Messages

    'If' a true "N.O.S." O.E.M. product?! 

    In your situation, I wouldn't be wasting any time asking.............I'd have already bought it!   

    Scott.

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.

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".

     Do realize that the subject here is of the Versailles rear disc setup, and that if choosing to bolt up the "Big Lincoln" discs (of this time period) the rear disc setup utilized by the O.E.M. was different, bigger, from an engineering standpoint "sized" to work in conjunction with the larger fronts in order to maintain the appropriate balance bias in the braking function.

     But also, not only for a vehicle of greater overall weight, but of a different chassis and it's manor of reactive function.   

     Scott.

A 65 or 66 9" rear end housings would have to be procured (two different looks).

    It's not just the necking down in diameter of the axle tubes towards the ends, as was unique to the '65-'66 H.P.'s, that's different; as the center "banjo" housing is of the later "reinforced" (fatter) design also. 

   

So would this set up accommodate going to 10in rear drum with 2.5 pads???

    I can't remember the details now, but as I recall the answer is 'no', the earlier backing plates don't directly bolt onto these Versailles axle tube ends. 

    But with enough time and effort, nearly anything is possible, I suppose. 

    Scott.

    Yep, though it's been a while since I've seen any, it does appear to be the Lincoln Versailles rear brake stuff.  This rear disc brake system was also available on the Granada and Monarch models as an option (towing package?) the only difference that I recall between the two was that the Versailles came with a pinion flange vs. the others having a pinion yoke.

    The casting numbers on the pinion support in your second photo are "date code" identifiers and the "9G15" would probably translate to: July 15th, 1979, and this is commensurate with the applicable production of 1977-80 for these vehicles. 

    Scott. 

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.

    No argument here!   

    Heck, I just finished up fixing (sort of) a set of Cobra Jet (429/460) aluminum castings suffering from a "ya-hoo" porting execution; but hey, the customer got 'em for cheap.............I wonder why! 

    But the O.P.'s statement was that he was doing this for his personal use, as for a running and functioning vehicle, so once bolted down where's the visual issue?    And for any performance applications the stock 289 head ports really are just too small/restrictive and even just a little improvement goes a long way on this one. 

    Just try to avoid turning your nice Hi-Po heads over to some of the back-yard or youtube equivalent experts.

    Scott.   

. 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. 

I don't consider a hydraulic camshaft an upgrade-especially to a hipo. It ain't a hipo unless it sounds like a hipo. 

    Now here, I just can't disagree.  After all, having the "Hi-Po" and not having the "clickety-clack" sound from the valve-train just doesn't seem right, something would be missing. 

    Scott. 

    Yes, as stated by another: all 9-inch Ford intended ring & pinions fit all 9-inch Ford housings, but there are two different possible pinion bearing sets applicable.

    The "standard" pinion support utilizes the paired set of two #M88048 bearing assy's. and the accompanying races #M88010; but if it is the "Daytona" pinion support only one each of the previously identified units, coupled with one set of the #HM89443 bearing assy. and #HM89410 race.

    The 'other' difference would be in the use of the "solid" bearing spacer (selected to size) for the Daytona bearing support vs. the "crush-sleeve" utilized in the standard assy..

    There are three different carrier bearing sets for the O.E.M. Ford 9-inch, but this consideration involves the relationship of the carrier and housing and doesn't involve the ring & pinion directly.   

    Scott.

.......... can anyone recommend a good spark plug ..........

     If originality in presentation is not a concern, myself, I'd run the NGK brand, part number: 2438, "WR5" spark plugs.   

     Scott.

There is a "C4" overdrive transission which is essentially a C4 with a 4th gear.

Since that transmission is essentially a bolt in, you can put the original aside and run the od trans.

    I'm assuming that this "C4 overdrive transmission" you might be referencing is the "A.O.D.", this as found, in as of others, the FOX Mustangs? 

    If so, just a note: The A.O.D. utilizes the 164 tooth flex-plate (which is of the wrong 50 in. oz. balance application for the "5.0" engine, but the proper 28 in. oz. application is available) and hence the resultant larger area required for this vs. the 157T earlier C4 applications.  Unlike the C4 where the bell housings are a separate component of the assembly, this allowing swapping for different flywheels, the A.O.D.'s is cast a one incorporated with the gear case. 

    I do consider, for those not so concerned with originality, but rather wish to enjoy the vehicle to a greater extent, the conversion to the A.O.D. a good choice; and we have executed many a transformation with no regrets (that I can remember anyway  ) for any of those customers. 

    Scott.

   

I cannot imagine anyone in possession of such a car would be so reckless in the loading and unloading.

    I think we've lost track of "how it was back then", and that for most back then, the idea of having one's own dedicated car trailer was not so common and quite the luxury; and particularly not all of the enclosed trailers that we've become used to that it seems today so prevalent.
 
    As an example of even corporate level investment in transportation equipment in period, here's a photo of Carrol Shelby Co.'s own open, single axle trailers with a couple of Daytonas going for a ride, towed by the Ford pickups.   
   
    https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/204-210318194208-740554.jpeg

    B.T.W., nice loading/positioning job on the second one in line! 
   

    Scott.

    Typically in period, one would utilize either the trailer landing gear/trailer jack or, as looking at how steep that angle is and the sum of lifting that would be required to make for an acceptable angle, probably the as brought along for the job floor jack under the tongue of the trailer to ease the loading and unloading. And of those utilizing this process, I've even seen at times the rear wheels of the tow vehicle being lifted nearly, if not completely, off the ground, and when not actually in the process of the loading/unloading one would drop the jack until the next event.   

    Scott.

    I knew a lady back in 1977 that special ordered an E150 long wheel-base van in PINK! And buddy, you sure couldn't miss that one going own the road!

    Today, if a man were driving such a vehicle nobody would say anything; but back then, well let's just say I had kinda wished they had invented the dark tinted windows of today, then; this was as at times I found myself behind the wheel. Now when she was along, well, nobody would even notice me, but driving the van alone or with any of my buddies riding along, well, one did get more than a few stares.   

    Scott.

    Research this subject of clutch replacements, particularly the concerns in converting from the 3-finger "Long-style" unit as was original versus the commonly made available (cheaper) diaphragm types. 

    Even just this Forum, there has been much discussion on the subject.   

    Scott.

    Hey John,

    It's interesting to note that the last two photos are of the same type manifold casting (SK-50282), but I believe the previous photos present a different version (and, I have examples of both!  ). Are there others?   

    It would seem that the SK-50282 version consisted of an effort in comparison for a reduced carburetor height, maybe for a lower hood line vehicle application?  And also seems to present a smaller runner cross section. So, did they ever utilize the 429 "wedge" engines in something other than the "big car" chassis for Stock-Car racing? 

    Do you perhaps have any period photos showing the "SK-50282" version in use?

    How about the "chicken or the egg" timeline, of which might have come along first?  MY 'supposition' is leaning to the idea that the "SK-50282" is the later version, and maybe possibly not actually having been intended for the Stock-Car Racing series, rather something else?

 Holman & Moody were also heavily involved in the performance marine scene in the '70's, and boats do generally require flatter torque curves this perhaps consistent with the lesser volume intake runners? But then again, somewhere in the time line Holman & Moody 'Marine' began utilizing the "HMM" logo as cast on the intakes for those intentions. 

    Scott.

    Thanks John for the information and pictures! 

    B.T.W., a bit off topic, but as depicted in some of the photos, it's never a good idea to twist chain to shorten it up, as this potentially creates sheer and leverage effects of far greater loading and in directions not intended of the chain by design. 

    But, I know: "it's how we always done it, and we never had a problem with it before!"   

    Well then, this just establishes that it's fortunate one is utilizing chain that is apparently many times the size/grade of that which would be appropriate when utilized properly!  And when often intentional, this I think is often referred to as an engineering margin for the human intervention (stupidity) factor.    

    Scott.