This thread it broken off the warbonnet photos thread .
more to see here soon
8)
8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/a8c98f06-6ff9-428f-8645-91bf93750645.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/9f0e2e5e-6f2e-4374-90dc-a8aadf6a1f32.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/897273fc-f4a1-4212-a37b-8edd79cdde06.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/0ee845e1-134d-4cce-b451-f5b9d2e24019.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/447fe3d6-d1e2-4919-a28a-b78cba8e22b3.jpg?class=display)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6KViyM9v-203bvB9T-_S4yr7uymPgOnx-cQ&usqp=CAU)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/0db8b7fe-a4eb-4749-9ec0-14c7e3d35e87.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/7135f978-c993-4773-b410-2293d9def936.jpg?class=display)
discussing rule loop holes
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/533e0ba6-2b78-4ff5-9061-fc2428d9592f.jpg?class=display)
Catwell "no never heard of acid dipping cars how does that work?"
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/fc543fab-6a6b-4836-a91b-28918d1532b9.jpg?class=display)
are we sponsored by harbor freight with these jack stands?
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/dc6bbc09-9f5d-43de-93f3-ea9d948ace30.jpg?class=display)
quick releases for brake pads
Great pics! ("The Captain" always dressed for success.) Warbonnet was somethin' else! I was there the year before the tornado took out the timing and scoring stand!
Very nice photos Phil.
~E
great photos
Thanks for the enthusiasm boost.
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 26, 2023, 04:09:26 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/dc6bbc09-9f5d-43de-93f3-ea9d948ace30.jpg?class=display)
quick releases for brake pads
Are those 67 front calipers and rotors or the big Tbird's? They are in the shadow and I can't see those details, but those look like the small Mustang calipers?
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 26, 2023, 04:09:26 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/dc6bbc09-9f5d-43de-93f3-ea9d948ace30.jpg?class=display)
quick releases for brake pads
Are those 67 front calipers and rotors or the big Tbird's? They are in the shadow and I can't see those details, but those look like the small Mustang calipers?
I don't think the big calipers were legal until 68.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 27, 2023, 10:24:43 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 26, 2023, 04:09:26 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/dc6bbc09-9f5d-43de-93f3-ea9d948ace30.jpg?class=display)
quick releases for brake pads
Are those 67 front calipers and rotors or the big Tbird's? They are in the shadow and I can't see those details, but those look like the small Mustang calipers?
I don't think the big calipers were legal until 68.
Well yes but the picture isn't dated. The small front calipers are the same design as the big Ford is and if you put them side by side the 67 caliper looks like a scaled down version of the "69 Lincoln/Tbird".
I always found it strange that the rules would attempt to limit your speed potential by limiting your braking ability? It just seems counter intuitive to me?
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 27, 2023, 10:24:43 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 26, 2023, 04:09:26 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/dc6bbc09-9f5d-43de-93f3-ea9d948ace30.jpg?class=display)
quick releases for brake pads
Are those 67 front calipers and rotors or the big Tbird's? They are in the shadow and I can't see those details, but those look like the small Mustang calipers?
I don't think the big calipers were legal until 68.
Well yes but the picture isn't dated. The small front calipers are the same design as the big Ford is and if you put them side by side the 67 caliper looks like a scaled down version of the "69 Lincoln/Tbird".
I always found it strange that the rules would attempt to limit your speed potential by limiting your braking ability? It just seems counter intuitive to me?
Picture is not dated however given the car does not have the 68 TA fender flairs it is a 67 configuration.
Phil, show us the TA headers you came up with?
Where did you get all these photos? I have never seen them before. Are they personal photos? Were you there at these races? If so, impressed.
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 07:04:58 PM
Phil, show us the TA headers you came up with?
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/11892239_1043116502365348_7869283542204709345_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4dc865&_nc_ohc=Qytw3MYO_MUAX-iW_hx&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AfBpqxnJvzIj1LNOpGSBfc5lGhn6M9ktwurfWSpGyjsvBw&oe=658CAC9D)
OMG! You never said that you had an entire Tunnel Port! :o
SQUARE stubbie tubes? That's going in -00212? 2" primaries?
That has to be a Bud Moore?
That is positively sick! You might need some carbs. BC-BD 427's work great.
I only have the headers and the heads / push rods and special lifters / these are not what they seem to be . 351 w heads with 312 rocker shaft conversion . ( borrowed photo)
2 1/4 primaries likely bud moore might be holman moody .
they were built for a 67 /68 so 00212 here we go
How did they make a TP intake work with 351w heads? It sure looks like a TP from way up here in NY. Devils in the details I suppose? Beyond kool. Shocking actually.
Fun to look at. Thanks for posting.
Good to see there are crazier folks then me.
Quote from: deathsled on November 27, 2023, 08:49:26 PM
Where did you get all these photos? I have never seen them before. Are they personal photos? Were you there at these races? If so, impressed.
these races were well before me but i have mined the internet for any vintage t/a race pictures i can find .
Intake is c6zz t/a not tunnelport. just like one on my dresser .
That's the 9 cylinder version.
They resemble each other very closely, the TA and the TP as if the TP is a Ford modification of the TA.
Mine's a C60A. Actually wanted a Shelby lettered version but I had to settle. Life's tough sometimes?
The story is the SCCA rules comity wanted an intake with a Mustang part number on it so Ford had them recast with the C6ZZ ID.
I didn't realize that they were equal length runners until I got mine.
Tunnelport stuff.
Roy
Great stuff. Looks like a Bud Moore oil pan,
very kool vintage racing stuff
Phil, "your" engine likely was assembled by someone with inside information and I wouldn't be shocked that initially the 302 TP used the 312 rocker shaft assembly.
Ford does tend to do things like that.
In any case from the pictures they really look close enough to be labeled "the same".
I don't think there is anyone left that actually had/has hands on knowledge of the subject?
Quote from: TA Coupe on November 28, 2023, 06:12:11 AM
Tunnelport stuff.
Roy
The shadowing at the balancer is so dark that it is hard to tell if the balancer is the 68 hipo style with the diameter surface that has the small step down towards the rear or the pre 68 style that is smooth all the way across. What say you?
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/1cc28964-3295-45f2-b2a1-14a72286b377.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/761a01e0-4818-4d73-a2a4-330a3bad5d98.jpg?class=display)
Wow, but what is the point? What size valves are in the heads?
It would be interesting to see the flow numbers.
I suppose that there always could have been an "engineering feasibility study" by someone and this could be it? There is quite a bit of special machining time in those heads. Even the bolt heads appeared to be milled and the valve spring retainers titanium and unique?
I do remember 69 351w iron head substitution being recommended by Ford for racing around that time. I don't remember the flow numbers being much better then the 302w heads and certainly the exhausts were essentially the same.
In my 68 4v heads, the largest valves that would fit were the 1.94/1.60 combination. My 351w heads were the same configuration.
The AFR heads I now have take 2.02/1.60's with room to spare and the CNC flow numbers on the intake are at 296 @ .500" lift. Those are better then stock iron Boss 302 heads and actually better then my aluminum A3 Cleveland race heads because of the lower lifts involved and huge differences but are only useful where the engine can pump that much air to begin with.
So as the discussion on air flow numbers continue, air flow volume isn't everything.
I'm thinking a 20hp gain using the 351w heads was mentioned in the early '70s? Personally I thought that I lost power with them even after shaving them down.
(http://www.dscmotorsport.com/asp/Products/GetPhoto.asp?ID=431)
they also run shell lifters with longer pushrods
think this post needs to be split at #25 to separate the war bonett stuff from the vintage t/a engine stuff thats a whole nother anima.l
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 29, 2023, 09:35:09 PM
think this post needs to be split at #25 to separate the war bonett stuff from the vintage t/a engine stuff thats a whole nother anima.l
Yep.
Ok its mostly fixed
Addressing some of the previous comments ..... in a nutshell there pretty much was not many if any un modified or stock mustang parts in these cars .Money was flowing out of ford with the win on sunday sells on monday thought. The dominator holley carb was developed in secret so that only the ford cars would have them . they cost $25,000 in 1969................................. Ford Wanted to win !
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:16:33 PM
How did they make a TP intake work with 351w heads? It sure looks like a TP from way up here in NY. Devils in the details I suppose? Beyond kool. Shocking actually.
Fun to look at. Thanks for posting.
Good to see there are crazier folks then me.
The engine on the stand is a 67 hipo with the modified 351 /312 rocker shaft heads / bud moore headers as near as i can tell / intake i believe is c6zz it is not same intake i currently have (i did not buy that one with the heads )
I thought i scored a super flow flow bench a month ago but it was too small for any crazy thing i was gong to put on it . but still keeping an eye out for one .
would really like to know the flow numbers from the period heads .
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 30, 2023, 10:11:12 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:16:33 PM
How did they make a TP intake work with 351w heads? It sure looks like a TP from way up here in NY. Devils in the details I suppose? Beyond kool. Shocking actually.
Fun to look at. Thanks for posting.
Good to see there are crazier folks then me.
The engine on the stand is a 67 hipo with the modified 351 /312 rocker shaft heads / bud moore headers as near as i can tell / intake i believe is c6zz it is not same intake i currently have (i did not buy that one with the heads )
I thought i scored a super flow flow bench a month ago but it was too small for any crazy thing i was gong to put on it . but still keeping an eye out for one .
would really like to know the flow numbers from the period heads .
Speak to Joe Lapine in Danbury. He'd like to know the numbers also? He's got the bench. Just get them there.
In the day there were lots of secrets coming out of the 'Carolina 'Pines. Those heads are not home made.
What's a '67 T/A no name intake?
For what it's worth, I'll post all of the Bud Moore TA Cougar engine pictures that I have mined thru the years.
Here is Dan, Bud, Parnelli and Fran Hernandez at Bud Moore Engineering getting ready for the 1967 Trans-Am season.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090813.jpeg)
BME TA Cougar engine shot scanned from one of my magazines.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090517.jpeg)
Early shot of a BME TA Cougar engine.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090551.jpeg)
Another angle -
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090627.jpeg)
A nice color shot by Harry E. Hurst
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090706.jpeg)
Here is an interesting shot scanned from one of my mags of a Cougar at All American Racers.
Dan lobbied hard to have Mercury offer a true high performance Cougar for the street and to use his Gurney-Eagle heads on the Trans-Am Cougars but it was not to be.
Ford didn't want an intramural rival (as Peter Revson was told, it is not Chevrolet that the Ford people hate...it is Mercury). So they pulled Bud Moore's TA Cougar funding for the '68 season - so late in fact that it left Dan, Parnelli and Ed Leslie without rides that year.
Dan never quite got over that I don't think.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090955.jpeg)
Bud took his well sorted racing Cougars into the new NASCAR GT series and cleaned house, winning the '68 Championship with "Tiny" Lund driving.
Here is a shot of the engine bay of Wayne Andrews' ex-BME Cougar.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223091024.jpeg)
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:33:32 AM
Bud took his well sorted racing Cougars into the new NASCAR GT series and cleaned house, winning the '68 Championship with "Tiny" Lund driving.
Here is a shot of the engine bay of Wayne Andrews' ex-BME Cougar.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223091024.jpeg)
Notice the slightly bent Monte Carlo bar. This is the type is what I have seen on many historically correct 67 68 vintage TA cars and not the silly one with the big hoop in the front of the distributor. That hoop compromises the structural integrity of the bar in a way that renders it a little better then being totally cosmetic. The straight bar is of course structurally the best but the slight bend minimizes any adverse structural effects of a less then straight bar.
As I understand it, The Gurney Eagle heads were going to be put in production in 1968 Cougars. Someone I know has 3 production style intake manifolds for those heads (I was holding one in my hands!). I'm pretty sure they even had C8WE part numbers on them.
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:25:25 PM
Mine's a C60A. Actually wanted a Shelby lettered version but I had to settle. Life's tough sometimes?
The story is the SCCA rules comity wanted an intake with a Mustang part number on it so Ford had them recast with the C6ZZ ID.
I actually have five examples of these intakes, each a slightly different casting in some way; including the "SHELBY" version. 8)
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 29, 2023, 01:28:32 AM
I don't remember the flow numbers being much better then the 302w heads and certainly the exhausts were essentially the same.
In my 68 4v heads, the largest valves that would fit were the 1.94/1.60 combination. My 351w heads were the same configuration.
So as the discussion on air flow numbers continue, air flow volume isn't everything.
I also don't remember the flow numbers (I could dig out my 'paper' files from "back-then" and look it up, if I weren't so lazy ::)), but although the port presentations at the flanges appear very similar, as one observes the ports (intake & exhaust) and move closer to the valve and particularly in the under-valve bowl area, the 351W heads' port is definitely of greater area volume which lends greater gains with the implementation of the larger than the O.E.M. valve sizes. :)
And, when it comes to the O.E.M., S.B.F. castings, as far as in porting these, and considering the limitations set forth by the castings' capacity, you can't make 'em to big, not possible! ::)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on December 01, 2023, 12:00:23 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 27, 2023, 10:25:25 PM
Mine's a C60A. Actually wanted a Shelby lettered version but I had to settle. Life's tough sometimes?
The story is the SCCA rules comity wanted an intake with a Mustang part number on it so Ford had them recast with the C6ZZ ID.
I actually have five examples of these intakes, each a slightly different casting in some way; including the "SHELBY" version. 8)
Quote from: shelbydoug on November 29, 2023, 01:28:32 AM
I don't remember the flow numbers being much better then the 302w heads and certainly the exhausts were essentially the same.
In my 68 4v heads, the largest valves that would fit were the 1.94/1.60 combination. My 351w heads were the same configuration.
So as the discussion on air flow numbers continue, air flow volume isn't everything.
I also don't remember the flow numbers (I could dig out my 'paper' files from "back-then" and look it up, if I weren't so lazy ::)), but although the port presentations at the flanges appear very similar, as one observes the ports (intake & exhaust) and move closer to the valve and particularly in the under-valve bowl area, the 351W heads' port is definitely of greater area volume which lends greater gains with the implementation of the larger than the O.E.M. valve sizes. :)
And, when it comes to the O.E.M., S.B.F. castings, as far as in porting these, and considering the limitations set forth by the castings' capacity, you can't make 'em to big, not possible! ::)
Scott.
As I recall the Ford Power Parts program was referring to the 69-70 351W 4v heads as "similar to GT40 heads".
Back then someone else did the work on my heads. Now I am versed enough to understand the significance of things like port pocket volumes, etc, and experience enough to do my own head work.
The flow numbers of stock v. worked would be interesting but if they approach the numbers on the Boss 302 heads I would really question all of Ford's reasoning?
In discussions of SB Ford heads with Randy, he remarked that the 289hp type head COULD be ported to about 220. The GT40 heads about 240. The Boss heads stock around 250 as well as the T/P.
That was in discussion of the flow numbers on the T/A intakes that he thought were about 258.
What was going on was I was simply ATTEMPTING to match my components to be complimentary to each other. Since this is for a "street" engine, there is no one that I need to answer to for my failures and exactly how is too much power a failure anyway?
I'm using a new out of the box C6OA. I've only seen three variations. C6OA, C6ZZ, and the Shelby. The differences in the castings was so minute that to me, they are the same performance wise. Everything else is arm chair dyno debates.
IF Weiss' flow numbers on the Gurney heads are accurate, at around 300cfm, I question if a 289 has the ability to actually use that anyway?
There are contradictory remarks about flow numbers if you look at "Journalistic technical coverage" of the time.
Some where in the past, it was remarked that 48 IDA Webers with 42mm "auxiliary venturi" became "restrictive" at around 6,000 rpm on the 289's. Now personally I couldn't confirm or discredit that remark.
I do know that the total flow numbers on that carb set up is right around 2400cfm, so divided by 8, would be a 300cfm per cylinder, so where is the restriction in the carb. I doubt even the GT40 heads of the time could flow that to begin with.
I'm not debating that, just pointing out there is some contradiction right there. Highly likely in other areas as well?
I do realize/suspect that this type of "engineering" in the day might have been more of a figurative alchemy then and out and out science. Somewhat of an empirical thing of "build it first, then figure out the math later"?
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 01, 2023, 12:27:55 PM
As I recall the Ford Power Parts program was referring to the 69-70 351W 4v heads as "similar to GT40 heads".
I suppose if one were referring to solely to port "flow capacities" then O.K., though the head castings are quite different in many respects; but the greater combustion chamber volume of the 351W casting makes for challenges in compression ratio equivalencies particularly in applications of lesser cubic inch capacities. :)
QuoteIn discussions of SB Ford heads with Randy, he remarked that the 289hp type head COULD be ported to about 220. The GT40 heads about 240.
Seems about right, though we have actually achieved something in the 230's of C.F.M. on the 289 type heads that I've done in the past. 8)
QuoteIF Weiss' flow numbers on the Gurney heads are accurate, at around 300cfm, I question if a 289 has the ability to actually use that anyway?
Just "turn it" harder! ::)
And even with 300 C.F.M. capabilities you'll find this limiting! :o
QuoteSome where in the past, it was remarked that 48 IDA Webers with 42mm "auxiliary venturi" became "restrictive" at around 6,000 rpm on the 289's.
I do know that the total flow numbers on that carb set up is right around 2400cfm, so divided by 8, would be a 300cfm per cylinder, so where is the restriction in the carb. I doubt even the GT40 heads of the time could flow that to begin with.
I've been somewhat under the impression (as I haven't flow-benched a Weber.......yet ::)) that, and of course depending on the chokes installed, each individual throat was good for something around 240-260 C.F.M.? And yes, that will prove a hindrance in the effort of, though not absolutely preventing, significant power production beyond something of say 400-425 H.P. ;)
It's a "time, space & distance" dynamic thing that doesn't add up simply on paper, so it is quite often as you previously pointed out:
Quote............. this type of "engineering" in the day might have been more of a figurative alchemy then and out and out science. Somewhat of an empirical thing of "build it first, then figure out the math later"?
And, this is still quite often how the performance industry acquires new found horse power, admittedly or not! :o
Scott.
In the photo above, it is interesting that it appears the engine is not using the factory TA 2x4 intake but instead the over-the-counter 2x4 one.
Roy
Which photo are you referring to Roy - one of the BME Cougar photos I posted?
- Phillip
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 01, 2023, 11:11:34 AM
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:33:32 AM
Bud took his well sorted racing Cougars into the new NASCAR GT series and cleaned house, winning the '68 Championship with "Tiny" Lund driving.
Here is a shot of the engine bay of Wayne Andrews' ex-BME Cougar.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223091024.jpeg)
Notice the slightly bent Monte Carlo bar. This is the type is what I have seen on many historically correct 67 68 vintage TA cars and not the silly one with the big hoop in the front of the distributor. That hoop compromises the structural integrity of the bar in a way that renders it a little better then being totally cosmetic. The straight bar is of course structurally the best but the slight bend minimizes any adverse structural effects of a less then straight bar.
This is likely the restored gurney car that ross myers has . when it was found it had been reskinned as a 69 and had nascar style jack screws in front towers
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:19:08 AM
BME TA Cougar engine shot scanned from one of my magazines.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090517.jpeg)
This is the daytona test car that was rolled / then sold for parts and was cut up to build the paul pettey car .
Quote from: gt350shelb on November 26, 2023, 04:04:52 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/447fe3d6-d1e2-4919-a28a-b78cba8e22b3.jpg?class=display)
There is some beautiful metal fabrication right there.
John
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090517.jpeg)
I have those click pins from the monte carlo bar
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 01, 2023, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 01, 2023, 11:11:34 AM
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:33:32 AM
Bud took his well sorted racing Cougars into the new NASCAR GT series and cleaned house, winning the '68 Championship with "Tiny" Lund driving.
Here is a shot of the engine bay of Wayne Andrews' ex-BME Cougar.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223091024.jpeg)
Notice the slightly bent Monte Carlo bar. This is the type is what I have seen on many historically correct 67 68 vintage TA cars and not the silly one with the big hoop in the front of the distributor. That hoop compromises the structural integrity of the bar in a way that renders it a little better then being totally cosmetic. The straight bar is of course structurally the best but the slight bend minimizes any adverse structural effects of a less then straight bar.
This is likely the restored gurney car that ross myers has . when it was found it had been reskinned as a 69 and had nascar style jack screws in front towers
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Boss 302 engine that the car has in it. Unless I missed that comment.
Roy
by that time it was likely a nascar engine
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 05:11:13 PM
Which photo are you referring to Roy - one of the BME Cougar photos I posted?
- Phillip
Yes. It is an over the counter 2x4 intake because runners 2 and 3 are tall like the street one. I'm looking at the pictures on my phone so they may look different on a computer screen. Here's a picture of my street intake showing what I'm talking about. Also a picture of one of my TA intakes to show the difference.
Roy
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 01, 2023, 07:36:20 PM
by that time it was likely a nascar engine
NASCAR GT another name for TransAm - https://www.theroaringseason.com/showthread.php?41-Nascar-Grand-Touring
In an effort to ride the pony car wave of success, and having seen the rapid growth in the Trans-Am series, in 1967, Nascar decided to form its own version of the Trans-Am. Run alongside its Grand National (now Sprint Cup) series for full and medium size stock cars, Nascar named its new pony car series Grand Touring, and organized 19 events for the 1968 season, run on both paved and dirt ovals of varying lengths.
The rules bore many similarities with those of the Trans-Am, including a 305ci engine size limit, and maximum wheelbase of 112 inches, and indeed, several teams ran the same cars in both. Outwardly, the full-time Grand Touring cars were notable for their stock car steel wheels, and large racing numbers, as opposed to the popular American Racing wheels and roundals that were predominant in the '68 Trans-Am. Like the Trans-Am, the series was split into over and under 2.0L cars. There would be Driver, Team Owner, and Manufacturer points to play for.
Stock car legend, and '63 Daytona 500 winner Tiny Lund won the '68 Grand Touring Championship, driving a Bud Moore prepared Mercury Cougar, ahead of Buck Baker in a Camaro, and Jack Ryan, in a Porsche 911. Baker won the Team Owners Championship, and Mercury the Manufacturers.
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/ab824939-5dc5-4cae-81c0-d707f44678f3.jpg?class=display)
not sure if its real or memorex
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/9f0e2e5e-6f2e-4374-90dc-a8aadf6a1f32.jpg?class=display)
No factory parts to see here lower control arms are boxed for strength adjustable ball joints / inner bushings are replaced with spherical bearings / sway bar links are rod ends to control arm. center link was kk part that came with no holes drilled for inner tie rod ends /also that area was larger than a stock unit , this provided more of an area to located the inner tie rod to accommodate what ever the chassis design needed.
The inner control arm mounting bolt are about 8 inches long . they tied the control arm mount to the center cross member that had be fabricated to clear the oil pan .
tie rods have solid tube connecting them
Idler arm is ball bearing pivots and a tab welded to frame rail to keep it perfectly located ( you can see this in photo )
sway bar mount is a delrin plastic ball mounted in a alum pillow block
idler arm and steering box had locating tabs welded next to hem so they would not move in the least amount / they did not rely on the bolts to locate them in place ........too much slop that way
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/688702b6-33a1-4549-a120-f9d13e43be19.jpg?class=display)
How can we get around the fuel tank size limit .... lets make the filler neck the size of a 5 gallon bucket and ad a pair of "drain" tubes to "aid" fueling.
It's not easy to make one of them, that's for sure.
(https://i.imgur.com/QlQjM6sh.jpg)
The Bud Moore George folmer 70TA car had a bowl inside the tank that would hold a few gallons of fuel. But when you drained it to check for the 20 gallon limit, That's what would come out, but as soon as the car would take off, the extra fuel would splash into the tank thereby giving an extra couple of laps.
Roy
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/da031e23-6673-4248-b323-928dc9f3de98.JPG?class=mediumSquare)
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 01, 2023, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on December 01, 2023, 11:11:34 AM
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:33:32 AM
Bud took his well sorted racing Cougars into the new NASCAR GT series and cleaned house, winning the '68 Championship with "Tiny" Lund driving.
Here is a shot of the engine bay of Wayne Andrews' ex-BME Cougar.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223091024.jpeg)
Notice the slightly bent Monte Carlo bar. This is the type is what I have seen on many historically correct 67 68 vintage TA cars and not the silly one with the big hoop in the front of the distributor. That hoop compromises the structural integrity of the bar in a way that renders it a little better then being totally cosmetic. The straight bar is of course structurally the best but the slight bend minimizes any adverse structural effects of a less then straight bar.
This is likely the restored gurney car that ross myers has . when it was found it had been reskinned as a 69 and had nascar style jack screws in front towers
Remarks below are speculation on my part - gleaned from many years of collecting and reading vintage magazines and race programs and speaking with the drivers and team owners and their children. I am here to learn and share - feel free to correct me or add any additional information you might have.
I believe Ross's Cougar was resurrected from the remains of the BME TA Cougar that Bud sold to "Tiger" Tom Pistone. That is the Cougar "Tiny" Lund drove to the 1968 Grand Touring championship. The Cougar in this photo (shared with me by Dennis Andrews, son of driver Wayne Andrews. Wayne drove for Reid Shaw Racing) is one of the 2 Cougars Reid Shaw bought from Bud Moore - one Cougar was an ex-Trans-Am Cougar (this one) and the other was a dedicated Grand Touring (later Grand American) Cougar Bud built in '68.
The Pistone Cougar was converted to '69 Cougar sheetmetal and then '70 sheetmetal (I believe).
The dedicated NASCAR Cougar Bud built and sold to Shaw was also converted to 1970 Cougar sheetmetal.
I think the ex-BME TA Cougar in my picture retained it's '67/'68 sheetmetal, was sold by Shaw and can be seen racing as late as 1971 by Randy Bannister at the Citrus 250 at Daytona.
I don't think that ex Bud Moore 1967 Trans-Am Cougar's fate is known and has yet to surface - if it still even exists.
- Phillip
yes Ross' s car came from pistone .. the above picture is it be hide tiger toms shop. It is my understanding that you were not allowed to run cars with body style tat was more than 2 years old . this was why it was reskinned as 69 in 69 or 70. same fate with the 69 body in white that was built by paul pettey . that was also re bodied to look like a 70
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 01, 2023, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:19:08 AM
BME TA Cougar engine shot scanned from one of my magazines.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090517.jpeg)
This is the daytona test car that was rolled / then sold for parts and was cut up to build the paul pettey car .
pins from that car
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/0d01803a-4088-401c-9ea6-0f4a6091496e.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/f08b8bbf-af13-49b1-8323-0ef2f95c7870.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/a1e217cf-8236-420b-9eb5-19d213a26e8e.jpg?class=display)
the Pettey car that was built with parts from the crashed bm cougar
Great photo on reply #80 - have not seen that one before.
Here is a vintage shot of the Estes Cougar gas filler tube.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-021223192425.jpeg)
BME TA Cougar twin filler necks.
Notice the notch in the trunk lid. One way to track which Cougars running in NASCAR could be ex Trans-Am Cougars.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-021223193450.jpeg)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/b3b2e9e7-5bd2-421b-9886-49ce0b83ee6a.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/01c679d2-e258-4159-9afb-96057444c770.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/4bd46f99-edb9-4954-8eb8-21087b52853e.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/714870c4-c9c1-4944-b0e6-231feefce27b.jpg?class=display)
I like mine better.
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/c6933145-975d-42c5-8444-08e9f84957d4.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/002a3aa6-0d13-4ce9-ae73-d48d0af3a6b1.jpg?class=display)
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/2a479462-1db0-45f0-aedb-19187771bef0.jpg?class=display)
Detail from Shelby's "How To Sharpen A Cougar's Claws" brochure.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-051223104622.jpeg)
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 04, 2023, 09:53:33 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/2a479462-1db0-45f0-aedb-19187771bef0.jpg?class=display)
Those are the "special" mechanical secondary TA Holleys but what cfm are they? Aren't they called 625's somewhere?
If they are not actually very early experimental ("special") TA" example carbs (seems like the side levers might be later? :-\) then they would be the Holley List 4224, 660 C.F.M. "Center-Squirter" carburetors.
Scott.
Sometime you just need to mount them sideways......
Sometimes 1 is enough
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 04, 2023, 09:53:33 PM
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/2a479462-1db0-45f0-aedb-19187771bef0.jpg?class=display)
no there are not period they are newer 660 center squirters
I went a different route. This is a set of BC-BD, 427 Hollies. The car likes them the best so far.
Presently there are 1850-1's on it, facing forward. That linkage is simpler but the original 427 linkage works as well but does have a tendency of occasionally binding up
To me the BC-BD set up is like a 700DP with afterburners and the 1850's like a 600DP with a lot of extra top end. The sound of the secondaries opening with a womp is worth the cost of admission alone. The set up is a monster and understated at that.
I haven't decided on which is better yet but I'm still trying.
The bores in the manifold actually are the same diameter as the 427 carbs.
One would think either is drastic overkill but oddly enough it isn't. Both are very streetable too.
How anyone could determine that something like a pair of 1848's is what to use is beyond me?
I dont think i will use the 660s / but all your R&D is helping another 68 Gt 350 ;D
shelbydoug, what's wrong with 1848's? I've been running them for years.
Roy
Quote from: TA Coupe on December 06, 2023, 06:54:53 AM
shelbydoug, what's wrong with 1848's? I've been running them for years.
Roy
I don't know? Considering what I've run so far, smaller doesn't seem likely to be the solution for me?
I would have to try a set and see if they work for me?
I may be wrong but it seems illogical that they would work better then what I've tried? If you are happy with them, leave it alone. That's ok.
This was really an unknown category in the beginning. I had four sets of carbs. The first set was a pair of 84-85 Mustang GT carbs that I converted to 1850's. I was concerned that the idle of any standard Holley would be way too rich.
The GT carbs are designed to idle at a stoiochemic ideal of 14.6:1. What happened was that they were so lean that the exhaust manifolds were glowing red in the dark.
Did they work? Yes. The annular discharge really helped with the sensitivity to the throttle opening but glowing red was not good. It melted/burned the ceramic coating off of the first set of headers which got returned under warranty. Those were JBA's.
I had the BC-BD's that were fresh from restoring from Holley (not Drew) and needed to be set up. Those are my '67 GT500 carbs. Sure I know they are not "correct" for the car. You don't need to mention that. ::)
Installing them first accomplished two things. First, it would set them up for running on my 67 GT500 in the future. Second, it would likely eliminate that much carb for my set up as ridiculously over carb'd. Little did I suspect that they would be the best match?
Now I first had them installed with 427 linkage, i.e., backwards, and had to listen to Randy (and others) that WTF are you doing, that's wrong? OK. Eventually I found that the 427 linkage, although INSTALLED FOR YEARS ON PRODUCTION 427's, had issues with twisting and binding up, sometimes at WOT, so reluctantly I went to the T/A front mounting throttle linkage.
That works predictably and is much simpler. I was concerned initially with the change of where the engine would idle, i.e., the design of the intake manifold itself, which carb location was it intended for, since the T/A setting really had no or little concern for that and there really had been no Ford regular production cars ever made like that and to me, there likely was a reason. One serious enough to go with a radical design like the reversing the carbs and using the 427 linkages?
As it turns out, it doesn't really matter a hill of beans but simpler is better so the T/A linkage and forward mounted carbs is really the better solution. It would certainly make more sense for a flat out race car.
It struck me that the BC-BD's on a 347, didn't make sense on paper? That couldn't be right? So there were two more sets sitting here to try. A pair of 1848's and 1850's. All were the Ford version throttles.
So I flipped a coin and on went the 1850's. What were the results? Actually little change from the 427 carbs at idle but noticeable less top end. Less whomp when secondaries open but still making people turn on their wipers to get the cloud off of their windshields.
So in my seat of the pants dyno, it was already noticible that the bigger carbs were better, so even for me, there is a time limit, this isn't Dyno Masters where "we" can try every combination available. There are no "sponsors" to foot the bill. The 1848's got 'nixed'.
I think a large portion of the answer to this is that all of these carbs that I used/am using, are vacuum secondaries. That allows the engine demand to control the secondaries. Then what I am feeling is just essentially either a 600 double pumper or a 700 double pumper with "secondary" demand controlled throttle boosters.
On the subject of secondaries, I'm as subject to information coming from "Automotive Journalists" of the time as everyone else is and at some point in covering the T/A cars one mentioned that initially the engines uses vacuum secondary carbs (size wasn't mentioned) but the drivers complained that the secondaries didn't close fast enough under race conditions and the center squirters were developed as a result specifically by Holley for Ford. Randy said he had a set of them and they were all hand made secondary linkages.
Keeping in mind that center squirters are largely thought of as 660's, and they directly derived from Ford's T/A car application (on 289/302's) that's not a bad place to start and not a bad guess point but I'm not sure on a street car if all that pump shot is really what you want?
That is where I am at. So that is what I know. It may in fact be incredibly limited and feeble, but that is how I roll here and maybe it's just a '68 GT350 thing, and incidentally, the '68 Shelby hood actually "whistles" at speed with the ducting connected so "the ram air" may actually be doing something? You need to go fast enough to hear it. It is very audible but that is just unique to us '68 guys? Apparently we are "very special people"? I'm pretty sure others have noticed that as well but keep it to themselves? ::)
Pictures of original TA carburetors which I believe are 525C. F. M which John Slack now owns. It also shows the special linkage.
Scott, Do you have any comment on the exhaust flow on 68 hypo 289 heads? Which I read or was told flowed better than the other Exhaust ports because of the D shape.
Roy
Great pics. Thanks for posting them.
damn doug did you sleep last night :D
Quote from: TA Coupe on December 07, 2023, 11:25:24 PM
Scott, Do you have any comment on the exhaust flow on 68 hypo 289 heads? Which I read or was told flowed better than the other Exhaust ports because of the D shape.
Not sure which "Scott" you might be referencing but: those '68 heads present the "D", sorta shape, only because the secondary air injection boss is crowding the exhaust port runner; which also is positioned on the high pressure side of the port, so 'no' they do not flow better; that is out of the box. :)
But, that same initial detriment does provide greater material thickness on that wall, that over the earlier head castings without, which can be utilized as a benefit in the porting endeavor if chosen to do so; but then you do sorta end up with a bit of crook in the runner. ;)
The only significantly different/better S.B.F. exhaust port executions provided for by any of the O.E.M. iron castings, that I recall, is that of the C6FE & T.P.; all the rest your just squinting to hard and splitting hairs for a conviction of any real merit. 8)
Scott.
Quote from: TA Coupe on December 07, 2023, 11:25:24 PM
Pictures of original TA carburetors which I believe are 525C. F. M which John Slack now owns. It also shows the special linkage.
Scott, Do you have any comment on the exhaust flow on 68 hypo 289 heads? Which I read or was told flowed better than the other Exhaust ports because of the D shape.
Roy
Roy,
I believe that those carburetors are in the 495 to 525 CFM arena. I am very happy to own them and as you know they will be finding their home on the BOSS 302 standard flange Holley T/A intake in my 1969 BOSS 302. I digress, Harold Droste reworked those carburetors at Holley for FoMoCo to use in the 1968 T/A Tunnelport program according to my conversations with Randy Gillis. Randy was very interested in the Harold Droste carburetors and similar carburetors were used at Lemans. Those carburetor had Droste serial numbers that fell on both sides of carburetors the Randy had in his possesion and had run on his big Tunnelport engine. The Carburetors have 1.250" primary and secondary venturis with 1.495" primary and secondary throttle bores. The cam slots in the linkage were custom ground by Droste to give a softer secondary opening phase. They are very nice carburetors. the only truly vintage downside is the air horns were milled off at some point. Randy said that he had found several of those carburetors complete and in pieces at the Pomona and Long Beach swap meets over the years
John
the list numbers on the carbs on my intake are 4224 s
from holley web site :
Barrels 4
Booster Straight
Brand Holley
CFM 660
Choke None
Emission Code 3
Finish Gold Dichromate
Fuel Gasoline
Fuel Inlet Single
Material Zinc
Model 4160
Primary Main Jet 76
Primary Pump Nozzle Size 25
Product Type Carburetor
Secondaries Mechanical
Secondary Pump Nozzle Size 25
Supercharged Application No
Throttle Bore 1.688 inch
Vacuum Ports 1 timed (spark) port, 1 full, and 1 PCV port
UPC 090127000588
Part Number 0-4224
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 09, 2023, 11:05:08 AM
the list numbers on the carbs on my intake are 4224 s
from holley web site :
Barrels 4
Booster Straight
Brand Holley
CFM 660
Choke None
Emission Code 3
Finish Gold Dichromate
Fuel Gasoline
Fuel Inlet Single
Material Zinc
Model 4160
Primary Main Jet 76
Primary Pump Nozzle Size 25
Product Type Carburetor
Secondaries Mechanical
Secondary Pump Nozzle Size 25
Supercharged Application No
Throttle Bore 1.688 inch
Vacuum Ports 1 timed (spark) port, 1 full, and 1 PCV port
UPC 090127000588
Part Number 0-4224
https://www.saacforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24980.0;attach=119015;image
The huge difference that the Droste carburetors have over the standard 4224 Holley 660 center squirter is the phased progressive linkage on the secondary side. This allows the secondaries to be brought in slowly instead of 1:1 bringing them in like a drag car. You get some low RPM drivability with this feature. People can modify the slot in the 660, However if you look at the pictures you can see that the opposite side of the cam slot for the roller to react to has a bump to close the secondaries as well. This feature is important, especially on a road race car.
John
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/3ad20fc6-9343-4542-93f6-da0209f0f134.jpg?class=display)
yes i can see how these are more of an on off switch :o
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 08, 2023, 10:34:40 AM
damn doug did you sleep last night :D
Well...depends? There's sleep and then there's sleep.
I'm not sure why even a race car would need that much pump shot. That is really a throttle response "thing".
You know, all this talk of the "drivers" blowing up the TP's at 9,200 is kind of silly.
IF you ever actually witnessed one of those Trans Am races with the team drivers, you might come to the conclusion that it was an attempted mass suicide? 8,000 rpm was NOTHIN'! They drove the cars like the winner was the one who blew the car up first 'cause they were all tryin' their best to go boom.
The key here is that manifold and now what you can flow on today's heads.
As I said, in switching to the T/A intake from the "turd", the idle vacuum dropped and so far, I can't get it to idle down to 750 like before with 15 inches. It wants 1,100. It may be the intake characteristics.
It is kinda' unique?
It came before tunnel rams existed but has tunnel ram characteristics without looking like one?
I'll get it right. It doesn't keep me from sleeping. Don't worry about that. Yea I sleep last night.
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 09, 2023, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 08, 2023, 10:34:40 AM
damn doug did you sleep last night :D
Well...depends? There's sleep and then there's sleep.
I'm not sure why even a race car would need that much pump shot. That is really a throttle response "thing".
You know, all this talk of the "drivers" blowing up the TP's at 9,200 is kind of silly.
IF you ever actually witnessed one of those Trans Am races with the team drivers, you might come to the conclusion that it was an attempted mass suicide? 8,000 rpm was NOTHIN'! They drove the cars like the winner was the one who blew the car up first 'cause they were all tryin' their best to go boom.
The key here is that manifold and now what you can flow on today's heads.
As I said, in switching to the T/A intake from the "turd", the idle vacuum dropped and so far, I can't get it to idle down to 750 like before with 15 inches. It wants 1,100. It may be the intake characteristics.
It is kinda' unique?
It came before tunnel rams existed but has tunnel ram characteristics without looking like one?
I'll get it right. It doesn't keep me from sleeping. Don't worry about that. Yea I sleep last night.
shelbydoug, did I miss the picture of the intake manifold you are talking about? After all I showed you mine before.
The first picture is of the not used 1969 Standard Flange Holley BOSS 302 Intake Dual Plane Intake Manifold - From FoMoCo to Smokey Yunick to Roy Richards to Me - NOS
The second picture is of the latest version of the 1969 BOSS 302 Dual Dominator Intake Independent Runner Intake Manifold From FoMoCo to Shelby American to Wayne Richards to Me to Scott Thomas back to Me - NOS
The third picture is of the 1970 Bud Moore Mini-Plenum for the BOSS 302 From Bud Moore to Rick Kirk to Me - NOS
John
Yours is so little.
Mine is just another C6OA. No biggie.
I don't know why the pictures are posting so large? It's too early to battle with the computer. I'm just letting it win for now.
Sorry. Mine really isn't bigger then yours.
(https://sharedalbums.b-cdn.net/8e2799d9-d9a8-4e98-bbdd-55cad182903a.jpg?class=display)
I thought that the C6ZZ manifold had a mistake in the firing order? Instead of an 8, it had a 9?
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 10, 2023, 11:05:37 AM
I thought that the C6ZZ manifold had a mistake in the firing order? Instead of an 8, it had a 9?
there are 2 one has 9 cylinders ;D
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 10, 2023, 11:09:06 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 10, 2023, 11:05:37 AM
I thought that the C6ZZ manifold had a mistake in the firing order? Instead of an 8, it had a 9?
there are 2 one has 9 cylinders ;D
Wouldn't Tech disqualify the car?
Has anyone ever tested the horsepower difference between the Trans Am intake & the blue thunder repop on the same engine?
Quote from: Wedgeman on December 10, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
Has anyone ever tested the horsepower difference between the Trans Am intake & the blue thunder repop on the same engine?
I have run them both.
You need to gasket match the high rise. It is torky but doesn't have the same top end of the T/A.
The high rise will run lean on the #3 cylinder under racing conditions and does not have the same WOT power the T/A does.
The T/A responds more to more cam then the high rise. Both are nice manifolds.
I only ran mine with vacuum secondaries. I don't know what the center squirters will do.
Thanks Doug !!
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 10, 2023, 07:57:04 AM
Yours is so little.
Mine is just another C6OA. No biggie.
I don't know why the pictures are posting so large? It's too early to battle with the computer. I'm just letting it win for now.
Sorry. Mine really isn't bigger then yours.
I changed the pictures and made them larger, I also added two of it's friends since this thread is Technical Section T/A details
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 09, 2023, 10:39:19 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 09, 2023, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 08, 2023, 10:34:40 AM
damn doug did you sleep last night :D
Well...depends? There's sleep and then there's sleep.
I'm not sure why even a race car would need that much pump shot. That is really a throttle response "thing".
You know, all this talk of the "drivers" blowing up the TP's at 9,200 is kind of silly.
IF you ever actually witnessed one of those Trans Am races with the team drivers, you might come to the conclusion that it was an attempted mass suicide? 8,000 rpm was NOTHIN'! They drove the cars like the winner was the one who blew the car up first 'cause they were all tryin' their best to go boom.
The key here is that manifold and now what you can flow on today's heads.
As I said, in switching to the T/A intake from the "turd", the idle vacuum dropped and so far, I can't get it to idle down to 750 like before with 15 inches. It wants 1,100. It may be the intake characteristics.
It is kinda' unique?
It came before tunnel rams existed but has tunnel ram characteristics without looking like one?
I'll get it right. It doesn't keep me from sleeping. Don't worry about that. Yea I sleep last night.
shelbydoug, did I miss the picture of the intake manifold you are talking about? After all I showed you mine before.
The first picture is of the not used 1969 Standard Flange Holley BOSS 302 Intake Dual Plane Intake Manifold - From FoMoCo to Smokey Yunick to Roy Richards to Me - NOS
The second picture is of the latest version of the 1969 BOSS 302 Dual Dominator Intake Independent Runner Intake Manifold From FoMoCo to Shelby American to Wayne Richards to Me to Scott Thomas back to Me - NOS
The third picture is of the 1970 Bud Moore Mini-Plenum for the BOSS 302 From Bud Moore to Rick Kirk to Me - NOS
John
Side views, Note the Standard flange T/A 2x4 and the Dual Dominator are the exact same height.
The pics are appreciated by me John but how about top views?
Aren't the dual Dominators for the 69 B2 factory team car and those are serial numbered?
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 11, 2023, 12:59:23 PM
The pics are appreciated by me John but how about top views?
Aren't the dual Dominators for the 69 B2 factory team car and those are serial numbered?
The Dominator carburetor and intake manifold story is so awesome. There were several series of Dominator intake manifold made up. I have owned several of them over the years. This is actually the first one I ever owned, however I let it go in 1987 trading it for a set of chrome Magnum 500 wheels. I then went through several versions trying to get back to this intake manifold.
Yes each intake had an XE or SK number that told what was different about it.
This intake manifold had two ports that someone had filled with clay to change the shape of the port. This intake is $11 of the final series. I was talking with Larry Ofria who I worked for way back and showed him the intake. He asked me about the clay, when I told him I took it out, he told me that Shelby paid him to put it in to improve the intake manifold ports. Oh, Well,
I think that I have shots from above of the intake manifolds from that same series. I'll check, if not I can get them out of the storage facility and shoot new ones.
The Dominator (Not Yet named that yet - BTW) was technically doomed at this point, However unbeknownst to FoMoCo and Holley an insider friend of Ronnie Kaplan told him about the new carburetor and he arranged to liberate two pair out the back door and secretly developed an intake manifold for them. Not knowing that AMC had any FoMoCo showed up to the first race of the season. The SCCA tech people started to explain to the FoMoCo teams that the carburetors would not be allowed when a Ford executive noticed while passing the AMC pits that AMC also had the new monster carburetors. Originally he was quite upset that someone else had the new trick carburetors, however once he got back to their team cars and was told SCCA was not happy. He told the SCCA tech person "Anybody who wanted to get them could, go look at the AMC cars they have them.
John
One of the odd things i have spotted is that the cougars did not run export races back then .
I noticed that too - but they did add the Chevy Camaro style bracing to the front corners towards the end of the season.
- Phillip
i think by the end of the season the cars were pretty worn structually
old race cars modify as needed forever :D
(https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/bagauction/9/1509/61533/1920x1440/1966-shelby-gt350.webp)
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 11, 2023, 12:59:23 PM
The pics are appreciated by me John but how about top views?
Aren't the dual Dominators for the 69 B2 factory team car and those are serial numbered?
Here you go, here's mine.
https://imgur.com/gallery/eEcvBPr
Roy
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 11, 2023, 09:53:05 PM
i think by the end of the season the cars were pretty worn structually
Without a doubt!
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-200120094441.jpeg)
Quote from: TA Coupe on December 12, 2023, 05:49:28 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 11, 2023, 12:59:23 PM
The pics are appreciated by me John but how about top views?
Aren't the dual Dominators for the 69 B2 factory team car and those are serial numbered?
Here you go, here's mine.
https://imgur.com/gallery/eEcvBPr
Roy
On your dual dominator intake, is there a plenum or runner that connects the front and rear carbs together?
Is there a plenum under each carb or does each runner go directly to the head intake port from each individual runner like a tunnel ram intake does?
I see what appears to be a -10AN male fitting attached but is that a engine vacuum line or a crankcase breather line?
Not to change the subject but since you seem to be familiar with some of these special Ford intakes, have you ever seen a version of your intake for a 351C with a 9.2" deck height?
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 12, 2023, 07:36:30 AM
Quote from: TA Coupe on December 12, 2023, 05:49:28 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 11, 2023, 12:59:23 PM
The pics are appreciated by me John but how about top views?
Aren't the dual Dominators for the 69 B2 factory team car and those are serial numbered?
Here you go, here's mine.
https://imgur.com/gallery/eEcvBPr
Roy
On your dual dominator intake, is there a plenum or runner that connects the front and rear carbs together?
The Ford Intake Manifolds never had a passage that connected to front and rear carburetors. The have been some intakes modified that have done that operation however that modification is a fail. The passages in your next question are somewhat small and are there to tune the band where the carburetors operate as Pure IR Which did not work vs. almost IR which worked better.
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 12, 2023, 07:36:30 AM
Is there a plenum under each carb or does each runner go directly to the head intake port from each individual runner like a tunnel ram intake does?
I'm going to post additional pictures which will cover that.
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 12, 2023, 07:36:30 AM
I see what appears to be a -10AN male fitting attached but is that a engine vacuum line or a crankcase breather line?
That is the crankcase breather line that would run out to a separator tank that would drain back down to a fitting on the front left side of the oil pan
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 12, 2023, 07:36:30 AM
Not to change the subject but since you seem to be familiar with some of these special Ford intakes, have you ever seen a version of your intake for a 351C with a 9.2" deck height?
That was not considered necessary for multiple reasons as the Dual Dominator intake didn't make it past the 1969 year. The Holley 4500 series Carburetors ran out of airflow on a 310 cubic inch Independent Runner engine at around 7,500 RPM. They simply did not flow enough for IR usage. I got this information directly in conversations with Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins. Bill had done extensive dyno testing with the Dominator in IR using the 4500 series Holley carburetors and had done testing using the even larger 4600 series Holley Dominators (Never produced past the experimental stage). I have seen dual Dominator intake manifolds that were used for drag racing with the 351C However they all have used spacer plates between the intake manifold and the heads. I have never seen or heard of a 351C intake manifold.
John
shelbydoug,
The first picture is of two of the Dual Dominator Intakes I previously owned. The upper intake was a real early intake that came out of the big Shelby American sale when they were closing down. That intake manifold has no coolant hose attachment spigots as the coolant was being taken out of the front of the cylinder heads. (Now you know why the 1969 BOSS 302 heads have that different flat surface on the front.) That intake has no passages under the carburetor mounting surface. From my talks with Larry Ofria who had done some experimentation with that intake with Shelby American that intake made a storm of stand off above the carburetors and did not get very far. The lower intake came from New Zealand, This intake was used with spacer plates on a 351C drag car. In order to make it work better they welded up the passages under the carburetor mounting flanges, and screwed some kind of home made adapter plate on to it.
The next two pictures show the early style intake with no passages under the carburetor flanges
The fourth picture shows the passages under the carburetor flanges on the later intake. There were different size "vent" passages tried between the upper and lower carburetor passage levels. My current intake has 3/4" passages however I have seen them with no vent and also 5/8" venting.
Thanks for posting the pictures. Interesting stuff.
I'm aware of the 351c's running in Pro Stock with the Wieand Tunnel Rams. As I recall they all ran with add on plenums under the carbs. The volume of the plenum was important.
I can see that the inter runner "passages" were a direction in that thinking. The issue would be to fit that all under the hood of the Mustang so the height available for the manifold caused the problem.
I remember talking to Randy right after he was working on one of these setups at the track. He was so frazzled that he didn't want to talk much about them. Just a couple of generalities about the set up.
I was asking him about the fuel reverson and what was done with that. He said his solution was just to provide a "plate" over the carbs that just provided a place for the fuel droplets to accumulate and then run off the engine where it wouldn't be a hazard.
I've worked with Weber 48 ida's a lot. I know the frustration and had all to do but laugh out loud about it? In the case of the "Webers" on my Pantera the solution was putting 5" tall stacks on the car. Then the plumes would stay in the stacks.
When I had the Webers on my Shelby, they were on a Cleveland, and the stacks had to be shorter then stock in order to fit under the hood.
You can still see the marks under the hood if you look closely where the flames from the carbs when starting it cold did a job on the paint.
The Pantera does not have that issue. Lots of room over the stacks in that car.
shelbydoug,
As to the plug on the side of the Intake and what it's function is.....
As you will notice there was a fitting going into the side of the pan, inside the pan there is a baffle that prevents the oil from being drained onto the crankshaft (2nd Picture). There is the Holman Moody functional diagram that better explains everything and how it works to keep the pan full and the vacuum tank. The rear of the engine had a long pickup that scavenged the rear section of the pan since acceleration tried to make all the oil stay there.
John
Quote from: shelbydoug on December 12, 2023, 04:00:03 PM
Thanks for posting the pictures. Interesting stuff.
I'm aware of the 351c's running in Pro Stock with the Wieand Tunnel Rams. As I recall they all ran with add on plenums under the carbs. The volume of the plenum was important.
I can see that the inter runner "passages" were a direction in that thinking. The issue would be to fit that all under the hood of the Mustang so the height available for the manifold caused the problem.
I remember talking to Randy right after he was working on one of these setups at the track. He was so frazzled that he didn't want to talk much about them. Just a couple of generalities about the set up.
I was asking him about the fuel reverson and what was done with that. He said his solution was just to provide a "plate" over the carbs that just provided a place for the fuel droplets to accumulate and then run off the engine where it wouldn't be a hazard.
I've worked with Weber 48 ida's a lot. I know the frustration and had all to do but laugh out loud about it? In the case of the "Webers" on my Pantera the solution was putting 5" tall stacks on the car. Then the plumes would stay in the stacks.
When I had the Webers on my Shelby, they were on a Cleveland, and the stacks had to be shorter then stock in order to fit under the hood.
You can still see the marks under the hood if you look closely where the flames from the carbs when starting it cold did a job on the paint.
The Pantera does not have that issue. Lots of room over the stacks in that car.
Which is why on the air cleaner lid that Kelly made for the Dual Autolite Inline Intake that we are experimenting with we added an inverted focal point for the fuel to condense on above each barrel. Randy Gillis was part of that conversation. It will be getting a taller.elelment, and going through the hood of the BOSS 302. (Using a glass hood)
(http://inlinecarbcom.ipage.com/Cars/B302%20IR%20Carb%20Spacer/B2%20Inline%20IR%203.JPG)
That may be the project of what Randy was talking to me about? You need 5" tall stacks to keep the fog in. Been there. Done that.
You can revise the cam timing. Granted it has to do with the opening and closing points of the intake and exhaust valves but to put it simply, the combination needs to in effect limit overlap to about 28°.
The more duration you have, the stronger the power pulse is generated. It has no were to go in an IR manifold so it pushes up and out.
Of course going to a hidden EFI system will effectively eliminate the issue all together.
This is part of the discussion I was having with him and why he got grumpy and short. ;)
The bud moore oil pan is quite the challenge to duplicate .
The front of the Bud Moore pans that project out and the skid pads always caught my eye.
I had the Doug Nash B2 split magnesium intake with two of the big Autolite carbs. I traded that away. I can't remember for what now? I can't find the pics either now. That was an interesting set up.
It would have worked better with more cubes like a 347. I have that now. Not then.
That's ok though. At least I get things finished now, sort of?
Shelbydoug, if you click on GrabberBlueTACoupe at the top when you go to my imgur link it will take you to all my stuff on there. More interesting stuff to see.
Roy
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 12, 2023, 09:13:29 PM
The bud moore oil pan is quite the challenge to duplicate .
It sure is.
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 13, 2023, 12:50:44 AM
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 12, 2023, 09:13:29 PM
The bud moore oil pan is quite the challenge to duplicate .
It sure is.
built 3 at one time with an original to copy
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 13, 2023, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 13, 2023, 12:50:44 AM
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 12, 2023, 09:13:29 PM
The bud moore oil pan is quite the challenge to duplicate .
It sure is.
built 3 at one time with an original to copy
Very nice, I have two original pans. One really nice oil pan, another damaged pan. However I also have the patterns that Rich Rodeck made of all the gating.
John
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 12, 2023, 09:13:29 PM
The bud moore oil pan is quite the challenge to duplicate .
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 14, 2023, 01:52:26 AM
I also have the patterns that Rich Rodeck made of all the gating.
Always make ones' own observation as to the potential effectiveness of any "trick" oil pan, this to ones' own application; as it is not so uncommon to have pans designed for specific car and track instances and may not prove "ideal" elsewhere. ???
Scott.
I think in most cases any of these pans is overkill in the vintage racing groups/ but in being period correct must look the part ( what is inside does not matter ) The ones i duplicated were correct inside and out the bear was making the tubing bends to match the originals .
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 14, 2023, 12:58:02 PM
I think in most cases any of these pans is overkill in the vintage racing groups/ but in being period correct must look the part ( what is inside does not matter ) The ones i duplicated were correct inside and out the bear was making the tubing bends to match the originals .
The De-Aireator piece to me is a very complex part.
John
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 14, 2023, 05:32:03 PM
The De-Aireator piece to me is a very complex part.
Basically similar to an oil pickup, just mounted above the oil level in the main sump, this in order to breakup the oil stream being dumped, this in order to more efficiently release the interned air volume including breaking up formed bubbling, and also to reduce the expulsion velocity and force so as not to induce additional aeration and agitation of that which is already captured in the sump, in which this volume is intended to supplement. :)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on December 14, 2023, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: gt350shelb on December 12, 2023, 09:13:29 PM
The bud moore oil pan is quite the challenge to duplicate .
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 14, 2023, 01:52:26 AM
I also have the patterns that Rich Rodeck made of all the gating.
Always make ones' own observation as to the potential effectiveness of any "trick" oil pan, this to ones' own application; as it is not so uncommon to have pans designed for specific car and track instances and may not prove "ideal" elsewhere. ???
Scott.
Scott,
I didn't have a 1969 Team car to restore. So I searched for all the parts to build a correct 1969 T/A motor. Over the years with parts sourced from so many different people I couldn't name them all. I have all of the parts (Except for Bud Moore valve covers.) To build a complete engine. So having the correct oiling system was/is a requirement. No I'm not running the ultra-heavy T/A rods and a center counter weighted crankshaft, (Randy Gillis talked me out of that over a dozen years ago.) As gt350shelb said, "you can't see them anyway", so why carry that downside.
John
Quote from: JohnSlack on December 15, 2023, 12:49:11 AM
I No I'm not running the ultra-heavy T/A rods and a center counter weighted crankshaft, (Randy Gillis talked me out of that over a dozen years ago.) As gt350shelb said, "you can't see them anyway", so why carry that downside.
Ahhh shucks! :(
But even so, they're just so dog-gone-cool! 8) Besides, aren't those things just part of the big picture, whether you can see 'um or not,.............. right? :-\
And, I just believe this nonsense to the point that I have several sets of 'em, just in case 'I' might need 'em! ::)
Scott.
I have a set of pistons ...... :o
will need to dig out parts and get photos also have idler arm pivot . and bunch of blue prints and patterns.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/408533658_816998917103133_1265108105350367598_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=GA_0Watn5ZAAX8-lW31&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AfByZUNf7es373T2Z9Dn1EmGQgO0hylfdXVsh-Gn_ennyg&oe=6586E269)
https://tcpglobal.com/collections/splatter-finishes?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAnL-sBhBnEiwAJRGigrZnHiT5wgTKBKZgTuYU1Cg-CBZ1BNSI1jP1Fs6cuAirTV3jeXQiIBoC7oAQAvD_BwE
the splatter paint that hides all :)
An ad I scanned from my copy of the Thursday, January 14, 1971 edition of the Southern MotoRacing newspaper.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-250324085622.jpeg)
I bought some 427 parts from Tom in the mid 70s,,,,,Super Nice Guy.... ;D
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:17:20 AM
For what it's worth, I'll post all of the Bud Moore TA Cougar engine pictures that I have mined thru the years.
Here is Dan, Bud, Parnelli and Fran Hernandez at Bud Moore Engineering getting ready for the 1967 Trans-Am season.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090813.jpeg)
Those guys are laughing about the big checks they're getting from Ford and Gurney's thinking how am I going to make this thing win.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on March 25, 2024, 02:23:24 PM
Quote from: propayne on December 01, 2023, 09:17:20 AM
For what it's worth, I'll post all of the Bud Moore TA Cougar engine pictures that I have mined thru the years.
Here is Dan, Bud, Parnelli and Fran Hernandez at Bud Moore Engineering getting ready for the 1967 Trans-Am season.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-011223090813.jpeg)
Those guys are laughing about the big checks they're getting from Ford and Gurney's thinking how am I going to make this thing win.
That must be a very early production car. The battery hold down J bolts are silver zinc. It wasn't long after production started that they changed the finish to zinc phosphate.
[/quote]
Those guys are laughing about the big checks they're getting from Ford and Gurney's thinking how am I going to make this thing win.
[/quote]
Gurney is wondering how he's going to win when the car doesn't have the good TA intake manifold
Roy
From the November 1967 issue of Sports Car Graphic.
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-250324164553.jpeg)
Testing to see how posting a photo goes on the updated forum -
- Phillip
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/134-100424073711.jpeg)
Looks great!
Yep - process is pretty much the same as before.
Thanks to the technical team!
- Phillip