Posts by RalphJr

That's insane - plus the bidding looks funny - jumped from $900 to over $2000 in one bid???? Plus all the IDs are private?

Smells fishy 2 me.

Belmont is correct.

The Car's consecutive numbers puts it in the Nov-Dec 1964 time frame.

It is neither a "factory" GT or Deluxe interior car - both of these options were NOT availble until the early spring (late FEB - early March) of 1965 to correspond with the 1st year anniversary of the Mustang. They have been added to this car by a previous owner or restoration shop.

I have to say they did it right from what I see in the pictures - all the right stuff appears to be there.

Someone possibly changed the door tag - unknown at this point - but very likely from the date given - possibly to hide the fact that it is not a "factory" GT or Deluxe car - possibly to enhance the re-sale value.

MAYBE they just made a mistake.

They will probably want top $$$ for the car with all the options, but it actually lowers the value IMHO.

The tri-power is nice - but the AC and other options kills it for me.

Nice to see a different color combo though.

Have you checked with http://www.ssnake-oyl.com/ ?

The owner is a member here and posts regularly - I have a set of their underlayment and it is awesome - plan to have my red belts rebuilt by them in the near future.

Axle plate is correct for a K car.

Curious why the rear brake line bracket next to the muffler hanger appears to be missing - but could just be the angle of the photo.

Looks a little rusty in the floor areas, but fixable.

Joe,

Sorry to see that you are parting with your K.

I had hoped to have mine done by now so we could get together - but life keeps getting in my way!

If anyone is interested and wants a 2nd opinion from an experienced K owner please let me know - I'd be happy to view the car and give an honest review.

Ralph

Try this website for information

http://www.stangerssite.com/

He has great instructions for rebuilding the prop valve - this might help. I just rebuilt mine but haven't installed it yet. I would think you need to increase the spring force by moving the big screw further in - but I'm not sure which direction without looking at it - probably clockwise. This should increse the pressure point where the back brakes kick in.

I hope this helps.

Undocumented story is that the factory would not install the AC - instead they put it in the trunk and left it up to the dealer to install. BUT HiPo's did not come from the factory with AC or Power steering installed.

My car was built in April - has an early June date stamp on the back of the AC box - and sold new at the end of July 1965.

AC was in place when I bought the car in '79 - and the owner in '74 confirmed it was there and working.

I have the special cast pulley (not made by Ford) that fits the HiPo damper - BUT due to car's value and I'm having all the AC holes repaired (patched back like factory) and not re-installing the AC during the restoration.

Anyone else out there have an AC story?

I'll check my original tonight and post the size and maybe a picture.

It helps that my engine is on the stand right now!

I think I might even have a regular 289 or 302 washer in my excess part bin - I'll check.

I can say from memory that the HiPo washer is VERY thick - so I believe the larger thickness number.

By the way eBay item number 150088396849 is listed as a HiPo washer - and probably the one under discussion here - it does NOT appear to be the correct HiPo washer to me.

NO WAY this car was built on April 15th - I'll bet $100 the door tag has been replaced.

MY car was built that same week and the consecutive numbers are about 300,000 off - you do the math.

Plus look at the registry.

Looks like someone sent a lot of time colleting parts to build this car - on the surface it looks nice, but I'd check out the details VERY carefully.

I have a similar NOS spacer to the one on eBay that measures 2.57" and a longer style original from a '66 A code coupe - for sale if anyone is interested.

No documentation on this - BUT Ford like many other manufacturers had a summer break for vacations, factory maintance, and model change-over - I understand that this took place in the July/August time frame.

Late June / Early July would have been the last '65 models and August would have been the start of '66 model production. Same goes for any other years too.

Obviuosly there would be a lot of transition parts - I have an early '66 Coupe (late August '65) that has some of the '65 parts - like motor mounts - that didn't get changed immediately. The original motor and tranny were long gone when I got the car, but all the other tags and many parts were still there.

Based on what I know about casting dates and the time parts waited to be used - a 6F16 date code is June 16th 1966. If this is the casting date, then you also need to look at the machining/assembly date stamped into the front block flange - it probably took Ford 2-4 weeks to build a motor from the casting date - so this date will help BUT this part would probably NOT have made it to a vehicle for the '66 models unless they were running very lean on engines - which is possible - more likely an early '67. Any vehicle with a scheduled build date near the end of July to September or even early October '66 could use this block. Also, Ford probably took a little longer to transition to the '67 model year because of the body changes. They had a lot more tooling and procedures to change before ramping up the '67s.

From a "show" car stand point the majority of classes don't check date codes like this - so you are only doing it for yuorself and possibly resale value.

That depends - the chain needs clearance too - according the an old tech at Cloyes who I spoke to about their original set said they built a unique set for the HiPo and none of the parts were the same as the regular 289. At least as he remembered - otherwise they would still be building them with only a unique crank gear. I think they offset everything forward and used a smaller diameter chain to clear the counterweight, give the chain clearance. and still clear the timing cover and fuel pump arm.

You could shave down the back of the regular 289 roller crank gear to take off just the thickness of the counterweight, add the roll pin hole for the counterweight, and call it good - BUT....BIG BUT the chain can't hit the counterweight since they move 2-1 relative to each other - this would damage both and put metal in the oil. PLUS you must make sure the cam and crank sprokets run true to each other - otherwise you put thrust on the cam and crank - which can be bad.

If this was 1970 and HiPo parts were still available and inexpensive I might try this - but not today - especially with my original engine.

I'd rather balance the assembly with modern techniques to handle the weight compensation and harmonic vibration the counterweight was originally installed for. Otherwise I'd stick with the original set up "as is" single chain and all. Anything else is too risky IMHO.

My tranny is not stamped on the boss either - plus my car is only a few thousand before this one.

My stamp is on the bottom of the case running down the body right next to the drain plug.

It is not true - A code and C code heads are identical.

Only difference was the carb and intake.

I second the VOTE of confidence for Fred - nice guy - very honest and easy to deal with.

I also had good luck with Perogie - fairly represented the parts I purchased and got them to me safe and sound. Most of their stuff is used - not NOS.

I've also purchased from the other 2 or 3 guys selling NOS parts, but have had mixed results - either WAY over priced or received later style "Motorocraft" replacement parts as NOS "Concourse Correct" parts. Lesson learned DON'T BUY unless the guy will send you several high quality photos of the part and you KNOW what the part should look like - because they usually WON'T take them back.

It would alos be helpful to owners with AND without original VIN stamps - the rumor always has been that some weren't stamped - this would be a good way to document very original cars without stamps with their original drivelines - they are out there and these owners shouldn't be penalized due to no VIN stamps.

The HiPo requires a special crank gear to be used with the counter weight.

No one currently offers a dual roller that will work on a HiPo with the counter weight in place - Cloyes did back in the 70's but not anymore.

You can use a regular 289 dual roller if you have your engine balanced without the counter weight - otherwise you must use the single chain set up and HiPo crank gear.

You could also get creative and try to modify a dual roller crank gear to work with the counterweight - BUT you better know what you are doing because you are risking an expensive set up.

Blocked off - actually NOT drilled plates were only used on cars with road draft tubes.

If the car received a PCV it needed the drilled spacer.

My understanding is that the tach is not like the original and requires an extra wire run to the coil - like other conventional modern tachs - while this is better for operation it is not correct for a concourse car.

Also, the clock movement is modern and will not "click" like the original mechanical movement.

I'm VERY thankful to have found a working original 8k Rally Pac - but it wasn't cheap. They are still out there and can be restored - if you have a very original car I'd look around a little first.

What is the datecode on the fan and is it in good shape?

I'm looking for a Jan-Mar '65 (A65, B65, or C65).

Thanks