The bottom paragraph of that article implies that you'd only need to change it before storage. What I would wonder about is that during the first and last month of storage, the temperature would be varying a lot and that could lead to condensation. But I suppose it would change very gradually inside the engine and not cause that issue.
Posts by b9folk_old
-
-
I wish that rear glass was local to Minnesota. It would be nice to have a spare one, since they are made out of "no-can-get-um".
-
Did you have to re-use the original resonator hangers? I remember another post where someone said the repro muffler hangers had a shorter lower metal piece.
-
If you do decide to use a grommet, Mustang Barn has them.
-
That lipped hood issue really shows how much pressure they were under to "crank 'em out" in late 1964. Otherwise you'd think they would have fixed the tooling issue right away to correctly fold the metal over. My kar has one of those - one of its "early" oddities.
-
I don't care much for the table, and the chairs would hurt my back...
[Blocked Image: http://i15.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/b6/d5/061a_1.JPG]
-
There seem to be a lot of kars lately with the "milk jug" overflow bottles. Someone should make one that looks more at home in there - maybe make it look like a washer fluid bag!
Not very helpful to have the photo of the odometer that is unreadable.
-
The underside of the trunk lid looks wrong for some reason (round holes?), and the floor pans & lower parts of the rear frame rails are beat up. Look at that missing rubber plug in the photo of the parking brake spring. The front floor pans look like they were put in with tile glue.
[Blocked Image: http://photos.imageevent.com/carsandguitars/ebay/k17.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://photos.imageevent.com/carsandguitars/ebay/k28.jpg]
-
They got white paint on the brake handle bracket & air vent knob bracket, and left the pedal arms rusty. There are lots of details that could easily have been done better if they wanted to ask for such a price.
-
What is the protecto plate?
-
I have no problem with people making Shelby clones (as long as they state it outright) or even just dressing up their cars with dual stripes or GT items. That is part of the essence of the early Mustangs. But there are a lot of kooks out there who slap on the stripes, add the HiPo badges, and viola - they've created a C-code Hipo Mustang or a GT350 GT. Check out the GT350 Hipo GT with C-code engine GT350 Hipo GT with C-code engine - at least the price isn't out of whack. I'm sure it is a nice car, but way too much stuff slapped on it. It would be better to go all-out custom:
-
Standard 289s have stud mount rockers and pushrod slots, so that sounds pretty normal.
-
Am I the only one who thinks that now is NOT the time to spend engineering dollars on designing more big luxury crossovers and SUVs?
I was just looking at http://www.fordvehicles.com
and looking at Edge, Taurus X, and the 2009 Flex. I think they'd be better served by designing a good looking sport sedan, maybe with a new group of styling people. I think that flat "slotted metal" grill they are putting on the new models look pretty dumb, too. The Fusion is a step in the right direction, but it still looks like a late '80s Sable.
-
Quote from round2K
I recently read that the VIN numbers were sequential based on the plant production of all models, not just Mustangs. The sequence could have contained other car models being produced on the various lines. I am not sure of the accuracy of this would welcome somoneone knowledgable commeting.
I believe that is correct - the VIN (actually warranty #'s) applied to all the car models that were built on a particular line, not just Mustangs. I've heard that several times before.
-
I sent an email to VA Classic Mustang complimenting them on their selection of early parts and their catalog. Here's part of the response:
"In fact, the car that has been around here the longest is an
August 1964 production High Performance Convertible. We also have a
fastback with that early carpet and vinyl. Expect to see our new print catalog by the end of the year."
I wonder if that 'vert is in the registry...
-
I forgot to mention that the Shelby Clone idea would still require a legal VIN, so it doesn't solve this discussion about rebodied cars.
Lyle
{Z. Ray - your situation is similar to other issues (bridge infrastructure, etc.) The powers that be won't spend money until something bites them in the pants. The story here in MN is that the Feds want to rapidly rebuild the bridge before there is time to complete a redesign (because of various political reasons) and also not figure out ahead of time how future transit options can be accomodated. I won't hijack things by going into detail.}
-
Quote from brett1970
Since i seem to iritate the grouchy old men on this board so much, i guess i'll rub it in a little.
LOL
He's referring to you guys! 
Brett, although I don't like the idea of creating a K car out of thin air (basically agree with Z.Ray), I think you have all the "fixins" for a nice Shelby clone. That way at least it would obviously be a non-original car but still have all the high-perf goodies to enjoy. Thanks for consulting the grouchy old men.
BTW - nice GT350, Z-Ray!
Lyle
-
Quote
with the 101hp six and 3-speed manual transmission – insufficient power to suck an egg
I wonder which drivetrain option is just big enough to suck an egg... How much torque does that take?
Quote from SixT5HiPoIt really makes you wonder why the owner doesn't want to keep the car and enjoy it for years...
For that money you could buy 1 of each body type that can be driven and still look and run great. Heck - farting on the driver's seat of this car might lower its value slightly, unless it was done by a celebrity.
-
I don't think Eastwood's kit has color with it. It has just epoxy and primer. I could swear that I've seen a kit recently that did have color - maybe carried by Mustangs Unlimited? I've wondered what kind of paint to use, since I have to repair mine. But neither Eastwood nor the magazine articles ever tell you which kind to use.
-
Here are the results. Using a cheap digital caliper (only good to 0.01") I took several measurements on original, NOS, and repro brake pedal pads. There are some differences in the repro that were noteworthy:
1. The slots & ribs were shifted slightly toward the angled side of the pad by about 0.06"
2. The flaps on the back of the pad that hold it to the pedal were slightly different. The original and NOS had 0.06" on the long sides land 0.08" on the short sides, effectively making the short sides "pinch" the metal pedal better. The repro has 0.06" on all sides. The holes where the flaps meet were smaller on the repro.
3. Overall dimensions were 0.03" smaller each way on the repro.
4. OEM/NOS part number is C4ZA-2457-H in the center of the pad. Repro is C4ZZ-2457 and is on the longest flap, upside down. Note that the "H" in the OEM/NOS part is in a raised circle.
5. OEM/NOS has "GB" notation below part number, Repro has "D.C." notation on one of the flaps.
6. OEM/NOS parts have mold "flash" (bur), repro does not.
Overall the repro isn't bad, the only real concern being whether the difference in flap thickness will make it looser in actual use. Below are photos:
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/tops.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/ends.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/backs.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/chixscratch.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/original.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/NOS.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/b9folk/repro.jpg]
