Messages

The pictured seal is an aftermarket unit (Perfect Circle? or ?). You can still opt for the Ford-style umbrella seal if you choose. The machined guide will not alter the effectiveness of the umbrella seal if you go that direction.

Frank

You didn't mention whether or not if you measured the wheelbase side to side(?) Use a string (centerline-to-centerline). Have you performed comparative measurements of the wheel openings of each fender? Is one or both of the front fenders aftermarket? Stranger things have happened.

Frank

Thanks for everyone's feedback. I don't want to use the 70 C4 so based on the feedback I am going to:
1) Pull the 1966 engine/trans (validate it's still a 66 engine)
2) Use my rebuilt 66c4 "body" and new torque converter
3) But use the 70 250 bellhousing, flexplate, and 70 starter so it bolts up to my 1970 250 replacement engine.
4) Will make sure the depth of the 66 and 70 bellhousing are the same so there aren't any issues with spacing.
5) Will check the input shaft and hope it's the same length, size and splines.

In the scenario about just wondering if I can also use the 66 flex plate and then what starter would I need to use? Does that sound reasonable, or did I miss anything?

You can't get there from here! The flex plates are two completely different animals. The 200 cu. in. torque converter has the ring gear (for the starter) welded directly to it. In other words, the flex plate has NO starter-engaging teeth on it whereas the 250 cu.in. engine uses a flex plate that has gear teeth on it.

The ONLY way that you will be able to use the 200 transmission and mate it to the 250 is to source the bell housing, torque converter, and starter from a 250 version of a C4 transmission and yes they are compatible with the 200 version of the C4.

The C4 has a removable bell housing so worst case he would need to swap the bellhousings.

.........and torque converter and starter......

[cboss70]

Your '66 transmission WON'T bolt to the new engine. The 250 cu. in. engine has the same bell housing bolt pattern as the 289 would have. That also means that the flex plate and torque converter do not bolt up either. You'll have to use the transmission that came with the 250.

Sorry for the bad news.

Frank

Pretty sure a 1966 Mustang would have a 200 CI six cylinder engine. Maybe that is what you meant. Anyway the early six cylinders used a different bolt pattern unique to them and it will not work with the 1970 era six which has the same bolt pattern as the 6 bolt 302 / 289 / 351 engines.

Royce, if cboss70 had a '70 200 cu.in. engine, he could bolt his C4 transmission to that engine. 1966 and later 200 cu.in. engines had an additional set of tapped bolt holes about 1.5 inches (don't hold me to that dimension) above the tapped bolt holes located in the center of the block. The reason that there is a dual pattern is that '66 and later manual transmission bell housings used the upper two holes for mounting to the block whereas the C4's used the lower tapped holes, as did '65 manual AND automatic transmissions. One of Ford's BETTER IDEAS (you tell me).

ALL versions of the 250 cu.in. engine used the larger V8 pattern as I described earlier.

I hope this helps (?)

Frank   

Your '66 transmission WON'T bolt to the new engine. The 250 cu. in. engine has the same bell housing bolt pattern as the 289 would have. That also means that the flex plate and torque converter do not bolt up either. You'll have to use the transmission that came with the 250.

Sorry for the bad news.

Frank

PM sent.

Frank

SOLD SOLD

Bump. Price reduced to $175 including shipping.

Frank

I have a production line proportioning valve in original, as found condition for sale. This valve has been sitting on one of my cabinet shelves for years and now needs a new home. The date code is 204-4 (July 23, 1964). Externally, the valve still has a heavy coating of black paint and minimal surface rust with no pitting. The line port threads are in very good condition. The pressure adjustment screw and jam nut are also in very good condition and display the original zinc plating under the heavy paint. The valve comes with the panel attaching bolt. Internal condition is unknown. Price-$200 includes shipping.

Frank

Hi SAAC forum viewers. I hope you all can help me. You have been great help in the past.
  I am looking for seat belts for my 1966 Shelby gt350H (6S1264). Ideally originals but I have never seen a set for sale. Am I looking in the wrong place? If I can not find originals is there a company or brand that looks very similar to the originals and are good quality?

   Thank-you

PM sent.

Jeff and Bob-Thank you for your corporate knowledge and pictures.

Frank

Guys, should the under-side of a '66 all steel, black hood be finished in gloss, semi-gloss, or flat black?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Frank

. You can EASILY de value your engine by porting it.

    I suppose if your referring to the possibility of "holing-thru" the casting, I can understand your perspective; otherwise if the porting work is executed properly, even if done conservatively so as to reduce the likelihood of failure, I really feel that this can be of a significant value enhancement for those whom really want to drive and enjoy their car in a spirited manor. 


In the Used Parts World, stock (non-ported) heads are more desirable for the perspective buyer than the ported units. So many heads have been ruined by amateur porting and it is difficult to determine a performance-enhancing port job versus potential junk by looking at them.

I think that a better option would be to purchase a set of performance heads. Generally speaking, these heads will out perform posed originals. 

If it were mine, I would forget the port and polish and hydraulic camshaft. You can EASILY de value your engine by porting it. NOTHING sounds better than a solid lifter hipo. I don't consider a hydraulic camshaft an upgrade-especially to a hipo. It ain't a hipo unless it sounds like a hipo.