SAAC Forum

Quote from: 67 GT350 on April 22, 2020, 06:21:02 PM
Looks great! Thanks for the pictures.

Sure. Hope it helps.

Quote from: 2112 on April 22, 2020, 01:15:13 PM
Love it.

If you had a rolled fender lip, would the narrowed axle housing been necessary?

I don't know but the axle housing is 2" narrower (76 Lincoln Versailles) then the 67-8 banjo and I believe the same as a 65-66? Maybe it will fit?

I tell you that so nobody sends me a poison pen letter saying that I ruined their life by withholding information.


I think that I had them on before I changed the axle out? I can't swear to that though?


I noticed that in a couple of dimensions, 67's and 8's vary slightly. Particularly in the fender clearances. I have one of each.

Maybe it's a Metuchen vs. San Jose thing the way they "boxed the sheet metal"?




The fender lip itself is not any kind of an issue. The contour of the inner fender might be?
It doesn't necessarily follow the contour of the outer fender shape.


At some point in travel, I can't say if it is full travel because I can't test that in motion, the front of the inner fender will tick on the tire tread. Also when one side of the axle is traveling more then the other (tilting) like for me backing out of the driveway which is on a hill.

A '68 uses the wheel well opening trim which in spots is supposed to use small sheet metal screws to hold it to the fender lip.

In the front fender, those things cause more havoc then anything. In the rear, not so much at all.


Look at the room between the tire and the fender lip in the picture. My fingers  and hand slide in between them and is probably about 1-1/2 to 1-3/4" thick at that point.

Without pulling the wheel off, in addition, I'm pretty sure that I have a 1/8" wheel spacer on the axle also to move the inner part of the tread away from the spot on the inner fender where it ticks.


The point of the post was showing that the tire does fit pretty well as opposed to a few, not a lot, of skeptics.

So it's for "whom it may concern" since not everyone wants two different size tires on the car to begin with?

GREAT pictures John!

While I can find the picture, here is the BFG T/A 295-50-15 on a Shelby 10 spoke on my 68.

I've been asked a couple of times for pictures, so here they are.

You can clearly see the clearance around the tire to the fender lip.

I can put my hand between the tire and the lip.

Quote from: The Going Thing on April 21, 2020, 11:44:56 PM
Old Spice Soap on a Rope.. Liquid soap has long replaced bars. He should be forced to use bar soap and have a KY bottle with Boraxo mixed in.   His new favorite song would be Johnny Cash's 'Ring of Fire'.

I got a second set last year from Branda and in that set the backing plates fit fine.

I'm wondering if the Magstar and 10 spoke backing plates are getting mixed up? I don't think they are the same dimensions?

The accuracy of reproduction parts has always been an issue but there are so many parts how can a 20 year old kid know what's right for a 50 year old vehicle?

Complaints should go directly  to the retailers. Folks like Branda honestly try to get it right the first time.

Quote from: Bob Gaines on April 21, 2020, 05:40:35 PM

Quote from: 67 GT350 on April 21, 2020, 04:55:54 PM
Thats what I was thinking, I wonder why they are so off? Thats why I asked, I wanted to see if this was the "normal" for this part. Or maybe they are set up for repro wheels.

They are probably set up for the repro wheels. It seems to me I had heard that Scott Drake are aware of it .

They fit the same way on the repro 10 spokes.

Quote from: gt350hr on April 21, 2020, 03:10:04 PM
  These heads are another example of how LITTLE we know of what was made by Ford. The aluminum '73 wedge heads Roy had are another example and there were 2 bolt main aluminum blocks ( low performance) 302 blocks made and tested too. Stuff like this what I like to chase after and why I know it exists. The challenge is correctly identifying "why" it was made via Ford paper trails. Many like to elude to these parts as exotic or Holman Moody parts when reality is they were a design study for a particular or possible project. Not every experiment worked so many never saw the public eye.
    Randy

I had a special intake casting that came out of Southern Cal. You must be in the epi-center of special castings.

The Dearborn, MI, vicinity is like a gold mine also.


What are the valve sizes in Roy's heads?

I had the same problem. I just ground them down as described until they fit.

A great car!

Quote from: SunDude on April 21, 2020, 08:00:20 AM

Quote from: 2112 on April 20, 2020, 12:23:37 PM
Was Ron Butler also the first guy to make a fiberglass Cobra kit car?

At least that was what I read in the magazines in the mid to late 70's.

From what I remember, Butler bought the assets of Steven Arntz's Cobra replica business. Arntz was one of the first Cobra kit manufacturers in the mid 1970s. Allied Industries had made fibreglass Cobra bodies long before that, but I don't think they sold "Cobra kits" in the way we mean them now.

Ken Young had a 289 Cobra around 75-6 that had a full fiberglass body on it. Maybe Allied was mentioned, I don't remember? It was a late car as I remember. A CSX 25... something.

There was some discussion about "a company" offering fiberglass replacement bodies.
At the time I don't even think Arntz was building replicas yet.

Maybe Ned can shed some light on this?

Quote from: roddster on April 19, 2020, 01:24:40 PM
  I actually at first thought "Cammer", but I believe its a Boss 429.  Look at the way wider valve covers.
   It was reported that the 65/66 Mustang fastback got squirrely after 145MPH.

Look at the valve covers. They say 427, and you can partially see the SOHC.

The configuration of the B9 valve covers is a lot different.

No. It's a cammer. Maybe an original AFX car? Look at the top of the shock mounting.


I'm pretty sure that the AFX cars led to the Funny Cars. They eventually got an extended front chassis, the rear wheels moved forward and a flip top front end. Kind of a "funny looking car"? 

They look a bit like the C302 Motorsport aluminum heads although I think on those the top of the port is high and raised above stock location?

Also the location of the port is low like on the 2v Cleveland heads.

Quote from: gt350hr on April 20, 2020, 01:00:00 PM
   The 351C was never considered for T/A so there wasn't a dual dominator intake made for  it.

Euro Group 4 rules permitted the Webers. Dual Dominators with the 4 corner idle were an "engineering substitute" for IR ida's. Webers had been run and developed in the Cobra racing program.

The dual Dominators on a T/A ir manifold are just another way of doing the same thing with less total carb height.

Maybe it was just Ford setting Detomaso off on his own development program but there seems to be a point at which Ford stopped sharing information with them and maybe just figured Detomaso was happy with the Webers and the Webers fit the Group 4 rules so why waste more time and money?

Just idle speculation and discussion on my part and a thought that there was some thought of other carb development particularly in light of that 2x4 Holley intake that showed up in an obscure magazine article and the actual existence of a 3x2 Cleveland intake?

Probably the Doug Nash split magnesium intake cast for either dual Autolite inlines or for mechanical fuel injection, 8.0 block, 9.2 or other combination, should be mentioned also as I suppose abstract induction possibilities depending on how the class rules went? Another IR possibility.

What program an engine was intended for doesn't seem to necessarily be the determining factor for production. I'm told that the aluminum 351c blocks have 68 casting dates and were made for the "Ford Indy Program". So what's the difference in which program they originate from?


Plus picking your brain is fun Randy. Seems like you are the only one left alive with specific insider knowledge that will talk about this stuff at all?

Quote from: gt350hr on April 20, 2020, 11:49:46 AM
  Doug,
  The only way to put IR dominators on a 351C is with a Weiand "Pro Ram" and some 1/2" spacer/adaptors shaped from round to "D". THEN you will still need "some" form of an offset distributor. Ford did make one and I sold the one I had to Craig Olsen many years ago. Ford made a handful of single plane dual for Cleveland intakes for regular Holleys. Two different friends have them now. The low end performance is dismal at best. WHY anyone would want IR on a 351C is beyond me.
     The rings  were fuel not burnt fuel. If you had fire coming out of your

   Roy ,
      Lower the motor. Use an open , 2" tall spacer under each carb. That should solve the probem. Jr can make the carbs work for you.
   Randy
   

Yes, I'm aware of the Wieand tunnel ram. There are a couple of folks running them with 1850's on 3/4" spacer plates on the street in Panteras.

In asking, I'm not looking for a Ford 351c t/a, just asking if anyone has ever seen them? I don't know where the t/a program dropped off, but it looks like right in the beginning of the 351c racing development?

In fact it appears that the issue Detomaso was having with engine failure in the Group 4 Panteras is that there had been no development on the engine (or little) at that point. He was one of the first to race them in competition.

Bud Moore was just starting his development and Dyno Don was immersed in "testing" the "special parts", aluminum blocks and heads, that Ford dropped off at his door.


It is said that the Weber 48ida "Detomaso Pantera" intake manifold was done for Ford by Holman-Moody.  Unfortunately sending the molds and completed manifolds to Detomaso in Europe was not a good idea?

Something like 15 complete sets were sold and the remainder of the manifolds and the molds disappeared?

The Cleveland falls in kind of a no mans land because of the dropping of funding to racing by Ford?


As far as what causes the rings...something. I should do a video of starting the car at night. Whatever it is, it's a light show. I'll just call it my own aurora borealis? I'm far enough north.

Actually, it's one of the first things Kopec asked me about the Webers, which he already was running for a year. "Did you notice the light show yet?"


A Weber 48ida intake manifold IS an IR intake. Initially I started with iron Boss heads and the big port manifold in my 68 GT350.

Eventually I didn't want to wrestle with making the thing fit and pulled the entire engine out and put the 347 in.


I was fortunate to come up with a very nice set of race prepped A3 aluminum Ford heads from Joe Lapine and am using them in my Pantera with the matching "small port" intake AND raised exhaust port 180 degree headers. That's where everything sits now.

No ram boxes for me...unless you get me very drunk and...


Anything else I say about the three setups is from my experience, not my expertise and likely others experiences will vary?

The 5" stacks on the Webers seem to have fixed a lot of issues others have in Mustang chassis.

...Oh, and you need 5" OVER the top of  the carbs to contain the fuel cloud although I like the idea of the lowered engine, but put a skid plate on the oil pan...


That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.  Inconsistencies I'll blame on unexpected side effects of the virus, codeine cough medicine mixed with Jack Daniels.  What month is this?