Posts by ajd350_old

Excellent response!!

We have an '06 PT Cruiser GT Turbo that right on the gas door and in the manual says "Premimum fuel recommended" this is my Wife's daily driver and has a 15 gallon tank-even smaller than the early Mustangs-I have tries to "cheat" and drop it down to regular when the cost kept rising, steped it down to 89 then to 87 from its usual 93 and it WILL run but not like it was designed to, and we CAN afford the extra $3.00 per tank for the premimum anyway-I know an '06 vehicle is absolutely nothing like a 1965-66 is, but any given engine is set up to burn a certain octane of fuel and weaker octanes are certain to do harm to the engine as well as stronger ones imo.

Does anyone remember what some of the octanes were back when gas still had lead in it? Sunoco,Amoco, Shell,Exxon,BP,Chevron, ect?-seems I remember it being over 100....

[/quote]

The PT Cruiser comparison is apples and oranges. It has a knock sensor and electronics that adjust for the efects of octane by adjusting the timing by the computer sensing spark knock that is below an audible level.

Now, as in the sixties, the main difference in the fuel grades from the same source is the octane additive. They generally have the same basic fuel, detergents and emissions improving packages. 87 is not the 'crap fuel'. Run 93 in your vintage car if it makes you feel better, but if the engine does not detonate or spark knock, you're not getting anything for it. If, however, you want to bump up the timing, you may need that 93 to keep it quiet and happy.

Back in the sixties things were less precise and it was not uncommon to have a noticeable variation from one engine to another due to 'tolerance stack-up'. Let's say your engine has been machined with a tight spec on the head and block surfaces. Still in spec, but the compression ratio on that engine could be .5 or more that of an engine on the tall end of spec. Add in all variables such as rod length, pistons, timing advance curves, and the amount of oil blowby in the mix. That's why you'd see an occasional untouched engine that would just run better and faster. To be on the safe side, FoMoCo specifies something to leave a margin just in case. Ever notice that on the late 5.0s you can bump up the timing several degrees safely?

34 years and 25K miles since I rebuilt it My 65 K is still humming along to prove it. Ditto the Shelby's K after 21 years.

True. 87 works fine. I wouldn't have thought so because of the compression ratio, but I have no problems in either the K or the GT350. When I add a few degrees of timing, the 89 or 93 goes in.

Over the last 34 years of ownership, the thought of selling the K came up a couple of times when my interest was low. It was not in the way and was long ago paid for. I elected to hang on to it, knowing I'd regret selling sometime down the road. Now it's in the garage in pieces undergoing a second restoration and giving me some 'garage therapy'. I hope to have it ready for it's second round of MCA competition, 30 years apart. Besides, I couldn't afford to buy this car now. Your choice, but I vote keep it.

1967 GT350 4-speed. Yes, a Cobra Daytona, roadster or GT40 would be great, but not very practical on the street.

Steve, it sounds like you have a car that is really close to 'all there'. As the K-cars increase in value. the smaller details start to come into play with some buyers, but not necessarily all. Fortunately, the cost of dealing with these things, at your discretion, may be more justifiable due to the rising value of the car. Still, outside of concours, few will ever appreciate the difference between a good repro part vs NOS. If it satisfies you and looks good, go with it. You can always change things later at your own pace. I am fortunate to have owned the 65 K-fb for 34 years. Now during a concours restoration, I appreciate the original parts that were rounded up back then. I'd love to go back to 1978 for a week to scrounge all the parts I can find. Oh, for a time machine....

Although my K Fastback should be done by then, we will probably bring the '67 GT350. Tough choices. Hey, it's got a K engine too.

Dearborn is correct, Jeff. Mid-June '65 production.

I second that. I have heard way too many people use the excuse that 'they weren't put together well when they were new' when showing a mediocre-fitting car. True, the tolerances were not as tight as today's cars, but they were not just slapped together. The above car had VERY good fit and other than the hood, had never been apart or wrecked.

Charles, the car was built as a 63A trim 26 car. When I bought it in 1977 it had been partially converted to a white deluxe interior. I finished it out that way as it seemed like a good idea at the time. Since there is no good way to undo the courtesy light holes in the nice original doors, I have elected to keep this configuration although it is incorrect. If I get killed on points, I'll still be satisfied. There are no other deviations that I am aware of. This week I took the fenders off to find the factory sealer still present, although quite brittle. There are also pieces of cloth tape where the fenders contact the cowl near the windshield. The only sheetmetal that has been replaced on the car is the hood.

D'OH! Thanks. I should have recognized that. Yes, it was built with backup lights.

Way back in 1979, we drove this car to Atlanta for the MCA Grand Nationals. After winning the 65 Fastback class, it was an enjoyable ride home and a few more years of showing. Eventually the restoration aged and the standards became higher, so the car was 'retired' to limited local show and cruise night driving. It has sat for several years and now it's time to re-restore it to current standards. Fortunately it is very solid and most everything is correct original stuff that I rounded up the hard way since there was a very small repro market back then. In the process of disassembly, I uncovered these markings on the core support. I know about the rotation number, the paint code and trim code. What does the circled 'BL' mean?

[Blocked Image: http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii59/ajd350/DSC_0015-1.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii59/ajd350/DSC_0012.jpg]

I saw this forlorn beast at a Michigan auction yesterday. A later 302 2V sat in the engine bay and few HiPo parts remained. Severe rust was everywhere and the original door tag was gone. It originally was Poppy Red w/blk std interior. I didn't stay to see the selling price, but here's the VIN. That's about all you could have saved.

[Blocked Image: http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii59/ajd350/DSC03852.jpg][Blocked Image: http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii59/ajd350/DSC03853.jpg]

Yep, I'm part of that discussion with my Shelby. I also have my 65 K fastback registered here. This seemed like another good place to get feedback on the issue. Thanks for your response.

I know there are few 67s out there with replacement blocks due to hard living. Anyone here have a later production car after about Feb. 67 with a known original engine with no VIN stamp on the block? I am trying to gather data to determine if this is a common occurrence. Thanks.