Technical section T/A details

[gt350shelb]

Ok its mostly fixed

[gt350shelb]

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 !

[gt350shelb]

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 .

[shelbydoug]

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?

[propayne]

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

[propayne]

BME TA Cougar engine shot scanned from one of my magazines.

- Phillip

[propayne]

Early shot of a BME TA Cougar engine.

- Phillip

[propayne]

Another angle -

- Phillip

[propayne]

A nice color shot by Harry E. Hurst

- Phillip

[propayne]

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

[propayne]

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

[Bob Gaines]

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

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.

[68stangcjfb]

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.

[pbf777]

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.   

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.

[shelbydoug]

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.   

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"?