Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 6T6/7

Pages: [1] 2
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: Rear end sag
« on: September 15, 2020, 12:24:34 AM »
My car has Eaton Detroit replacement springs and appears to me to set pretty level.  But, out of curiosity, I took measurements from the floor (flat garage floor) at the underside of forward and aft end rocker.  The aft was slightly higher (by 3/16 in) than the front.  However, when I measured from the floor to the top of the wheel openings, I found the rear wheel opening to be lower by 1/2 in. than the front.  Granted, these are dimensions for my particular car, but it tells me the rear wheel openings come down further than the front.  Also, the rear of the car is not necessarily supposed to set lower just because the rear wheel opening height dimension is supposed to be smaller than the front.  For some reason '67s and '68s in particular seem to be susceptible to rear sag, which may have contributed to that reputation.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Re: date code on block
« on: September 14, 2020, 12:32:47 AM »
Interestingly, the '65 registry has a different set of milestones: "date recieved at SA", "date work started ", "date work finished", "shipped", but no "date ordered".  Maybe things were handled/documented differently between the two years.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Re: What is it about the 66 GT350
« on: August 20, 2020, 12:05:24 AM »
I've been fortunate to own a both a '66 and '67. I actually like all years of Shelbys. I've always looked at each year as an evolution and consider the situation when each car was developed and first came to market when evaluating. Each year has something unique to offer.  However, I have noticed for a long time that the '66s seem to have, shall we say, the most "cult-like" following. Perhaps even more so than the '65s? Maybe with the '65s rarity and exclusivity there's not enough to form a large enough cult🙂?  Possibly, the '66's "relative" attainability, color/wheel/transmission variety and of course the original Mustang platform, it just hits a sweet spot for many. Just some random thoughts and speculation.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Re: Fuel Line Clamps
« on: July 08, 2020, 10:40:03 PM »
Ok, thanks much, sounds good enough for me.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Fuel Line Clamps
« on: July 08, 2020, 08:30:05 PM »
This may have already been discussed before, but I wasn't able to find it... For a 66 with 715 Holley, what are the correct clamps for the hose between hard line and fuel filter, crimp style or the three-prong spring clamp?  I think I've seen both types used.

There's no mention of trimming. If it is needed, I have nothing to trim it against anyway. I got this trunk mat through Virginia Mustang.  I actually talked to someone there about the fit issues and they said that's the first time they've heard that feedback.  They told me it should just drop right in. They were very congenial and said I could return it.  I basically said I would look into it some more (i.e., run it past the experts) before doing that. So, that's basically where I'm at now.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / 66 Reproduction Trunk Mat Fit Issues
« on: July 01, 2020, 05:32:17 PM »
I recently got an ACC trunk mat labeled as "1965-1968 Ford Mustang Fastback Molded Trunk Mat" that I can't get installed correctly. It seems like it's too wide along the forward edge to slide far enough forward. There could be other fit issues as well, not sure since I can't get it in far enough to tell.  Just wondering if anyone else has encountered a similar situation? Is there a trick to installing it, modifications, etc.? Possible its the wrong cut/shape for a fastback? I'm attaching a picture from the product sheet that came with it that shows the overall shape of the mat, if that helps.  Unfortunately I don't have another mat to make a comparison to. Any input appreciated.
Thanks, Mark

1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: Marti Radiator Hose
« on: June 21, 2020, 03:02:14 PM »
i ran into this issue just recently, i thought my upper (Marti)hose was short, then after some detective work and ordering of a few sets of hose i found that in tmy case i had it wasnt the upper hose being to short it was the radiator re-core had the upper hose outlet out to far, about an inch which made the hose seem to short.
   so in this case it was the re-coring of the radiator that was my issue and maybe it is an issue for a few more people. maybe not just a hose reproduction issue.
I had the same situation as well after having a radiator re-cored. I didn't notice until after installing it in the car and trying to hook up the same Marti hose.  I measured the outlet to be approximately .75 inch further outboard.  It appears there's a variation (maybe different application) you want to watch out for.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Re: When one Shelby is not enough
« on: May 21, 2020, 06:51:10 PM »
Thanks, my wife calls them the mistresses. :)

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Re: When one Shelby is not enough
« on: May 21, 2020, 06:08:40 PM »

1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 67 Shelby w/ AMFM radio
« on: April 17, 2020, 05:13:48 PM »
My car came with AM/FM and is included in the dealer invoice, but not Marti report.  It may have commonly been done as a dealer installed upgrade at the time instead of factory.

Not meaning to contradict, only to understand...but, what little info I've seen seems to indicate fewer threads exposed (about 7 - 9) for GT350 setting, compared to Mustang (about 11 - 13 threads).  Maybe that's not correct?

Up For Auction / Re: 1967 Shelby GT350 Paxton Car
« on: November 26, 2019, 08:37:21 PM »
Great looking car, very cool with factory Paxton.  However, pardon the nitpick, it looks like the GT350 rocker stripes are not located properly relative to the door.

1966 Shelby GT350/GT350H / Re: Wiper arms on 66 GT 350ís
« on: November 06, 2019, 09:17:04 PM »
This topic has also been on the Concours Mustang forum in the past.  I've seen several accounts of original early production '66 cars with chrome/shiny wiper arms. Federal requirements can also be effective January 1st.  Do we absolutely know this was strictly a job 1 changeover?

Interestingly, the font size in my copy changes (gets larger) beginning with page 343 and on.

Pages: [1] 2