when the tire moves up and down in the suspension, in compression, the tire will lean out giving you TOE OUT. That is not good and really a dangerous situation.
You can reduce the bump steer by stiffening the front coils do that the suspension doesn't travel as much.

Shelby stopped doing the 1" lowering in '66 somewhere in the 600-700 range.

Judging by the date code, it is more likely that it is a "C" scratch rather then an "A" but the id is mixed around that date and could be either.

FE's are full of contradictions.

I would call it a "Day 2" car and leave it at that. There are buyers for both "Concours Original" and for "drivers". Some buyers consider drivers more desirable but a buyer should be knowledgeable.

c scratch blocks came in in June of 67 so a March block would be an A scratch block

I agree that is what it should be by the date code. It is thought that there are some C scratch original '67 GT500 engines but that is circumstantial evidence and not documented.

The reality with FE's is that just when you thought you found the answer, some kind of strange exception shows up that disrupts the theory. I would not personally bet on what it is, is all I am saying. That would be some kind of a suckers bet.

To me the A and C are identical and some room needs to be granted. The date codes, as Coralsnake has suggested, are the most important and it is the most logical that it isn't the original block to whatever the value of that is. Did the seller say it was original?

Without seeing the scratch mark, it is even possible that it is a 390 block. That is significant to a buyer rather then a 428 block. At the level this car is being offered at, it doesn't matter a lot what 428 block is in it, just whether or not the seller represents it as original to the Ford build.