Messages

Roy,
Your car takes a C5DZ-4635-A rear u-joint. 1260-3 15/32" span.
The front is a C5DZ-4635-B. The same specs are listed. a good parts store should be able to convert those numbers to whats currently available.

Thanks, Marty. Best advice to work with yet.

Regular HiPo Mustang part. Sometimes you may encounter one that isn't the same width both directions. Those are 1310-1330. Crawl under with a tape and measure both widths and cup dia to make sure someone hasn't changed something over the years.
4635 is the number Ford used for all U joints. The C3AZ tells you the year and model used on. The last - A, B, etc may come into play C3AZ-4635 may be for a Falcon. C3AZ-4635-A could be for a V8 Falcon. C3AZ-4635-B could be for a HiPo V8 with 9" rear.
Just measure what you've got and hit a local real auto parts store.
https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/ford,1966,mustang,4.7l+289cid+v8,1332885,drivetrain,universal+joint,2392
You can click on the info and it'll give you the dimensions

98SVT, Thanks for the reply. FYI, I'm pretty familiar with the Ford numbering system, having delt with it since 1973. A C3AZ part was probably designed for Ford's Galaxy line but might have applcation elseware. That's why you need the MPC. Unfortunately, a few of the sections of my MPC have been missplaced, which is why I asked. Pretty sure that the UJ is orriginal, at least I didn't change it out. Who knows what was done to it between the PO and the time I got my hans on it. Yes, I always thought that it was a regular Hi-Po part and not a Shelby pecific part. Thanks again.

Road,

Which series U-joint is going to fit a 9" rear behid a 289 Hi-Po? Would that be a 1330 series or something else? I know the basic Ford number is 4635 but are we talking something like a C3AZ or something else?

It is time to replace the rear universal joit on my Hertz car. Does anyone have a part number? A search of the topic on this site did not bring up any information. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Ah, this brings back memories from when I bought my car in 1977. After driving a 1965 Mustang for some years, I found that the GT500's brakes felt like they wanted to put me through the windshield when I touched the brake pedal. The difference between the two cars was truly startling. I soon learned that this was normal for the car and, once I got used to the brakes, they began to feel more normal and I didn't have a problem. So see if using a light touch doesn't fix the problem. If that doesn't do it, then it is time to start looking deeper. Best of luck solving your problem.

+1 on the Alloy Metal Products. Plain and simple, the harness fits and the connectors are correct. You will not be dissapointed.

+1

Pictures of the two heads I used for my engne build reveal the following:

Casting Date  "4V" Present
5H23 (ID 20)     Yes
5H26 (ID 19)     Yes

Cory,

That photo is a great find. But let's be clear about the writing on the back of this photo so others don't get confused as it was written back in the '70s when the accepted figure for Hertz car production was 936. I'm not sure where that figure came from. However, we now know that the actual number produced was 1,000 (1,001 depending on how the prototypes are counted. A photo of this car can be seen here: SAAC-2. Photo shows the 10-spokes and the right side horse.

Can't find my '67 owner's manual right now, but my owner's manual for my '66 GT350 shows the clearance to be 0.020 inch. Holman Moody, who makes an exact reproduction of the C3OZ-C camshaft shows the lash to be 0.018 inch. As long as you are right around those figures, I'm sure you'll be alright.

Big +1 for Bill Collins.

FWIW, I still have the origial boots on my car (6S817). Unfortunatly, I'm not in a poition to remove the seat assembly at this time, otherwise I'd closely examine the boots to see if I could locate a P/N.

A true RUG-S1 transmission would fit a '67 GT500. This is what was installed in my '67 GT500, 67400F7A03040.

+1  . Roy's description is correct and consequently there is not 12V going to the tach but only going to the Pertronix module. Using the correct wiring that Roy described there is an extra wire with 12v that runs out to Pertronix module .

Just to be clear, in this setup, the tach receives 12 VDC as it is wired in SERIES with the ignition switch and BEFORE the resistor wire. The coil receives 9 VDC (or so) as it is wired AFTER the resistor wire. The tach receives 12 VDC because it is wired between the switched ingnition wire and the resistor wire. And the PerTronix receives a full 12 VDC as the splice for that is AHEAD of the tach and the resistor wire. It is easy to get lost in this scheme as we are talking about two different voltages: 9 VDC to the coil, 12 VDC to the tach, and 12 VDC to the PerTronix unit. Splicing off of a new wire inserted in the circuit BETWEEN the switched ignition wire (which is 12 VDC) and the tach insures that the proper votages are routed to where they are supposed to go.

I hope this is all clear enough. If I can find my spare slice, I'll post a picture of what it is supposed to look like.

Kent,

I don't think that is  quite correct. Stock 1966, 1967 and 1968 tachs gets power from the 12 vdc ignition line before the resistor wire (I'm not sure about other years but I'm assuming that they are similar). That is, the tach is wired in series with the 12 vdc ignition lead and the resistor wire, which then goes directly to the coil. When I wire the PerTronix, I run a 12vdc line in parrallel with the resistor wire, only I'm taking power for that line ahead of the resistor wire so the PerTronix unit never sees the 9 vdc or so that goes to the coil. Instead it sees a full 12 vdc. I've got two cars wired this way and I have no problems with either the PerTronix units or the tachs.