Messages

I question why you would want a replica, when an original can be had for close to, if not the current price.

To each his own I guess.


Bill

a lot of younger generations want modern technology with older body style.......they don't care about original stuff

Yes. My 38 year old son freaks at the sight of a carburetor. Looking at my Webers left him speechless. That alone is a miracle.

EFI he totally understands. He does reburn his own and others CPU's for performance improvements. Carbs? Nah. Only lepers use those?


A 7 liter v-8, with TWO carburetors and a solid lifter cam? Whisky Tango Foxtrot! He stands behind me for protection.
He asks why does the engine sound like that? What's wrong with it?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285107429727?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=285107429727&targetid=2512152189032&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9189605&poi=&campaignid=21214286338&mkgroupid=161030074701&rlsatarget=pla-2512152189032&abcId=9407521&merchantid=113750948&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAudG5BhAREiwAWMlSjBsF6vAAysKK4ylFsQgLGkIxSzlC7cj_CVeR00vsWjrgPpc-19zpFRoCfCkQAvD_BwE

Thank you for the heads up, I had seen that one and can't get my head around why someone would need blast the part. The second part of the story I can't get my head around is why with a BOSS 429 distributor would you have to remove this piece to use a Pertronix ignition. So even though the price isn't bad... I'm not sure the part might not be bad.

I honestly can no longer tell what is a good reasonable price or not? It depends on how badly you want it I suppose?

When I look at that ebay part, I'm not sure that it is original or not? These things are one heck of a mysterious part that few know enough about?

I just don't know enough to render an opinion.

In many cases we seem to just arrived at a point when even the sellers aren't sure any more?

With the picture that you posted of the original with the anti-bounce bump, I keep looking for others and that's even the only picture of it I can find. Strange is seems to be only the Boss cam with it?


Pick your reason/s for it being blasted but we don't know the condition it was in before.

Wow! Will "Conspiracy Theories" EVER stop?

Why bother to convert a Healy to a Cobra? Why not just buy a Cobra? At the time 289's were $2,500 cars?

So it is a coupe? Ever hear of the Shelby Group 2 cars?

It must simply be that there are evil forces at work to circumvent the positive workings of society? Yep. That's it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285107429727?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=285107429727&targetid=2512152189032&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9189605&poi=&campaignid=21214286338&mkgroupid=161030074701&rlsatarget=pla-2512152189032&abcId=9407521&merchantid=113750948&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAudG5BhAREiwAWMlSjBsF6vAAysKK4ylFsQgLGkIxSzlC7cj_CVeR00vsWjrgPpc-19zpFRoCfCkQAvD_BwE

Here is a picture of the points cam in my '73 Pantera. It is a 351HO dual point distributor. Notice that the points cam does not have the small rise in the points cam like the Boss 302 version that you posted.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the original points cam in that distributor.

The correct distributor would be a Autolite for an earlier GT500 I think the last ones of the GT500 from what I have seen had a FoMoCo the part number was always C5AF-12127-E.

It is opposite .FOMOCO in early production transitioning to Autolite in later production.

The transition seemed to be a gradual one with overlap as seen on the engine usage because I have seen FOMOCO on some later 67 cars while others were Autolite and Autolite on some early fall 66 with others being FOMOCO. The same goes for smallblock from what I have seen.

The question that I would have and probably no one could know is that if you had a late application of the FoMoCo in a '67 car would the date code on that distributor indicate a late build or an early build distributor that was just put into a late build engine?

At least with the '67 GT500 428's, I always thought that the date code is more important then the engineering number on some parts? I know that I get strong disagreement to that by highly respected experienced people but I would give my example of a '68 version of the oil filter adapter with a spring '67 date code.

MY theory is that like these distributors, that if that part existed in the pile of parts to be assembled into a '67 production engine, and the date suggests that it did, there was little or no thought put to what to assemble to that engine. You just took one out of the pile that was just brought to you to use. Those workers just worked there and didn't make that decision. Whomever sorted the parts into the bin did and they just were told to do it as well by management supervisors.

Ford itself in the case of mechanical parts didn't care what those looked like, just how they worked under a  "Parts is parts" philosophy.

This discussion is confusing me. Isn't the FoMoCo casting the oldest version of the dual point? The Autolite is the newest version?

I would expect the FoMoCo to be from a 1963 or 1964 427. Possibly a 1965 model year.  I have clearly experienced that.

I would expect the Autolite to be from 1966 build date, which is a 1967 model year and later all the way up into the 1970 over the counter Ford Service part?

That cross over should be somewhere between the 1965 427 and 1966 427 model years?

As I said, I am confused by this and need clarification?

I have the same issue. I posted for one  a year or so ago and wound up getting one from Perogie. As it turns out it is identical to the one that you are replacing. Perogie called it a "reproduction" and did not represent it as an original Ford part though.

It has the same "imperfections" as yours but in addition it had like .007" or .008" of play in the fit internally on the shaft which made it wobble and impossible to set the points accurately.

I think that I have corrected that by knurling the interior bore and reaming it to 5/16" but I have yet to try to run it.

If that doesn't work then that distributor will just become another display item in my shop (I need a bigger shop for that reason of overpopulation of displays) and will just go with some kind of an alternative.


Of all the parts I've needed that are rare, that cam seems to be the rarest? That says something right there.

In the process of searching, I did discover that although that series of dual point/dual vacuum advance distributors all use the same basic points cam, the advance notches are not the same and vary according to the application.

Whereas the B2 has a 10° smallest notch, the 351HO that I had was a 14°. The B9 and CJ's I've never had so I don't know which those used.


I didn't realize that the small rise in the middle of the cam was to keep the points from bouncing.

I don't remember anyone else ever mentioning that and I haven't read the Ford B2 "Off Road" booklet in years but seem to remember that it recommended using the 289hp dual point instead of the B2 for racing because there was no way to stop the B2 points from bouncing over 5,000 rpm's even when eliminating the vacuum advance and locking that out?


All part of my continuing education and my posting here is not to disrupt the purpose of your wanted ad but to add addition pertinent info to your tutorial. So hopefully you will forgive me for that?

Also the Perogie part was $125 which makes me wonder what the price would be for a genuine Ford or Motorcraft part but it might just be a better idea to get an entire genuine B2 distributor now? That also seems to be difficult as the majority for sale are very obviously re-stamped standard distributors that only look original?

As you suggest, further investigation of the unit you intend to buy is strongly suggested.


Point of order! You mentioned a special shortened distributor rotor? Does that actually exist?

One of the alternatives I explored was using a standard points cam but discovered that the height of the cam in relationship to the points block do not line up, so that was a no go as well.

It's a good choice.

Thanks Bob... this not being a "track" car and I just don't like the look of the valve right there on the tunnel, I'll locate it in the engine bay, probably where Shelbydoug has his...Thanks shelbydoug as well for this info... I think for now I'll stay away fropm Tesla applications.

I did start to source some versailles cables for parking break.... is there any specific year I should search for?

You would need to look at how the cables are listed aftermarket wise to determine if there is a difference but I would not expect there to be.

I did notice slight differences in hardware on the three that I had. The most significant being the size of the mounting bolts to the flange on the banjo. Mine uses 1/2" bolts. The two others used 3/8". Why there is a difference I can't say but it may simply be differences in the model year or possibly in the application.

Mine is the "heavier duty" of the group and made more sense to keep it as the pick of the litter?


There really isn't any "text" that you can follow on these rears and they really are unique to Fords in that time period.

What transpired later on Mustangs with rear discs I couldn't say. My system is done and doesn't need any additional consideration.


One feature that I do like is that the rotor hat fits over the wheel flange so disassembling it is much easier compared to something like the Pantera where you need to disassemble the entire rear suspension and drive axles to get the rotor off.


It is an excellent design and too many are being dissuaded by others who bad mouth it because they don't understand it.


The question of whether or not the car actually NEEDS rear disc brakes to begin with is another subject. The additional braking should really go in the front with the "Big Lincoln" set up.

After working on other models and makes with rear discs I can really say that I hate all of them. The biggest issue is getting the parking brakes to hold consistently and the pads always seem to squeal no matter what you use on them? By comparison, the Versailles is not that bad at all.

With the big front brakes, In Ford's own words, "it was designed to stop a 7,000 pound car. It is incredible on a 3,000 pound car". I agree.


As far as the location of the valve, lots of things were done on the '65 GT350 initially because they were working under a time handicap to get them out the door. There really is more then one design finalization that became standard on it that could have been better thought out.

You need Versalles cables that go to the levers.

To my knowledge the Mustang part of the system you are connecting to is the same or very, very similar for the Mustangs at least into the '73-4 model year.

You set the handle in the car to where it will be when the brakes are fully applied. Then you set the levers to be on at the calipers. Then you connect the cables together snugging them up to the point that the handle in the cabin keeps itself on.


I put my proportioning valve inside the left front fender and ran -4 Aeroquip teflon lined hose to it. I find that it is more accessible there inside the fender then inside the cabin under the rear seat panel.


I keep looking for a Ford Service bulletin on adjusting the Versailles PB. So far I have not found one so that is a suggestion to me that although "WE" are having issues with it now, there never was when the car was in production?



Just for the sake of discussion here and not necessarily to distract from the issue at hand, I put the "Big Ford?Lincoln/T-bird" front rotors and calipers on my Pantera and put 65-7 Mustang front calipers on the rear of the car.

I didn't neglect my '68. I did the same on it as well.

To make this functional, electric parking brake calipers from the Tesla suddenly came onto the market used and made it possible to have a PB while using that Mustang trans-am braking system. They are electronic and are either on or off. They are easily adaptable to many applications.

So what I am suggesting here, to others that are reading this as tech info, using the 65-7 Mustang front calipers on the rear as done on the Mustang T/A cars has a solution to the lack of PB with it using the Tesla PB unit.


I sympathize with your plight however since being honest, I have been through the Versailles PB several times in order to get it to work right. It was done at a time when there was little or no knowledge readily available so I had to figure it out myself.

In the end, I realized that I had been really just over reacting to it. It is really very simple and once you "get it" no BFD but still folks say it sucks and just chuck it.

To each his own and I suppose being stubborn as Hell has it's advantages sometimes in finding a solution?

Shelbydoug, I was under the impression the parking brake would not be able to be used due to the disc set up I have currently? The cables are not connected to the levers, you are correct.Can in fact the parking brake be set up with the disc application I have?

I have the exact system installed in my '68 GT350 and I have the PB connected to the original cable system in the car. So I don't understand why anyone would claim that you cannot?

You do need the Versaille's cables connected to the levers.


I found an additional benefit of using the Versailles rear housing in that it is 2 inches narrower then the Mustang banjo. What that meant to me is that I fit 295-50-15 tires within the rear fenders using original 15" Shelby 10 spokes. Many don't notice that simply because those tires look stock. I would not have been able to do that with the original rear. That one has been sitting on my shop floor for 40 years. It's there so long I don't even notice it anymore.


The Versaille PB does not work by applying heavy pressure to the levers. There are three balls, from ball bearings, that when you move the lever go up inclined ramps that push the piston against the pads.

The tricky part is getting the handle under the dash synchronized to that movement. That adjustment is made under the car where the original Mustang cable from that handle connects to the cable running to the rear. There is a threaded stud there that you need to play with to get the pre-load correct and synchronized with the travel of the levers.

The levers only move something like an inch or so.

It is very different then what others expect and they get easily frustrated by the adjustment sequence.


Also, as with other Ford brakes, they are self adjusting when you back up the car and stop it by using the brakes and not just letting it roll to a stop.

In the Mustang the parking brake is easier to use with automatic transmissions as a result. The manual transmission cars are more difficult to get to keep in adjustment/ work right with wear on the pads.

As a result of the PB situation, the Versailles gets bad mouthed and many just get taken out and shelved.


In my view of driving these cars for almost 70 years now, the value of the rear brakes is minimal. You can almost drive it without rear brakes so  exactly what the value of the big 2-1/2" rear shoes is, is questionable to me although I never ran the cars like Shelby did in racing with seemingly a suicide death wish attitude?

I am also using the '65 GT350 adjustable proportioning valve and it is set at the stock, as delivered adjustment.


That is just my view from my mountain top and the more that you know me, the more that you will realize how many disagree with me. So be it. It isn't my purpose in life to be the great healer. Screw them.

Some say that I have an attitude problem? I have no idea why? I guess I just look grumpy?

Nice upgrade to a 65 mustang. Why would you want to change it?

The parking brake is unique and many can't get it to work right. They just give up on it. It's simple but tricky.

If you notice, the PB cables are not connected to the levers.

It is a Versailles unit and the width of the Versailles is 2 inches less then the drum brake assembly.

The original axles in them are 28 spline.

There is no flange on them to install the drum brakes.

It's a very nice manifold, just not original to a '65 GT350.