Messages

Will the new owners invest in preventing the afternoon sandstorms? LOL

With a gigantic air conditioned Polycarbonate bubble with special access through an underground tunnel entrance..... sorry no, the tents will still need to be weighted.


John

All good points made by several knowledgeable people! 

I assume everyone is draining the oil and replacing the oil filter subsequent to any dyno test or run-in stand?  It makes for a good opportunity to look closely for any alum scarf, metallic particles or water in the oil...

Exactly!

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/fb/maintenance_oilfiltercutters/tempest.php

The COBRA POWERED BY FORD cast aluminum pans were created by Shelby American, Inc. and were optional as both a street and race part in 1963 for new Cobras. I had good look at a photocopy of the original Shelby American drawings showing the revision that fixed a serious problem.  On new car invoices a line item for a "big pan" normally meant the cast aluminum COBRA POWERED BY FORD pan but could also mean a Shelby race shop fabricated steel oil pan crafted from a stock Ford pan as a place to start. The price of the line item is the clue as to which design was installed.  The Stage III engine option, example CSX2416, included all the dress up items including the cast aluminum oil pan shown well in a factory picture before the car was sent to the dealer.


The serious problem for original pans? The original drawings had a mistake in the dimensions for the arch in the back for the rear main bearing cap. Parts made to that drawing had an arch too large that left a gap between the oil pan and bearing cap the Ford seal would not fill. The oil pans were still usable but something had to be done to deal with the gap. Left unnoticed and dealt with, engine oil would run free flow out of the back of the engine in any situation that tipped the front of the engine up enough to get oil to the rear main cap area.  I installed one of the original design pans in 1985 and filled the gap with high temperature sealant, still no leakage.


The original drawing was revised to correct the problem for subsequent runs of parts.


I am not sure how many companies of made copies in their own versions, but reproductions have been made and one version has thicker cross sections in many areas. We bought a car with a reproduction pan that leaked about a cup of engine oil every week through a very porous area in one of the sump side walls. I removed the pan and it found a home at very low cost, enough to cover packing and shipping mainly, to the buyer knowing it leaked.


They were sold over the counter for several years as mentioned:

Shelby American (May 31, 1965 parts list, under a racing Cobra part number:
"S1CR 6674 Oil-Pan, 6 ½ Qt. Capacity Cast Aluminum  Buddy Bar ea. 79.84 [retail] 55.88 [dealer]"

Ford:
"COBRA OIL PAN C4OZ-6675-A 1 KIT"


A word of caution regarding using any version made by anybody, check for adequate distance between the bottom of your oil pump pickup and the floor of the sump. Variables in casting, machining, gaskets, and oil pickup assemblies used can work together to nearly cut off oil flow under the pickup. One original Cobra owner described losing oil pressure as engine rpm went up. I never heard what the solution was but if somebody had installed a 1962 model year 221/260 oil pickup assembly, the pickup might have been touching the bottom of the oil pan. That is exactly what can happen if somebody puts a 1963 or later 260/289 stock pan over a 1962 model oil pickup; 1962 221/260 oil pans have a deeper sump than subsequent models. An associate dismantled a Cobra's engine with a 1962 model pickup and a 1963 stock steel pan used together. The pickup was rubbing the floor of the pan sump and the signs of oil starved wear were numerous inside the engine.

For use in original Cobras, note that engines sit tipped slightly forward in an original street Cobra. That changes apparent oil level as measured by a stock Fairlane dip stick.

Dan,
I always put clay on the pick up to physically check the distance between the pan bottom and the pick up.



John

PM sent, there is more to discuss than fits in little text boxes.

Excellent response Dan! Enough to fill an entire document.

ZFH black plate would be late 1969 or early 1970.

I asked to Compcams customer support the country where cams are made, and this is the answer:

Hi Mathieu,

All of our cam blanks are made here in the states and are ground here also.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Jonathan Martin
�Tech Support
Comp Cams, FAST
��8649 Hacks Cross Rd. 
Olive Branch, MS 38654
jmartin@edelbrock.com

Ask them for the name of the company that makes their solid lifter mechanical cam cores.

I would use lifters made in the USA either by Autolite or Motorcraft or Crower.

     Again just to clarify, the wording might be more correct if we said:  "retailed" by, or "packaged" by . . . . . .   

     Scott.

You can order your solid and mechanical lifters from Crower. You can specify that you want Crower Cold Face lifters sourced from Johnson lifters.

The Johnson lifters are manufactured in the USA. The Crower Cold Face lifters have a hole EDM in the face that also provides pressured oil between the lifter and the camshaft.

However you will find that the camshaft cores are an issue as well. I have talked with people in the know that supplied cores to the different cam grinders, specifically when people were paid to stay at home during the pandemic many manufacturers lost employees and never recovered.

The observations that I have are from multiple camshaft failures on engines that were being broken in on the dyno where lifters were not the root cause of the failure. Subsequent testing showed the lines were soft. So core issue in those examples.

The next part is several failures on dynos wherein the lifter face failed and the cam lobes had not failed yet.

When Steve Long was still alive and Steve Long Racing was still making custom camshafts I would order cams and supply cam cores from high performance engines in the 60s, 70s, early 80s to be reground. Also Steve Long had a process for hardening and regrinding lifters with the correct face radius.

I have one more SLR MAX2DP 106° LSA camshaft (Not for sale.) that has already been broken in and run with Crower Cold Face Johnson lifters in storage. BADGAS has one more SLR MAX1DP 106° camshaft.(Not for sale.) "Hurricane George" and I discussed sending them down to a cam grinder that has the capabilities to grind his own master lobes for his cam grinding machine. (Not everyone can do that, and few that can do the work actually are willing to do so for a reasonable amount of money.)

Instead of that I have been looking at creating a solid Roller camshaft for the BOSS 302, and HiPo 289 as I have needs for future engine builds.



John

I hope he spends the money well, it will cost his reputation a lot more when people are referred to this thread and his eBay listing

You should copy that before it is gone from the site

Yes! The most valuable thing any of us has is our integrity and reputation.


John

As a recent participant in an ancient artifact discussion here, in fact the antagonist in initiating one, I think this really isn't an issue whether or not it is magnesium.

The reason being that no one is going to represent this intake as the ultimate performance intake of all time so that you can build the ultimate performance engine using it now.

It is "an ancient artifact" and that is the reason it is desirable. Like "King Tut's death mask".



Pricing such items is difficult and speculative at best. "He's got it. You want it." It's only a question of what price you can agree on. If you can't come to an agreement, then it is just made out of "unobtainieum".


An example of this thinking in the case of a Ford 427, which is what I presume we are talking about since this post has no pictures posted. is the "lightweight 427 magnesium intake".

In examining what it is, it has no better perfomance/horsepower potential then the aluminum PI version of itself.
It is ONLY about weight savings BACK IN THE DAY, and really is now, ONLY just about it's novelty and the very small production numbers originally.


If you have one and you want to use it on an engine. Great. It's yours. Do what you want with it.
It is definitely a "horse of a different color" and I'm still fascinated at looking at them, strange as they are. But in the end, "so what"?


I remember looking for a "welder" to repair my C6FE aluminum 427 heads. The "shop" was building "Pro Stock Camaro" chassis back in 1985. He was the only qualified aluminum welder that I could find.

They were using Chevy BB Pro Stock cylinder heads for "door stops", so when I dropped my FORD heads off to them and asked for some kind of receipt, they told me why? Aluminum scrap is only $.23 a pound.

Really? How much are heads for a Mk2B GT40 worth?


Anyway, the value is in the eyes of the beholder. The novelty is in knowing what they belong to. That value is in your head. To a Pro-Stock Camaro builder, they are just worth a couple of bucks in scrap. Especially being FORD parts. I had a slightly different perspective.

I couldn't stay any longer to debate that anyway. The cocaine dust permeating the shop had my head spinning and I had to rest a bit just to find my way back home. After all, it was the '80s?

Back in the 1980s I was on my way to Casa Grande Arizona from Las Vegas Nevada. An ex-Girlfriend was bartending in a small town in the mountains North of Phoenix I stopped by for conversation and a burger. She knew what my obsession with cars and performance was like and she told me about a man who used to work for FoMoCo in Dearborn that was now a regular. Well he didn't come in that day, so she called him and told him I wanted to meet him, and he invited me out to his place. She went with me and we got to his place.

This guy had retired soon after Ford said no more racing, I won't go into everything that he had stuffed in his barn as the fantastic nature of it all would make the story sound not real. But suffice it to say when he opened the barn I thought "Yes, Wonderful Things!" We spent a good couple of hours just looking at the things in the building. Astonishing NOS performance parts that many of which I had never even heard of. Then we went over to the house and sat in his living room, he had a beer, I had a Coke. There above the fireplace on the mantle was an NOS aluminum Tunnel port head, brand new, I told him that of all the things that I saw that day that cylinder head was the most desirable item in the world to me. It was a pity that he didn't have a pair of them. He got up walked down the hall and came back with it's mate. I was stunned to put it mildly. That is when he told me that he was on the design team for the 427 cylinder heads and participated in the design of the Tunnel port heads. It was one of the things he was proudest of. I told him the only other time I had seen a pair of them was at Randy Scoville's shop in Sun Valley California. Randy had recently received the GT40 MkII for a private owner after it had left the Harrah's collection. (Side note how dumb and short sighted was Harrah's for selling that?!)

After the Coke we traded phone numbers, he said the obligatory, "I'll have my family give you a call about those heads after I die," I told him I hoped that would never happen and I continued on to Casa Grande to do work for my Dad.

Rare Stuff, man do I love it.

Congratulations on your aluminum 289 302 Injection manifold it doesn't matter that it's not aluminum because your right, it's cool!

P.S. don't plasma spray it.


John

In my opinion it in no way looks like any magnesium I've seen. Looking at the machined areas it totally looks like aluminum to me.

    I have worked (machined) with magnesium materials and have several pieces collected over the years hanging about and as I stated previously, magnesium castings can look very much like aluminum. This particularly when first cast, depending on specific alloys and initial exposure in the casting process, or as machined; close enough that it can surly prove difficult to discern positively though just typical photographs. It is mostly the environmental exposure over time and the different oxidation processes (Al. vs. Mg.) which then make particularly mag. distinguishable to the eye.   

    I related this to Mr Larson and that I was suspect of whether it actually was mag. and his response was that this part being N.O.S. with no exposure and having been stored in the south western region of the country (dry) is why it hadn't turned the rather dark grey oxidized color as typically witnessed of mag. And yes this is possible, as for example I bought a set of mag. Mini-Lite wheels many years ago, not polished, as cast natural finish that looked pretty much just like this intake manifold, but over the years they have slowly turned to a very dark gray color, as expected being this is Florida.   

   

Ask a future seller of a magnesium piece to put some white vinegar on their "mag piece". 
fizz = magnesium, no fiz= aluminum

    Yes, and I did suggest that he might attempt a non-destructive chemical test ("destructive" is to take some scrapings and test for its' flammability!  ), this with readily available home products like "vinegar" (acetic acid, diluted form) or "Root Kill" (copper sulfate, as usually found 98-99%).

    In a followup telephone communication he stated that he had tried the vinegar on this piece, but also on another "known" example of mag. for a comparison, with no conclusion garnered in either case.  Of course, this isn't a 'good' sign, but this process does also require a certain some of competence in execution: that the surface being tested should be clean of contaminants (particularly oil) and if on particularly the as-cast surface where oxidation has taken place as this insulates the metal, the surface should be abraded to clean "white" metal, otherwise there may be a delay and/or repeated applications required before the anticipated result is had. So as presented, and understanding that in his effort which encompassed a known test reference, the only conclusion that could be garnered was that the testing process must be faulted; i.e. vinegar does age and becomes less acetic in time, the surfaces were not clean, the process was rushed and not given adequate time for reaction, perhaps the person performing the process, who 'was' claiming ignorance in the process, is a numbskull and couldn't find his a$$ with both hands no matter how hard he might try, or of course maybe he's ..............'slick'!   

Going through ebay based on the inaccurate description is your recourse. They claim a money back guarantee

It looks like his phone is in the description

    Well, 'perhaps' unfortunately, the transaction didn't go through "ebay"; the auction had run it's course for a period with no takers, I contacted him through ebay messaging asking what he might be wanting for it, his response was to call the contact phone number on the listing and he'd talk about it with me. 

    Seems innocent enough, I did have questions that needed to be answered and one generally prefers to talk to the person in order to try to judge their demeanor, not to mention with the greater interaction scammers usually don't put forth this much effort and will often just disappear. And obviously many transactions take place in manors other than though ebay, and this was the process the owner/seller wanted to proceed.

    But post this event, I get the impression that with the contact phone number being listed in the auction (against the rules) that the intention may have been to always remove the item from ebay's dominion, the seller avoids the fees, but perhaps more importantly, and particularly if dubious, also any possible recourse through ebay.  So the slick "used car salesman" stating "I know what I'm talking about", coupled with my wanting to believe that 'most' people are good  , gets the better of me,............. sometimes. 

Call his daddy too , he sells a lot of stuff. Its not good for business

    Speaking of which:
    I'm thinking this might be: http://www.allclassicmustang.com/
    Same last name: Larson,
    Same town: Velva, ND.,
    And this "All Classic Mustang" is also referenced on David Larson's Facebook page and he appears on theirs. 

    But again, the intention on my part here is only to inform others of my experience. 

What were you going to do with it?   

    At least the scenario didn't play out of me getting nothing for my money!  It's still a cool piece and they really are a bit rare to find, particularly in this condition.  It'll just become another "wall-hangar" with all the rest; I'll just have to console myself that: "It's not that I paid to much, its' just that I'm ahead of the curve"!      

    Scott.

           

Scott,
Unfortunately you can not plate aluminum with magnesium. Then you could plate it and put it high up on the wall where nobody could touch it. Allow it to oxidize, and be out of close inspection.

So you are stuck by this guy with a still cool intake that you still probably don't know what it flows, eh?


John

[As far as for the 465's not providing the better performance, well in my experience, that has generally been the result, this to the point that I just don't prefer, nor recommend them.]

Where the article discusses a little difficulty in getting the jetting right on the 465 carbs which even after rejeting are running lean, is an indication that they are too small............. The engine isn't getting the quantity of fuel it needs...........

    This suject of the "carburetor being to small and not delivering enough fuel", is often the thought, but stop and think about it; with the exception of the accelerator pump system the carburetor does not pump fuel into the engine, it's pushed in by the differential between the lower pressure venturi area vs. atmospheric pressure; and the smaller, more restrictive (C.F.M.) the carburetor might be, the lower the pressure (greater vacuum) value is presented and the stronger the siphoning effect is going to be. 

    Aka, larger carburetors don't just have larger fuel jets because they potentially flow more air and yes would potentially need to flow more fuel commensurately, but also because often this differential pressure (signal) is less prominent and therefore the fuel delivery is less effective, so larger (less restrictive) fueling jetting offsets some of this also.   

    As far as for the 465's not providing the better performance, well in my experience, that has generally been the result, this to the point that I just don't prefer, nor recommend them. 

    Scott.

As far as for the 465's not providing the better performance, well in my experience, that has generally been the result, this to the point that I just don't prefer, nor recommend them. 

Scott,
I think that if someone wanted to run 465 Holley carburetors that was knowledgeable about circuits they could get the carburetor to function just fine.


John

I view some things, like these induction combinations, like playing with Legos.

We just take various shapes and assemble them in all possible combinations until we arrive at one with the best results. Sometimes the more outrageous, the better the solution?

Some would call that the empirical method? That is being very diplomatic. 


The way some of you speak of this suggests that there is no carburetor that is too big or none too small? That just makes no logical sense to me whatsoever but this has just turned into a food fight with little or no point anyway?


I would go with copying the actual results as best I can to those who were the most successful in racing. Not to the extent so much as when "Grumpy Jenkins" would pull out his dipstick and hold it up to the sunlight to look for something, and seemingly almost everyone else would also, but looking for the failures that seemed so obvious that I didn't want to go down that road as well?

So then why not have a disagreement? It does seem entertaining to a point? Maybe it is just Quantum Physics and it is the creation of an equal but opposite electron instantaneously created at the opposite end of the Universe, then extinguishes itself instantaneously? Makes as much sense to me?


Some of these combinations are just going to work better then others and one of the keys is this C60A intake. It does seem to have this zenomorph capability and considering the unpredictability of the various carburation combinations, that's as good of an explanation as anything at this point?


I can't help but think though that there is an actual correlation between engine size and carburetor size? Someone could probably even write a simple equation there with a pretty much direct proportion predicting outcome? An outrageously abstract thought isn't it? I probably need shock therapy or some serious medications...but that's another subject all together for another day.

Well I for one don't have anything else to add to this particular discussion.

[As far as for the 465's not providing the better performance, well in my experience, that has generally been the result, this to the point that I just don't prefer, nor recommend them.]

Where the article discusses a little difficulty in getting the jetting right on the 465 carbs which even after rejeting are running lean, is an indication that they are too small............. The engine isn't getting the quantity of fuel it needs...........

    This suject of the "carburetor being to small and not delivering enough fuel", is often the thought, but stop and think about it; with the exception of the accelerator pump system the carburetor does not pump fuel into the engine, it's pushed in by the differential between the lower pressure venturi area vs. atmospheric pressure; and the smaller, more restrictive (C.F.M.) the carburetor might be, the lower the pressure (greater vacuum) value is presented and the stronger the siphoning effect is going to be.   

    Aka, larger carburetors don't just have larger fuel jets because they potentially flow more air and yes would potentially need to flow more fuel commensurately, but also because often this differential pressure (signal) is less prominent and therefore the fuel delivery is less effective, so larger (less restrictive) fueling jetting offsets some of this also.    

    As far as for the 465's not providing the better performance, well in my experience, that has generally been the result, this to the point that I just don't prefer, nor recommend them. 

    Scott.

As far as for the 465's not providing the better performance, well in my experience, that has generally been the result, this to the point that I just don't prefer, nor recommend them. 

Scott,
I think that if someone wanted to run 465 Holley carburetors that was knowledgeable about circuits they could get the carburetor to function just fine.


John

[I do agree that the non-original blue reusable aftermarket gaskets are much better then the original Holley cork gaskets but you will see those after they are installed as not looking original if that matters to you? However, they last much longer then the Holley cork versions without drying out and shrinking.]

At the risk of burning off my own eyebrows with my own fire, I won't comment too much on the mechanics competency other then I've never seen a fire quite like that one?


In regards to other descriptions that he uses and explainations, yes, "Trickle out" is exactly the term Holley uses in their instructions of setting the float levels. Personally, I never get that quite right except if you tell me "trickle", then I need to go pee.

If you are lucky, you will get the fuel right at the verge of coming out of the sight hole. I just leave it there. The primary bowls are the easy ones. The secondaries are the tough ones. They are almost a go, no go thing because the sight hole is lower and the secondary bowls hold less fuel.

I haven't seen the ethanol at 10% eat anything yet but I do see the blend I buy here leaving a white sticky residue on the inlet valves that tends to make them stick closed after the car sits a week or so, of all things? Very strange and according to what Drew has noticed, associated with the regional blends of the pump gas? So the thinking is that not all the regions use that additive, and the blend varies as does the additive, whatever it is?


I do agree that the non-original blue reusable aftermarket gaskets are much better then the original Holley cork gaskets but you will see those after they are installed as not looking original if that matters to you? However, they last much longer then the Holley cork versions without drying out and shrinking.


Flames on Holleys, generally speaking, are not good. Flames on Webers, well that's different, but you only see them at night when you start the engine. The flames are clearly visible through the velocity stacks. That is not very comforting but you just learn to live with it, like in the '60s of "learning to live with the bomb, and loving it?" 

It's a pain in the bottom, I color the visible edges of the gasket with a Sharpie. They don't stick out then.

[Oh, and generally the distance of consideration is more often that from the engines' inlet valve, but not to the "throttle plate" or butterfly, but rather to the top of the bell opening to atmosphere.]

The perceived advantage of the IR intake manifold is that you can adjust the mixture in each port with all of the variables that your carburetor allows you to adjust.

    True, but........... as stated previously, generally the practice for engines seeking peak performance is to strive for equality in actions among each the cylinders, therefore although individual tuning is a possible benefit, it is one that should not be necessary to capitalize upon in any major fashion.

    Rather, probably the initial intent of an I.R. manifold was more attuned to the ideology of the possible benefits of the resonance effect, or as popularly coined here "ram-tuning"; this providing for greater efficiency in cylinder filling utilizing the kinetic energy of the gas column created and retained.   

Yes but it is also that you have a better runner configuration. Somewhere, someone determined that the optimum distance from intake valve to throttle plate opening was 4.5".

The Weber intakes on the 289's are right there as is the 351 Cleveland set up.

The question in my mind is, does the dual Dominator set up permit that intake runner length also?

    The "optimum" inlet tract length for the purpose of ram-tuning is dependent on a calculation involving engine R.P.M. as a major factor, as this is mostly a prospect based on a timing element, but of course also including a multitude of other considerations of lesser influential factors.  So, I believe with research, one would probably conclude that 4.5" is 'not' the "optimum" distance for any and all applications. 

    As for the examples mentioned, I think this similarity is due more to packaging/fitment concerns, hence the repetitious similarities, this rather than anything ideal for gas-flow function.

    And in my opinion, it is this fitment issue that is probably where the T.A. Dual Dominator induction was compromised to the point of crippling it, as in order to get the whole "shebang" under that flat hood, the carburetors ended up just to close to the inlet valve; this creating just to much "signal" fluctuation for the carburetors to cope with.       

    Oh, and generally the distance of consideration is more often that from the engines' inlet valve, but not to the "throttle plate" or butterfly, but rather to the top of the bell opening to atmosphere. 

    Scott.

Tuned length, which is compromised/changed in the 2x4 intakes by the "tube" that extends from the bottom of the carburetor throttle plate to the lower intake plenum.


John

The perceived advantage of the IR intake manifold is that you can adjust the mixture in each port with all of the variables that your carburetor allows you to adjust.

In a plenum style intake either 1x4 or 2x4 you can have extreme mixture variation between cylinders.

Particularly on a 1x4 intake manifold you have really long ports that go to (in the case of the SBF) cylinders #1,4,5 & 8. Where in order to get the same amount of volume to those ports velocity must be higher than in the shorter/tighter cylinders #2,3,6 & 7. Depending on how the intake manifold is configured cylinder variation costs you horsepower because you have to run the lean cylinders richer than the ideal mixture. A well designed 2x4 intake manifold that is balanced in port length and volume reduces some of this.

An IR intake allows you to adjust the mixture per cylinder (per se nothing is perfect) however you loose the beneficial effects of a balanced plenum. It is all compromise all of it.

Electronic engine management is better, however I prefer the dark arts.

There you go Scott, now you get better insight on exactly what I do not understand.


John