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 - shelbydoug

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224
1
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 67 GT500 oil pump
« on: October 23, 2020, 03:56:08 PM »
  What brand is the "M57A" pump?
M is for Melling.

A M57A isn't showing in the listings as available. There is just a generic substitution for it. An old listing does show it for a '66 F150 with a 360. No mention of a 427 application though? I'm wondering if the stock oil pumps are "upgraded" to the 427 specifics? What is the difference with that pump v the others?

Also, I can't find reference to a larger diameter pickup tube assembly anywhere? Does anyone have a part number listing for them?


I am guessing that the only difference between the 427 and the stock cj unit is the pressure?

As I recall, the 427's idled (up to the '67 production year) with 80psi and the CJ with about 12 hot. The 427 MIGHT have dropped down to 60 hot? That I don't specifically remember.


The "old" racer's adage states that 10psi per 1000rpm is all that is needed but I do remember 427 bottom end failures that were tied to being at the end of the oiling lines, #7 & #8. The side oiler block being the factory "fix" for that issue?

Many, but not all, 427 racers would shim the pressure relief spring in the block to get 100 psi. I did. I don't know if it helped anything?


Again ONE of my concerns, but not all, is pumping too much oil and pumping out the oil in a stock 5 quart oil pan even with two extra quarts added. This engine is going to run a stock FE pan.

In addition, genuine production 427 blocks never had the lifter galleries drilled for oil supply since that was primarily provided to supply oil to the hydraulic lifters. The 68 and later 427 service blocks had the hydraulic lifter provisions new.


In preparing a block for high-performance/racing, many builders of the time recommended restricting the oil to the lifters if running solid lifters.


That discussion isn't what my question is leading to. Some engines that started out as "production" engines required altered oiling procedures. In some cases that meant running a stock volume and pressure pump to keep from pumping the oil up into the valve covers and the pan dry.

"Cleveland's" for instance are often run in competition with stock oil pumps. In addition to aiding in sending the oil to where it is most effective it also reduces the inherent stresses place on the oil pump drive shaft, but then again, that's a different subject.


I'm just looking for feedback on this subject as I can't recall it ever being discussed?  I definitely need clarification. :)

2
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / 67 GT500 oil pump
« on: October 23, 2020, 10:25:02 AM »
I'm looking for some owner feedback on the benefits of the stock oil pump v. high volume v high pressure in the 67 428.

I'm thinking that the stock pump is all that should be used in this engine.

With the introduction of th 428cj in '68 Ford experienced a bunch of waranty issues with folks pumping the oil pan dry even with a stock pump and as a result revised the markings on the dip sticks to indicate another quart added to the system.

A high volume pump may stress even that added quantity out further?


What's your feelings on this? At hot idle all a stock pump gives is about 12 psi. That's a little unnerving to me?

3
1968 Shelby GT350/500/500KR / Re: Vin #
« on: October 15, 2020, 05:16:07 PM »
Yes Mr.Disher. Your efforts are exemplary.  ;)

4
Appeals / Re: SPEC Rearend Chunk
« on: October 15, 2020, 07:45:53 AM »
I bought some of those all were between 1500-2250$ send me some pics of yours you want to sell.

There are 2 versions of the spec case with drain plug and without.

Those are the asking numbers I heard as well but you won't get the exact number until you "sit down" to nail down a number.

These things are rare enough to just "demand" a certain number and a "take it or leave it" position.


I know as a fact a few holding SPEC cases and not openly acknowledging that. They really feel that even at around 2 thousand, the things could "double" much like date correct big blocks are/did. So there is no knowing how high is up.

5
News from HQ / Re: When bad news is good news for a change!
« on: October 15, 2020, 07:37:26 AM »
Hopefully this will end the "controversies" but I suspect there may be someone(s) else, possibly internet inspired to continue?

Inexplicably to me, many like to believe in conspiracy theories regardless of their ridiculousness?

Perhaps it just gives meaning to their otherwise meaningless existences?

To some, there are always monsters hiding under the bed.

6
The Lounge / Re: Big thank you to Randy "gt350hr"
« on: October 13, 2020, 02:21:32 PM »
Me too. Thank you.  ;D

7
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 67 GT500 clutch kit recommendations?
« on: October 12, 2020, 08:53:45 PM »
     O.K., here comes trouble!             ???

     In my opinion, Centerforce is a fine company, and we use they're products, at times.  But this wouldn't be one of them!

     First off, I don't find the pedal function to be "correct", when substituting a "diaphragm" for a "Long-style" pressure plate when the latter were as it was, but maybe that's just me.           ;)         

     Secondly, as for racing, or shall we say hi-performance driving applications, often you find that the "centrifugal-weights" get removed before installation, as otherwise they may attempt to exodus later.  I also find that in some instances their presents has a variable effect on the pedal effort, and the pedal release/engagement position which has an unappreciated effect on the foot and hand timing of the human participant in the operation, leading to potentially poor health for the transmission.              :o 

      Also there may be the option of rebuilding your existing unit as this was one of the benefits to this design, depending on what unit you may currently have and it's condition.

      If interested, perhaps we can be of service to you, we would need additional information to make a specific recommendation, call us @ PBF @ 407-843-3673

      Scott.

The difference between a Long and a diaphram in this car is just going to be in the clutch pedal height. It won't rest at the same level. It won't come up as high with the diaphram as with the Long.

The Centerforce does have this strange property of pushing the pedal way up at high rpm. The first time it did that to me, I was a little freaked but it is part of the characteristics of the design.



I've been running the Centerforce dual friction in my 68 GT350 for about 25 years. It takes quite a while to completely break in. By that I mean it will slip just a bit, like a hiccup, now and then when you get on it until it is broken in.


I will also say that you need to use a forged flywheel with it rather then the factory cast flywheel. The dual friction disc has two different friction surfaces and the side that faces the flywheel WILL etch itself into the surface of a casting.

Other then that it is fine. It also has significantly less effort to operate then the Long clutch so it is easier on the linkage AND your leg. The Mcleod in particular can qualify as a bear trap for sure. Not so much with the Centerforce.


You can not run the Long, either as a Hays or a Mcleod WITHOUT beefing up the equalizer and it would be a great idea to replace the plastic bearings with ball bearings as well.

The original clutch had a pressure rating of 2,600 pounds. The linkage is designed and built with that number in mind. There is no Long clutch currently available with less then a 3,200 pound rating. That's too much for the stock equalizer and it will slowly bend to a point where the clutch pedal all the way on the floor will no longer release the clutch.


I also have the Centerforce in my Pantera and it helps since it needs less travel to disengage then the original long clutch does. Panteras have an issue with clutch travel limitations.

These are just my experiences with the clutches in two cars and others will have theirs and opinions as such.

That's really what you are asking and it's best to hear as much as you can and hear why?


8
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 67 GT500 clutch kit recommendations?
« on: October 12, 2020, 10:59:44 AM »
Presuming that that you have the correct/original 1-3/8" input shaft transmission in the car, this is about as good a deal as you will get.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Centerforce-DF559033-Dual-Friction-Clutch-Kit/362619515968

Many "kits" have the throwout bearing included in them. This one doesn't. I suppose it is to make the price more competitive?

I can't recall any kits recently that included the pilot bushing with them.


Search on ebay. You will see several alternatives but most are going to be a few hundred dollars more.

At one point, Shelby Parts and Restoration in Greenbay, WI, was a warehousing dealer for Mcleod. I don't know what his situation is with them right now but it's worthwhile to inquire with him I would think?

9
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 67 gt500 versis tree
« on: October 11, 2020, 06:55:22 PM »
If you look close at the interior, you can see what appears to be a ‘68 Shelby center console.  The arm rest is very apparent.  My guess would be a ‘67 car dressed in ‘68 fiberglass.  It doesn’t appear to have signs of clips for lower rocker molding or fender wheel opening chrome like a ‘68 would have.  No fender marker lights help support the car as likely a ‘67.  Just an odd car with an interesting back story that we’ll never know.

It definitely is mixed.

No 68 corner lamps, 67 interior. 68 fiberglass. Can anyone make out a roll bar or harness? The likeliness that it isn't even a Shelby rises considerably without one. I suppose though that anyone's guess is as good as any other.

It's probably from 30 years ago?

Midnight auto parts never sleeps. I think they are still in business?

10
1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 67 gt500 versis tree
« on: October 11, 2020, 04:35:07 PM »
i saw the 67 interior     ooops
 guess its vintage clone
Probably something in between. What with the shinny hub not too many vintage clones were able to source 67 Shelby steering wheels for their builds.

I've seen a few 68's with 67 Shelby wheels (including mine). When they were a hundred bucks across the counter, they were a very attractive deal.

It's just probably just me but I'd call it a '68 with a '67 wheel.

11
Almost a certainly BS . Maier Racing has sold those flairs since the early 70's. https://www.maierracing.com/shop/fiberglass/individual-parts/flares/

+1. Those are Bill Maier's flares.

12
1968 Shelby GT350/500/500KR / Re: headers for 427 FE Engine
« on: October 11, 2020, 07:19:41 AM »
All fantastic pictures. Thank you to all who have posted.

They all must sound like a Saturn missile launching with the collectors open?

13
I personally see no difference in performance.

The original Ford system of points is just as good.

There is only one ignition system that I know of that fires and cleans up fouled spark plugs. That is made by a company called Pantera Electronics.

In that system they recommend not using a "coil in a can" but it will work with one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYKRtOgDcFg&feature=youtu.be

14
Never used a Pertronix 3. The Pertronics 2 (or II) wires in exactly the same as a Pertronix 1 and has zero effect on the tachometer if you follow the directions and use the original yellow top coil or any coil with exactly the same resistance as a stock yellow top coil. 


Are you gaining all the(claimed) performance with a stock Coil? What is the resistance of a Stock Coil?

Exactly what gain is there supposed to be with the Petronix? What did J.C.Whitney claim it to be?

15
The wiring issue seems to stem from using a II or III. The Petronix 1 is compatible with the Ford Tach.



The simplest way to explain it is that the Petronix needs 12v run directly to it. The Ford yellow top will self destruct with that.

The simplest place to pick up a 12volt switched source or the Petronix is at the input to the tachometer inside the dash. You can get access to that by removing the radio and the ash tray assembly.

There is where you create a "y" splice. One going back into the tach input and the other to the red input wire into the Petronix. Don't run that wire to the plus terminal on the coil as the Petronix instructions say.

The plus terminal of the coil is going to only take two wires connected to it. One is the pink resistance wire running from the tach output wire. The other is the 12v red wire running from the starter solenoid I terminal.

The I terminal from the solenoid supplies 12 volts to the coil while the starter switch is in the "start" position, turning over the starter motor.

When the ignition switch is in the run position, and the engine running, the voltage reading at the plus terminal on the coil will be 6volts. If it is more, then replace the resistance wire. They can wear out with time.



The entire issue really is caused by the Ford tach that reads off of the plus terminal of the coil. Just about every other tach system on the planet reads off of the negative terminal.

This just has to do with the original Ford engineering design of essentially just "splicing in" the tach into the electrical system of the car to reduce major wiring redesign of the standard ignition system.

We have to live with that peculiarity.



I don't have a Petronix II or III, but am informed by those that do that those are the ones that need a wiring adapter to make the tach function. I personally can't confirm that.



In all honesty, there isn't much advantage to using a Petronix v. stock points. It does give you better dwell characteristics but there isn't much advantage to that. Even the race Cobras and GT40's used points and yellow top coils.

A standard set of points should easily give you 30,000 miles before needing replacement which is a very simple thing to do even on the road if need be.

People are carrying spare Petronix units with them. Those two factors should suggest something to you right there? ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224