Posts by RalphJr

I agree 100% - don't stop the dialog, but definitely think about the comments made on BOTH sides. The goal here is to openly share AND debate Mustang info - not to pounce on anyone for sharing or to just pick up your toys and go home when someone questions you.

Our goal here has always been to discuss topics in detail - both pros and cons - AND sometimes people have their feelings a little too close to the surface or make comments that can be taken a little too critically.

Unfortuantely just like email this type of forum doesn't allow for a good "read" on a persons actual attitude to a question or response - ie body language, voice tone, or facial expression are ALL missing - so it is hard to tell a persons state of mind.

I love the fact that someone took the time to share a great picture of a low mileage car - this is exactly the type of info we need to be sharing to advance the hobby - at the same time I also say "trust but verify" - we do need more data to verify the accuracy so potentially inaccurate information isn't put out in the public.

This is a great site with many great people - I am saddened when I see the occasional negative "back and forth" dialog - but it will happen. Just remember to take a deep breath and maybe let 20-30 minutes pass before responding to a posting - many times a little down time will change your perspective.

Based upon the limited photos in the ad I highly question if the original HiPo block and C-4 Auto are still there.

It has a regular 289 damper - this is a dead give away that the bottom end is wrong.

Casting number mentioned in the add doesn't help - ALL 289 blocks had the same casting number - without a serial number stamp on the block and tranny there is no way to say it is original.

This one needs a very close visual inspection before any money changes hands. Too many questions and incorrect "restoration" stuff to pay big money for this car.

Murf,

Emailed 4 photos on Wednesday night. Let me know if you didn't receive them or if you have any questions. Sent them via the site email system.

After looking at the pictures again I am 100% positive a stock H pipe won't work - the tranny and pan are just too big regardless of the cross member.

Ralph

Murf,

Glad to help.

I actually put a 5.0 EFI / AOD combo in the '66. I used Hooker headers made for this app and had custom exhaust done from there back. I even had to add the bungs for the O2 sensers in the collectors myself.

I'll email you a few photos I have right now - not sure what I have on file - but I'll send any that show the details.

It uses the stock '66 auto shifter - this part was pretty easy - first you need to flip the shift level on the AOD - do this by dropping the pan - removing the internal nut - pull the lever out most of the way - rotate it 180° and re-install. It REALLY is that easy.

I custom made a bar to go between the shifter and the tranny lever with some flat stock on the ends and a 1/4" round bar I got at Home Depot - but if you use the stock holes it won't be perfect - just put both in PARK and start measuring and bending until it works. I had to drill a second hole in the floor shifter rod about 1" up from the stock hole after I got it all done the first time with the stock holes. Seems that the AOD throw is a little shorter than the C4 and with the stock holes it doesn't match the shifter exactly. Once you drill the second hole everything lines up perfectly. The nice thing about this set up is D on the shifter is 4th (Over Drive on the tranny) and you can pull the lever down into the shifter "2nd" position to disable OD function and stay in 3rd. Works really nice. The stock '68 shifter should be no different.

Email me if you have any questions.

Ralph

I have a Ron Morris AOD cross member in a '66 restomod.

Very nice cross member, but I don't think a stock H pipe would fit - at least it wouldn't in my application - the AOD transmission is too wide plus the cross member has no humps in it - it can't because of how far back it needs to move the tranny mount.

My only complaint about this cross member is the poor E-brake adapter - I had to reinforce the hell out of it to keep it from bending during use.

The T5 cross member is a little different and the tranny is smaller - so this one may fit - but I can't say 100% since I haven't built up one of these.

Welcome to the site....great group of people here with tons of K code knowledge.

You'll probably find everything you need to know and more.

The archive search feature is great too - try it out.

This is a HIPO casting - but an early one.

In the first picture you can clearly see the cast in choke stop on the front butterfly shaft casting.

Pony carbs probably has all of the missing pieces you need.

BEAUTIFUL!

Mark,

The pump body will fit any Ford engine - it is the arm that is different.There is a good thread on this - you might try searching the archives.

I have a simialr pump - don't remember the number off hand - but was originally from a big block FoMoCo. It is now restored and will go back on my k code.

This was on my HiPo when purchased in 1979 and had a Ford "Reman" sticker on it. While not correct for my April '65 K code - it is way better than other pumps until I can afford a rebuilt one from Fred (if he still has any by then).

There are several outfits that sell rebuild kits for these pumps and there is a place outside Boston that rebuilds pumps - he might have the correct arm for using this body on a small block Ford. I got my rebuild kit from him.

FUEL PUMP RESTORATION

http://www.then-now.com

(781) 335-8860

Boston, Mass.

Let me know if you want the number for the small block arm or a photo of what my pump looks like.

I hope this helps.

Ralph

Very nice!

Not my Dearborn car - yellow & green dots 4/65

This is actually one of the main reasons WHY Unique is no longer in business AND the owners have faced CRIMINAL charges.

Unique was based in Texas - which has very specific laws about vehicle serial numbers.

They got caught swapping out "salvage title" serial numbers with "good" ones - as BIG no-no in Texas. Not sure of the motive here, but probably to enhance the "value" of the cars.

Unique was not producing "NEW" cars - they were using old cars as the base - therefore they could not use their own serial number system - they had to stick with the orignal FoMoCo serial number. Plus I don't think they were licensed as a "Vehicle Manufacturer" - something that would be necessary to apply a serial number and get it approved by the Texas DMV.

A lot of buyers got burned paying big depositis up front and got nothing in return when they folded.

I would check the stampings on this car or request verification before even bidding - just in case.

I'd also want to see the car in person - fit - finish - and other details look a little off to me for a car with only 7000 miles and climate controlled storage AND a price tag this high.

While I agree it is odd that the engine has such a clean carb - it is not what I would call "pristine". I'd bet it was covered with something.

For me there are just too many details - like all the hole plugs and wire clips that are correct or similar to photos I've seen - it is legit IMHO. I think the seller may have "wiped" off a few bits - like the engine tag - which make it look odd - but not incorrect.

Scott - decals on the valve covers are a MYTH - no HiPo Mustang ever came with them - so I wouldn't expect to see them on a factory crate engine either - especially in a '66 vintage from the casting dates he has posted for the engine. Search the archive and you will find this has been discussed here before.

I would expect to see wires and the coil since these engines were run in before shipment - plus I've seen period photos with similar details.

Hand written date on yellow tag looks like JAN '68 to me.

Definitely a nice find - especially for someone needing one for their car.

My 2 cents.

I'll chime in ..... This is a GREAT SITE! With a bunch of great guys.

We do have our moments occasionally, but without a doubt the best Mustang Group ANYWHERE!

Nice car, but $52,000 is dreaming in today's economy - especially with all the "NON STOCK" stuff and missing rare HiPo parts.

Jack,

This is the casting date for the intake - it is not an actual tag, but part of the metal casting. The tag was held in the "sand cast" mold by screws so that it could be removed and changed.

"5A8" would be Jan 8, 1965.

Your dates line up - my intake is very close to the engine assembly date too.

The TAB on the spring perch is to keep the spring properly seated and prevent rotation.

At that point I think gold di-chromate was the finish being used.

Not sure what the MCA rules say - but I'd see if you can find some owners with original cars to compare.

HiPo's did not have special brakes.

All 289 cars used the same size brake shoes. Fronts and Rears are different sizes. 10 x 1 3/4 sounds correct for the rear - but it has been a while since I've changed them.

Only the GT350 had wider rear brakes added by Shelby - along with the front discs from the San Jose factory.

WOW - if he turned down 12.5k he needs his head examined!

Lots of rust repair needed - he should have taken the offer IMHO.

Only way to get this kind of money from eBay would be to part it out.....YIKES did I just say that?!@#$%