Posts by CharlesTurner

Looks like a normal 289/302 smallblock to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

He posted a picture of the VIN on the inner fender, but I can't make it out.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>

Nice picture, huh? Obviously trying to cover it up, probably found a 'T' for the engine code. <img src=images/icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=images/icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

The only problem I have ever heard of with silicone fluid is when it's used on track cars. Silicone supposedly has a quicker boiling temperature than regular dot 3, so your brakes might fade if using them hard when racing.

I have never had problems with a spongy pedal when silicone was used. I always use the stuff on any cars I build, for driving or showing.

Blast it, paint it with black catalyzed paint and then change your brake fluid over to silicone.

All of those except the U-bolts were phosphate or a darkened heat treated finish. Don't remember the finish on the U-bolts off-hand, might have been natural with a wax coating.

I use a large stainless steel pot for the hood hinges. The solution is about $20 for enough to mix like 2-3 gallons of phosphate. Heat the solution up in the stainless pot to 200 degrees F and then cook the hinges about 15-20 minutes for desired darkness.

Stripping the hinges in a blasting cabinet is the most time-consuming part.

Don't have any problem with getting someone else to do the work, but I would think that for a little more he could strip the hinges in a cabinet also.

Yeah, that seems a little high if you have to strip them yourself. All he would have to do is clean them up and dunk 'em for 15-30 mins, wash them off and oil them down.

According to some documentation I have, the beginning of Mustang production in '64 had predominantly PCV systems, but later in 64.5 the road draft tube became widely used. It was used into the Fall of '64 as noted in the other post. I had a '65 C code convertible with a scheduled build date of Oct 31, 1964 that had a road draft tube.

We do know that there was a special road draft tube made to fit around the hi-po exhaust manifolds. This supports the fact that Ford actually did use them on hi-po's.

Any chance of getting a little preview? Just wondering if the content is different enough to get the next edition.

You sure seem more well-versed about hi-po motors than you led me to believe when I inquired if the motor that went with the '66 coupe for sale had a VIN stamp.

Yeah, definitely the topic of the week! There were 2 other threads related to the seller of the 'x' code.

http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/showtopic.php?tid/1436262/

Steve: It's not about concours vs. thoroughbred, it's about learning as we go and trying to make the cars better. I don't think many owners who did their cars 4 or 5 years ago would fuss too much about finding the correct battery clamp. Heck, most of them might even have the right one already.

Learning new things about these cars is lots of fun and part of the hobby. It keeps it interesting!

At the TN show, I talked to a gentelman who owns a 65-66 concours trailered car. He asked me if I could help him correct all the little things wrong with his car, which I gladly accepted. Ironically, he had the car entered in the new Conservator class, but he believes that even if he's in a class where he isn't judged anymore, he still wants the car to be as correct as possible so others can learn from it. If you're going to show on this level, this is the kind of attitude you should have. It's a learning process and the judges are there to help educate.

It's by far NOT the first service part that is not concours correct. I suppose Ford issued the flat non-tabbed version to be compatible with aftermarket batteries. Still have not concluded, though, that all '66 Mustangs had the tab version.

Availability of a part should not determine a rule. If we know a part or detail should be a certain way, then that should be incorporated into the rules. As far as I know, none of the repro clamps have the tab, so maybe the rule will get them to start making the part correctly!

Ford did service the tabbed version as can be seen in the initial post. Not to mention there was probably several hundred thousand originals made. Locating one is not that hard, there are not that many 65-66 concours cars these days anyway. Heck, we only had 11 at the TN show.

The rule change was approved by the head judges and B. Perkins.

Talked to B. Perkins, he says all his '66 unrestored Mustangs have the hold-down plates with the tab. Says he has a July '66 car that has a tabbed hold-down and original window sticker showing heavy duty battery. The car has something like 3-5k original miles.

Anyone else?

Cool, thanks! I actually saw that car a few years ago when I was there for a National MCA show. The story goes that the guy that bought it new waited for the warranty to run out and then went to Ford and bought a bunch of go-fast parts for the car and did some SCCA-type stuff.

There was an article in some magazine recently about the car too, and if I remember right, he was invited by Ford to one of the 100th anniversary events. Had his pic taken with Lee Iacocca, et al.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Charles, have you heard any more yet on when Ford switched to the clamp without the tab?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>

My plans are to observe the small clamps on low mileage or unrestored mustangs this show season to try and get a better idea of when the change happened. If this is not conclusive, I'll try and order a copy of the blueprint from Ford.

I don't recall ever seeing the big hold-down without the tab.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I don't understand what you saying, I suggest you look up the definition of the word blueprint.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>

Check your attitude at the door, I know what blueprint means. This is a very interesting topic and we are simply trying to figure out why the information you provided may not have made it into actual production as much as a year or more later. That's why I asked you if the image you posted was a blueprint or an engineering design drawing. They <b>ARE</b> different. The blueprint is what the manufacturer of the part uses to actually make the part. An engineering drawing has to be approved before it makes it to blueprint and can go through many revisions before final acceptance.

You must think I intentionally challenge information you provide. This is far from the truth. I am only providing physical evidence that does not always conform to the engineering documentation you have access to. It's become obvious that the documentation that's available does not always match the cars exactly, I wish it was that easy. I think the drawings you post are very cool, but you have to do a better job in telling us exactly what they are. If this is too much trouble, we can just order a copy through the research center.