SAAC Forum

Here's a picture of my car taken by the original owner in 1971. Obviously replacement tires sometime after the Speedways wore out🙂

Congrats Jon! You're deserving of this karma.
Mark

The longer pitman arm increases steering effort as well quickening the steering.

Quote from: gt350hr on November 02, 2020, 04:10:49 PM

Quote from: 6T6/7 on November 02, 2020, 01:27:56 PM
I run VR-1 10W-30.  20W-50 is too high viscosity than needed or should be run in a street driven engine imo.

   That is very dependent on locality and bearing clearances. Some current engines "demand" 5-20 because of their clearances.

Yes, agree.  I know my statement was pretty generic. Years ago I remember running Castrol 20-50 racing oil in my Boss 302 thinking is must be better since its "racing oil". As I've learned more about oil flow, bearing clearances, etc., I've developed the opinion that extra high viscosity is not always better. Obviously, running 20-50 isn't going to destroy an engine, as far as I know, or even show apparent problems in most cases. Although, hard to know what, if anything, is happening since its hidden and could be gradual over time. For what its worth, the owners manuals only call for any multi-viscosity with 40 weight for temperatures above 90F. Similar to how much zinc is needed, its difficult to draw a hard line. End the end, probably ok for anyone to use whatever viscosity their experience and comfort level tells them.         

I run VR-1 10W-30.  20W-50 is too high viscosity than needed or should be run in a street driven engine imo.

I see the article subtitle mentions "dial-a-win" automatic shifter. By chance, does the article state this car as an automatic? If so, possible its the same test car used for Sept. 66 Motorcade magazine article "Rent-A-Tiger"? This is the article where a Hertz is compared to a "regular" GT350 to see if its the real thing. 🙂

Are the '66s with automatic trans and Holley 715  supposed to have a dashpot?  I've heard that the '67 automatics that came through with the Holley 715 included a dashpot.  Wondering if similar for the '66s.
Thanks

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.

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.

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.

Ok, thanks much, sounds good enough for me.

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.

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

Quote from: imming1965 on June 20, 2020, 07:25:07 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.

+1
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.