Skip Navigation Links.
 |  adding shims to open rear end -- blinker, 09/21/2004
to turn an open into a posi. Question is, will this cause any longevity problems with rear end?
thanks |
|  | RE: You referring to this tip? -- Gerry Proctor, 09/21/2004
http://www.woodyg.com/fairlane/finfo/TractionTechTip5.html
First, you can't turn an open differential into a limited slip unless you replace the case, which you're not doing ("posi" - for "Positraction" - is Chevrolet's trademarked name for their limited slip design).
What shimming up the side gears does is put the pinion gears into a bind. Imagine what happens to gears that do not fit well together. Yes, it will eventually fail once the gears permanently overheat and lock up or break off.
Have people done it? Sure. You'll find a lot of these rears at swap meets to fool the unsuspecting since both axles will turn in the same direction. |
| |  | RE: You referring to this tip? -- blinker, 09/21/2004
thanks for the info Sounds like that isn't a good idea. Actually, I read it in a 1981 Fabulous Mustangs magazine,that I recently rediscovered |
| | | | What makes it a bad idea... -- Gerry Proctor, 09/21/2004
Is that you can't predict the longer term outcome. Some people will get away with it for a while and some won't last long at all. It depends on the gear clearance that exists presently. The more corners you turn the sooner you can expect a failure. |
| | | | | RE: What makes it a bad idea... -- Dave, 09/22/2004
WOW thats some tech tip ! To think of the money I wasted on clutches and stuff. Listener be-ware.....at a cruise night a few weeks back I walked back to my CJ XR-7 in time to overhear one tech savy guy tellin two or three others "If this guy was smart he would put a screw in the slot on this secondary bellcrank on the carb and it would be a double pumper....?......I totally expected the AFLAC duck to come waddling out from under my car shaking his beak like he does in the Yogi Berra spot! and of course ......one of the guys promised to try it on his car cuz he thought it was a good idea! YEEEHHAWW....anybody else hear the BANJOS!........Be carefull out there |
| | | | |  | RE: Been there..... done that -- S.Vincent, 10/03/2004
I shimmed up a peg leg once and it last about 2 months! Burned up and destroyed the shims! I also put a screw into the secondary slot to make all 4 come in at nearly the same time...Bad idea...it pulled the secondaries "past center" and cause them to hang wide open! The interesting part is that I was driving thru town when it happened! Me, my friend and my 69 mustang survived but the seats didnt fair so well. |
| | Did this and lasted for 15+ years. -- Wayne K., 09/23/2004
I remember when that "$1.98 Posi" article came out in the 80's and I did it to 2 rears. The 1st died a miserable death after 1 year. The 2nd (my original trac-loc unit) was shimmed with extra shims and wow did that thing lock. It acted and sounded much like a Locker unit and didn't fail or loosen up at all even after 15 years. I finally pulled it apart last year and rebuilt it (without the extra shims) since I wont be racing it anymore. My recommendation is do it if you don't mind 50-50 odds...
Wayne K.
[Image deleted by Admin.] |
| | | RE: Did this and lasted for 15+ years. -- giacamo, 09/23/2004
if you wount it locked spend the money on a spool , shiming the side gears untill thay bind up to make it lock is kinda wroung. my two cents........ |
| 390 swap -- greg, 09/20/2004
can someone tell me if the is a difference in a truck 390 and a car 390? The casting date is Jan 18, 1969. I am most concerned about motor mounts and exhaust manifolds. Is there any internal differences to the motor or performance?
Greg |
| | RE: 390 swap -- jake, 09/20/2004
The truck 390 had lower compression for towing. The pistons are way down in the bore at TDC compared to the car engines. Low compression really kills performance and mileage. The truck engines used a different piston, everything else is the same. |
| | | RE: 390 swap -- greg, 09/20/2004
thanks for the information. sounds like a truck engine might make my mustang into chevy |
| | | | RE: 390 swap -- jake, 09/20/2004
Yea, if you're sure it's a truck engine. Any 35 year old vehicle could have any engine, so make sure it really is a truck engine. If you plan on rebuilding anyway, it doesn't matter, just get the car pistons when you rebuild. |
| | | | | RE: 390 swap -- greg, 09/20/2004
i have to get the codes from the block. i know the date code. the motor has been rebuilt recently with flat top pistons, and bored 20 over. i am looking for a plug and play already running motor for my 67 fastback. thanks again for the help |
| | | | |  | RE: 390 swap -- giacamo, 09/20/2004
if you have the flattop,s thay run 10, to 10,5s compresson, and are the 4v type rember compression = horsepower. |
| | | | | | RE: 390 swap -- jake, 09/21/2004
If its rebuilt, then anything is possible. It won't matter what numbers are on the block or heads, just what parts were used. Does the seller have receipts for parts and machine work? |
| | | | | | | RE: 390 swap -- Barry B, 09/21/2004
A few things to consider, the truck motor heads have 8-bolt log exhaust manifolds which won't work in the stang. You need the 14-bolt heads along with the matching 14-bolt exhaust manifolds to fit in the engine compartment. The 4-bolt motor mount bosses are the same on the block, car or truck, but you need the '67 Mustang only motor mounts. Also the truck oil filter adaptor won't work, you need to swap a car adaptor on it. The oil pan's fine but the drain plug location might make oil changes a little messy depending on the year. |
| | | | | | | | RE: 390 swap -- greg, 09/21/2004
Thanks for info so far. I saw the motor today but cannot find any numbers on it other than the date 9A18 by the oil filter. The engine definitely has the over under vertical exhaust mounts. It may have the other bolt holes for the exhaust but I could not see any. It is still in the later model truck with headers so some of the block is not visible. The owner does not have receipts from the build as he bought it already rebuilt. Is there a location for the numbers that I haven't checked?
Greg |
| | | | | RE: 390 swap -- russ, 09/22/2004
i assume your talking about a truck engine and not out of a 1/2 or 3/4 ton there internally the same asfar as i know, the truck crank nose is larger if you use the timing cover and pulley dampner from your engine you have to machine it down. we have used the truck blocks for dragracing they are heavier but can take it. |
| WHat FE motor is this? -- johnk, 09/19/2004
C1AE6015C
thanks
John
|
| price on factory air system 66 stang -- glennz, 09/18/2004
i know it is not an FE question, but i frquent this site more then others
a friend has a complete factory air system out of his 66 coupe, this whole system is in perfect condition with all factory stamps and or markings. this is a complete system.
he posted it at the local NPD with no price and recieved 3 calls already, guy at NPD said it is well worth over $2500,
is that fact or fiction, what do you guys feel it is worth
thnaks
glenn z |
| carb id -- brian jennings, 09/17/2004
could any one out there tell me where I can look up some factory holley ford and chevy carb numbers to see what they are? |
| | RE: carb id -- brian jennings, 09/18/2004
Im looking for a list of factory holleys,not aftermarket.Im looking for the:
ford e5he-9510-db
list-50259-1
1545 |
| | | That's the page - just look up the "list" number. n/m -- Raymond, 09/18/2004
n/m |
| | | | RE: That's the page - just look up the "list" number. n/m -- brian jennings, 09/18/2004
The list number is not there for many of the holley carbs that I have.The only way that I identified one of them was that I looked on a camero junkies page and found a carb that had the same numbers. |
| | | | | Hmm -- guess maybe Holley edited the list? n/m -- Raymond, 09/19/2004
n/m |
| | | | | | Hasn't been updated in 5yrs or more.....n/m -- Larry, 09/19/2004
n/m |
| | | | | | | I mean did they only publish an edited one? n/m -- Raymond, 09/20/2004
n/m |
| engine compatibility -- ralph, 09/17/2004
Folks-
A friend of mine wants to put a diesel motor in an early to mid 60's thunderbird. While some might think this crazy, could anyone recommend what will bolt up with the least modification? Powerstroke? Ford? Cummins? Detroit Diesel? How about the tranny- were the trannys from that era any good or should the donor vehicle supply that too?
thanks |
| | RE: engine compatibility -- Mike, 09/17/2004
Why??/ |
| | RE: engine compatibility -- Bill, 09/25/2004
Hi:
I would look into Mercides diesel or maybe a Dodge Cummins pick up diesel. Take the transmission that is normally used with the engine you use. I love Ford power stroke but I think it is much to large for the bird. weight and size. I just finished converting a 1990 F-700 to a 2000 Power stroke and it turned into more project than I ever dreamed of. If my experiences with this conversion can be of any help drop me a line.
Bill Douglas |
| | RE: engine compatibility -- Gary XL, 10/23/2004
The Cummins motor is sweet, but it is tall adn long, and weighs about as much as the Power Poke (I'm a Dodge Truck kind of guy). My 93 Dually now has 249hp at the rear wheels (compared to 165 stock at the crank/ 112 stock at the rear wheels), but I don't think it would be a good swap for a T-bird due to height and weight, and the trans dimensions.
My personal recommendation is the Puegot diesel that they used in mid 80's jeeps. It's a 4 cyl turbo motor, and came with stick or auto trans, and can be had fairly cheap, I saw one in the paper last year in a runner/driver for $750 with title. |
| flywheel spacer -- huram, 09/15/2004
hello all, i've ran into a bit of a problem. i lost the spacer that goes on the flywheel(or someone stole it), but i was wondering if anyone has an idea of where i can get one (i live in northridge, ca) or if i can just use some washers and locktite to compensate. thanks |
| | RE: flywheel spacer -- Dano, 09/15/2004
Are you talking about an automatic flexplate? I have seen spacers on the outside of the flexplate on automatics, none on manual flywheels though. |
| | | don't start that discussion again.... -- Hawkrod, 09/16/2004
on a Ford it is properly called an automatic transmission flywheel. Feel free to look it up in the parts book. Ford did not call it a flexplate as the rest of the industry did. The part you are refering to is not a spacer, rather it is a reinforcing ring meant to spread the load and support the flywheel. They are not 100% required but it does not hurt to chase one down as they are beneficial. Any good Mustang shop in your area will have one. I am not sure who is closest to you but I know there are a couple in the valley. Hawkrod |
| | | | | I am not sure what that thread shows.... -- Hawkrod, 09/16/2004
I see what Shoe wrote but I also see what Ford called the part. It is specifically a flywheel reinforcement so I will stick with Ford on this one. Hawkrod |
| | | | | | RE: I am not sure what that thread shows.... -- Barry B, 09/16/2004
No question on the nomenclature! My question was on its intended purpose. Originally thought it was some kind of load spreader but Shoe says no. |
| | | | | | | Ford calls it a reinforcement.... -- Hawkrod, 09/16/2004
My mind tells me it spreads the load and helps prevent cracks from hole to hole. I have seen flywheels cracked all of the way around on trucks without the rings. hawkrod |
| | | | | | | | that's what I think too, thanks! n/m -- Barry B, 09/16/2004
n/m |
| 1969 Cobra -- blinker, 09/13/2004
That show on speedvision, two guys garage,
replayed that shootout episode again over the weekend. Stage1 LS6, The Judge, Hemi Challenger,455 Hurst Olds, and a Javelin fell to the BOSS 429, all cars in showroom tune/ condition. The Boss ran 13.7 something.
According to those results, McQ's 1969 Cobra from back when was quicker than any of the GM stuff! |
| | RE: 1969 Cobra -- giacamo, 09/13/2004
hell most fe powerd 69 unibody tipe autos with a littel tweaking would run in the 13,teens,my 2 cents....... |
| | | RE: 1969 Cobra -- McQ, 09/14/2004
It's the truth! It wasn't my Cobra but it was the sales managers at the little Ford dealer I worked at in '69. The owner of the dealership made the sales manager buy the car - he was afraid it wouldn't sell!
When the sales manager decided to sell it in late October, '69, it sold in one day. I was back in college dirt poor, planning to be married in late Nov. and feeling fortunate to have a nice '66 GTA.
But that Cobra ran consistent high 13's in pure stock form. We did eliminate all of the thermactor stuff but that was never noticed by the limited tech inspection guys at Deer Park Drag Strip in north Spokane County.
One Saturday night the mighty Cobra ran a 13.7 @ 101 mph. We trophied in pure stock every time out but once, that was my fault, a red light.
Basic Cobra - formal roof, -R- code w/Drag Pack 3.91's and a C-6. Black on Black. |
| | | | they made a point -- blinker, 09/14/2004
of saying that many of the cars were not stock, and mentioned when talking about the LS6 that guys changed the governor speed for better times. So, in pure stock form, I think the CJ was at least equal to the dreaded LS6. |
| | | | Speaking of Thermactor stuff -- blinker, 09/14/2004
how did you plug it off? What size were the plugs? I need plug mine off . thanks |
| | | | | RE: Speaking of Thermactor stuff -- McQ, 09/14/2004
There were actual "plugs" that were available from FoMoCo. It seems they carried a Ford Part #....they were a weird looking thing. Can anyone else help on this?
Too many years ago now.
All I did to plug my own personal C80E-N heads was to buy an over the counter allen-socket head plug. Very easy to find size wise. I have no thermactor heads around now to check the thread count for you.
Again, can anyone else help blinker out on this?
One more thing I have to say about a Boss 302 running 13.7.......that's not very common. I also drove a couple of Boss 302's. They oozed with high performance - a real understatement. But off the showroom floor or lot, they were doggy with factory 3.50's. A friend exchanged the 3.50's for a 4.56 ring/pinion set in his '69 Boss 302, disconnected the rev-limiter and he had himself a fine high RPM Mustang. |
| | | | | RE: Speaking of Thermactor stuff -- Dan Dunn, 09/15/2004
DSC Motorsports sells these thermactor plugs. |
| People associated with FE development -- blinker, 09/12/2004
Read where Robert Stevenson was named chief engineer for the Ford Engine&Foundry in 1957.and for theprevious year and a half he was working on what would become the FE.
Don Sullivan, who had been with Ford since the Model T days, played a part in the development of the hi- performance FE's.
Norman Faustyn developed the SOHC conversion.
Albert Martin designed the 385(429-460) series engines
Don't know how true any of this is, but can anyone elaborate? |
| | RE:Don Frey and Dave Evans too -- McQ, 09/13/2004
Interesting post blinker. Don Sullivan was the guiding light for numerous successful Ford engine projects from the flathead V-8-60 to the current 351 Ford Racing blocks. And yes he was the Engine Engineer for the first High Performance 352 in '59.
There's a picture in Motor Life, January 1960, of four guys stnading at the back of a '60 Ford checking out the speedometer attached wheel with this caption:
"Proud fathers of the Interceptor package are, from left, Dave Evans, Project Engineer; JOhn Crowley, Chassis Engineer; and far right, Don Sullivan, Engine Engineer."
I have another quote regarding Don Sullivan, this from Motor Trend, May 1985, that says:
"It seems any time Ford needed more power in a hurry, they called on Sullivan."
This was an entire column devoted almost exclusively to the numerous contributions Don Sullivan made to FoMoCo racing engines over his many years with the company.
This column tells the story of how the HP team worked on the new engine wherever they could....."developing power by how it sounded. When they thought it was right they dumped it into a '59 Ford prototype they had purloined from the press pool, and they sneaked off to run against the kids driving Chevys and Ponitiacs at the Detroit Dragway. The initial runs were promising, but the faded into the Michigan darkness before the elimination runs because they didn't want the racing world to know what they were doing."
Ford went racing again in 1960. |
| | RE: People associated with FE development -- blinker, 09/13/2004
also read somewhere years ago that Ford didn't have a college educated engine designers until sometime in the 1950's, that they had gotten by with farmer/ tinkerer types for years.
Can you imagine all the things/history that Sullivan witnessed?
When did he pass on?
You know they say when you expire, it appears you go through a tunnel towards the light. I wonder if FE people pass through a rectangular shaped tunnel.......... |
| heads- roller rocker questions -- Craig Willis, 09/08/2004
I am thinking about installing a set of roller rocker arms on my 1971 302. The press in studs have the shoulder with the smaller nut- believe 5/16th. I want to go to threaded studs- no big deal yet not sure if I need guide plates for the push rods with these rockers and if so then i have to machine the heads to accept threaded studs with built in nut. Can i just install studs threaded on both sides , with no pushrod guide plate and use roller rockers and not worry about having the pushrod imbeeded through the vavle cover. Cam lift is under .500. |
| | RE: heads- roller rocker questions -- Gerry Proctor, 09/08/2004
You don't have to use a guide plate just because you use a screw in stud. When you have the heads machined to accept the stud the machinist will mill the boss for the proper depth without the guideplate. You'd have a hard time using a threaded stud without the shoulder since there is no tension on the threads to keep it tight. As a final note, the guideplate/stud has nothing to do with interferrence of the rocker to the valve cover. The top of the stud ends up in the same place as a pressed-in stud. That's purely a matter of rocker selection.
Talk it over with your machinist about what sort of guide you want to use. |
| | | RE: heads- roller rocker questions -- Craig Willis, 09/13/2004
Guess I need to re-explain situation. These rockers are the roller tip style. The old rockers coming off are the rail type. The question is what will keep the new rockers riding on the valve stem with out using guide plates and screw in studs. With concern to hitting valve covers I meant, will the pushrods come out from under the rockers and imbed into the valve covers without the guide plates..Need some serious lift for rockers to hit covers our true roller rockers to hit cover. Hope this expalins in more depth what I am searching for.thanks for any help. |
| | | | RE: heads- roller rocker questions -- ray, 09/13/2004
there are several aftermarket suppliers make an aluminum spacer with shims that take the place of the springs on the shafts that keep the rockers from walking--ray |
| | | | | RE: He's referring to a smallblock, Ray. -- Gerry Proctor, 09/14/2004
In that case you'll want to use guided rockers(where the rocker's roller has an edge that rides on the valve stem) or you'll need to use guideplates under the stud.
It would be a far easier solution to just use traditional roller rockers with guide plates. It is no big deal to set up the stud mounts for this method. You shouldn't have any pushrod slot issues with the heads either since the pushrod doesn't guide on the slots in these generation heads.
If your spring pressures aren't too high you can also use a roller conversion that uses the existing setup but I can't say this is a significant improvement over the stock setup. |
|