Messages

The C4 has a removable bell housing so worst case he would need to swap the bellhousings.

.........and torque converter and starter......

[cboss70]

Your '66 transmission WON'T bolt to the new engine. The 250 cu. in. engine has the same bell housing bolt pattern as the 289 would have. That also means that the flex plate and torque converter do not bolt up either. You'll have to use the transmission that came with the 250.

Sorry for the bad news.

Frank

Pretty sure a 1966 Mustang would have a 200 CI six cylinder engine. Maybe that is what you meant. Anyway the early six cylinders used a different bolt pattern unique to them and it will not work with the 1970 era six which has the same bolt pattern as the 6 bolt 302 / 289 / 351 engines.

Royce, if cboss70 had a '70 200 cu.in. engine, he could bolt his C4 transmission to that engine. 1966 and later 200 cu.in. engines had an additional set of tapped bolt holes about 1.5 inches (don't hold me to that dimension) above the tapped bolt holes located in the center of the block. The reason that there is a dual pattern is that '66 and later manual transmission bell housings used the upper two holes for mounting to the block whereas the C4's used the lower tapped holes, as did '65 manual AND automatic transmissions. One of Ford's BETTER IDEAS (you tell me).

ALL versions of the 250 cu.in. engine used the larger V8 pattern as I described earlier.

I hope this helps (?)

Frank   

Your '66 transmission WON'T bolt to the new engine. The 250 cu. in. engine has the same bell housing bolt pattern as the 289 would have. That also means that the flex plate and torque converter do not bolt up either. You'll have to use the transmission that came with the 250.

Sorry for the bad news.

Frank

PM sent.

Frank

SOLD SOLD

Bump. Price reduced to $175 including shipping.

Frank

I have a production line proportioning valve in original, as found condition for sale. This valve has been sitting on one of my cabinet shelves for years and now needs a new home. The date code is 204-4 (July 23, 1964). Externally, the valve still has a heavy coating of black paint and minimal surface rust with no pitting. The line port threads are in very good condition. The pressure adjustment screw and jam nut are also in very good condition and display the original zinc plating under the heavy paint. The valve comes with the panel attaching bolt. Internal condition is unknown. Price-$200 includes shipping.

Frank

Hi SAAC forum viewers. I hope you all can help me. You have been great help in the past.
  I am looking for seat belts for my 1966 Shelby gt350H (6S1264). Ideally originals but I have never seen a set for sale. Am I looking in the wrong place? If I can not find originals is there a company or brand that looks very similar to the originals and are good quality?

   Thank-you

PM sent.

Jeff and Bob-Thank you for your corporate knowledge and pictures.

Frank

Guys, should the under-side of a '66 all steel, black hood be finished in gloss, semi-gloss, or flat black?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Frank

. You can EASILY de value your engine by porting it.

    I suppose if your referring to the possibility of "holing-thru" the casting, I can understand your perspective; otherwise if the porting work is executed properly, even if done conservatively so as to reduce the likelihood of failure, I really feel that this can be of a significant value enhancement for those whom really want to drive and enjoy their car in a spirited manor. 


In the Used Parts World, stock (non-ported) heads are more desirable for the perspective buyer than the ported units. So many heads have been ruined by amateur porting and it is difficult to determine a performance-enhancing port job versus potential junk by looking at them.

I think that a better option would be to purchase a set of performance heads. Generally speaking, these heads will out perform posed originals. 

If it were mine, I would forget the port and polish and hydraulic camshaft. You can EASILY de value your engine by porting it. NOTHING sounds better than a solid lifter hipo. I don't consider a hydraulic camshaft an upgrade-especially to a hipo. It ain't a hipo unless it sounds like a hipo.

[/quote]My question is have you used them on cast aluminum like the CJ PS brackets, smog pump  housings, alt housings  or distributors? If so some "you tube" demos  talk about an ultrasonic media cleaner? I'm wondering about also using evaporust in a container submerged in the water solution to clean rusted parts?
[/quote]

I use my ultrasonic cleaner all the time for parts cleaning. I haven't tried it with Evaporust however. In theory I would think that the agitation/heat created by the ultrasonic cleaner would accelerate the de-rusting process however in actual use I wouldn't operate the ultrasonic cleaner for the hours/days that Evaporust usually takes to do its job. Ultrasonic cleaners generate a lot of heat that can be damaging to the crystal if left for extended periods of time.

After delving into the grey matter of what's left of my brain, I have come to the conclusion that it probably really does not matter what the size of the hole in the lifter disc might be unless it is smaller in diameter than the hole in the cupped ends of the push rod. The reason being is that the smallest hole or orifice in the lifter/pushrod/rocker arm is what is going to dictate the flow/pressure of this oiling circuit. If I remember correctly (big if) the smallest hole or orifice is the pee hole in the pushrod socket of the rocker arm that piddles oil on the rocker ball and indirectly down to the valve guide area. Please correct me if this isn not the smallest orifice. SOOOO, if all of the internal lifter pieces are similar in both of the lifters that the original OP compared, disc hole diameter size is probably a moot point.

Thanks, Royce for the good discussion and for FORCING me to think.

Frank

When I got the carb back from Drew, I adjusted it to the engine and set the timing using the max vacuum as target. It is pulling about 16.5 inches now from the PCV port at the back of the intake.

I will check the lines to the transmission next. Could the vacuum lines to the transmission and/or the modulator be leaking and still allow the 16.5" of vacuum at the PCV port?

Drew does excellent work, the carb performs exceptionally.

Thanks guys, Paul

Paul, you want the pcv active when you perform the manifold vacuum test. I would suggest installing a temporary tee in the connection where the transmission vacuum line connects to the intake manifold. The pcv is, by definition, is a vacuum leak. You want to determine if there are additional vacuum leaks.

Frank