Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Qikbbstang

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 60
1
Never forget riding in a 427 Model A for about 300 miles round trip. He had simple breathers on to of both VC's. The airflow had the air stream going around the motor right into the windows down cab.  All I can compare it to was getting my wisdom teeth yanked, having the not all that bad taste of your own blood, but after a few hours it becomes unbearable/sickening - ditto on breathing the subtle scent of crankcase emissions.  It's a proven fact that oil mist in a combustion chamber can cause detonation. Hence the need to run a catch-can especially when turning up the boost or simply building up compression by laying your right foot down (makes for more oil mist/blow-by)
   In emissions tight cars the crankcase ventilation system manages to channel crankcase emissions into the intake tract. All these new-wiz catch-cans claim to separate the oil mist from the crankcase gasses.  There's a lot of no pun intended snake-oil being sold.
It's not rocket science - bone-up on coalescer's to get yourself knowledgeable and help yourself decide. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescer#Mechanical_coalescers

3
FE Technical Forum / Re: Industrial 427 Blocks
« on: February 06, 2017, 08:20:19 PM »
My friend is an x-Ford Industrial Salesman. I learned much about the Ford Industrial Division from him and witnessing the goings on of him and my other friend that was a top-ten Ford Racing Distributor.
         My x-Ford Ind Salesman had much experience with Holman & Moody who was also a Ford Ind Dist. He was on a first name basis at H&M. In the 90s there was much buying at the best price between Ford auto dealerships/parts, Ford Industrial and Ford Racing that I winessed.  My x-Ford salesman sold hundreds of GT40 302/351 heads, 302/351/429/460 short blocks, long blocks and even engines to Ford Racing Distributors and Ford car dealers/parts dept's.  FORD's pricing structure was very broad across the different distributors. His assoc salesman working at Highway Equip actually came from H&M and was in south Florida. My Ind Salesman bud told me he sold a few dozen 427's to savvy racers that went shopping for their motors/parts.
     Just a note: The 93-95 Ford Lightning's 351 used right out of the Ind book a Marine longblock  right down to it's cam and grey paint-- the guys at SVT that designed the Lightning simply grabbed an off-the shelf 351 longblock that was built tough for Marine use. The Pantera engines were in the Ford Industrial Parts books/microfiche.  They were sold/delivered to Italy via Ford Industrial to install in the cars.  He showed me and explained how Ford Industrial specified and sold the Marine 427's to Chris Craft... There were part numbers and batches that that spanned years.  H&M being a Ford Racing and Ford Industrial Dist obviously would "buy" from the FORD division that offered up the cheapest price. 
  When I see that oddball 427 "missing the center cross-bolting" motor Jay posted I figure that some Ford Ind Salesman had sat down and priced out a proposal to provide x-many 427s with every unique characteristic on Jay's pictured block. When you see that BBC Jay pictured you know that Chevy also had a salesman that wanted nothing but to keep the Ford salesman from getting that order. Hence if we can save a buck here or there so be it. Maybe that deduction of the main x-bolts saved $10./per motor?....and brought home the order.

    One time my Ford Ind bud sold me a NOS set of 429CJ bare heads he had scored by looking through another Ford Ind Dist's "surplus parts list" . I've got a H&M marine pamphlet (6 page) showing everything from 302 -to on the cover a BOSS 429 Marine Engine.
   

4
 I recall a video of a FE stuffed into a mustard yellow MACH 1's rear end at Kar Kraft back in the day or am I dreaming?

 I first thought that was this

http://www.barrett-jackson.com/Events/Event/Details/1970-FORD-MUSTANG-CUSTOM-FASTBACK-201248

1970 FORD MUSTANG CUSTOM FASTBACK - 201248- Barrett-Jackson Auction Company - World's Greatest Collector Car Auctions

5
FE Technical Forum / Re: RPM manifold
« on: January 18, 2017, 07:22:44 PM »
All I can say is WOW on JDC pointing out: "if I remember correctly you only used a 1/2" open spacer for the dyno testing, and the spacer can be part of the problem with the RPM, and not other intakes."

With the Perf RPM having the unique (2) single plane arrangements it's obvious there's some serious Edelbrock voodoo going on. What get's me is I'm pretty sure Jay was once posting info on his making a removable plenum spacer on I'm thinking it was on a Perf RPM?....

It's always interested me on people removing part of the plenum divider which essentially turns a dual plane into a single plane with funky long runners. I think I recall more than one of Barry R's EMC Motor's ran a highly modified Perf RPM with major surgery on the divider   

The current SHELBY FE Intake is obviously an exceptionally close copy of the PERF RPM with the exception the SHELBY has a significant cut down of said plenum divider.

Talk about an interesting dyno comparo a PERF RPM vs a SHELBY

https://www.shelbyengines.com/products/shelby-dual-plane-intake-manifold

6
FE Technical Forum / Re: RPM manifold
« on: January 17, 2017, 07:38:56 PM »
When you go to Mc Donald's they better not screw up a hamburger conversely when you bolt on an Edelbrock Intake manifold they better not screw up on that. Manifolds are what put Edelbrock on the map they know exactly what their doing.  Blair metioned the RPM's intake is like two single planes but personally I disagree the lower section is indeed like a single plane but the upper plane much more closely resembles a common dual plane.
 

Bravo on Blair providing some details on how he modified the RPM. I've long wondered how the pro "builders" handle enlarging the runners of an RPM because the RPM has extremely uniform runner dimensions from essentially the plenum to the flanges. If one ports an RPM it's a given the runners will end up sort of hourglass shaped somewhere because there are areas a mortal can not get to. Typically runners on intakes are tapered and "porting" a common intake is simplified by only needing to do the area adjacent to the flange. Not so the RPM to enlarge a runner the full length is pretty much impossible to do unless you happen to have a 4" tall little buddy you can send into the runners to get to the "blind" areas/sections that you can't get to or even see with a die grinder and burr.  Realistically short of cutting apart a RPM the only way to truly open up the runners from plenum to flange on an RPM is perhaps Extrude Hone.  Making the big power with an RPM sure says it's not necessary to have large runners
   One of the wackiest manifolds you'll ever see is the Edelbrock F427 which almost uniquely*  has enormous funnel shaped runners. To port match a F427 only requires an inch if that at the absolute most since there is so much taper.   
* The FoMoCo Sidewinder also has highly tapered cavernous runners

7
I've long wondered about the "sum" of oddball FE parts that make up a GT500's motor:

Heads: same as 390GT including ports & valves
Exhaust Manifolds:  same as 390GT Intake: C7ZX Med Riser it doesn't get any better
Exhaust System: I presume the same as a 390GT?...............

So when you have heads & ex-manifolds that are known to choke a 390GT, I'm guessing with nearly 40 more cubic inches of 428PI short-block it would only exacerbate the already restrictive components?..................The advised "shift-point" of 5,100rpm in the vintage road test to me makes sense if things are restricted here and there.

Below is a new Car & Driver article and a vintage road test of GT500 article, both linked
=======================================================================
 CAR & DRIVER
A '67 Shelby Mustang GT500 and the Joy of Aimlessness

For the first time in years, I went for a drive without having to think about work. I had to retire to realize what I'd been missing.



The Salmon River. Fall colors. And a seven-liter Mustang. Life could be better—but only in the movies.
 

Owen bought the car 34 years ago, when he drove to a Mustang club convention in Calgary, Alberta. At that point, the car was filthy, faded, and—with 54,000 difficult miles on the clock—already a bit weary. The owner had paid $5200 for it new. Owen offered $7500. Some hand-wringing ensued, but eventually the seller countered with $7800 plus free deliv­ery to Missoula. Since then, Owen, by himself, repainted the Shelby in its original colors—the stripes are paint, not tape—and has driven the thing 40,000 miles, including a trip to Las Vegas, where it was 105 degrees. No A/C, of course. “My wife and I wore our bathing suits,” he remembers.

Along the way, Owen met Carroll Shelby twice at club soirees in Vegas. When the GT500 was introduced, Shelby had said it was “the first car I’m really proud of.”

Ol’ Shel signed the underside of Owen’s passenger’s-side visor—“I couldn’t bear having him scrawl all over the dash, which always looks to me like vandalism”—and Owen was surprised that Shelby didn’t extend a palm for payment. At the time, Shelby was partly supporting himself—à la Pete Rose—selling autographs on everything from mud flaps to 1966 seven-liter Ford Galaxies, a copy of which, sans autograph, Owen also owns. “The man was a quick draw with a Sharpie,” Owen admitted. As Shelby walked away, he said to Owen, “I’ll never forget the boys from Montana.” It might have been a compliment. It might have been a threat.

When I climbed behind the wheel, I was transported back to the ’60s. I believe I began growing zits. The steering was so awful that it would have been rejected on WWII landing craft. But I owned a ’70 Mustang Boss 302 that was equally nautical. That a lot of folks herded these cars around racetracks strikes me now as semisuicidal. On the other hand, the GT500’s ride was surprisingly good. Plus, there was the familiar waft of unburned fuel in the cockpit; a seven-liter exhaust boom that made conversation tricky; a clutch pedal heavier than remedial trigonometry; an amount of wind noise that would have flustered the Wright brothers; and furnace-quality heat that flowed unimpeded through the firewall. My Orvis shirt was a mop in 30 minutes. On top of that, I believe I tried to shift into the nonexistent fifth gear maybe 200 times, which always made Owen clear his throat like Richard Nixon. Otherwise, he’s a lovely 56-year-old guy. I saw no goat glands.

Owen won’t enter his GT500 in concours events. “If a judge says to me, ‘Hey, you got a rock chip over here,’ I might try to kill him. I remind people, ‘Look, I drove the car here. See? No trailer.’ ” In fact, last Sunday we sent plenty of gravel flying, and Owen never flinched. “When I retire,” he told me, “I’ll make a two-year project of repainting it myself. In the meantime, I’m gonna beat the shit out of it.” What a sublime mantra for a car guy driving a Mustang worth at least $125,000. In fact, that night I saw a ’68 GT500 KR in Sports Car Market, same color as Owen’s. Asking price: $189,900.

I’m pretty sure the point of our drive was that there was no point. We just sloshed around in the car’s considerable aura as Owen described, among other wonders, his 1985 drunken dinner with Hunter S. Thompson. Oddly, I hadn’t gone for an aimless drive in, oh, about a decade. It’s not as if I didn’t have access to cool cars. It’s just that driving a car meant thinking about a car, which inevitably meant writing about a car, which meant work. I had to retire to realize what I’d been missing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-67-shelby-mustang-gt500-and-the-joy-of-aimlessness-column
===================================================================
CAR & DRIVER MAY 1970
Seven liters! Four hundred and twenty-eight cubic inches in a Mustang! We were expecting a cataclysm on wheels, the automotive equivalent of the end of the earth. We were pleasantly surprised to discover that the GT 500 isn’t anything like that.
 The old corollary to that old adage, “There’s no substitute for cubic inches,” is “except rectangular money”–and who would know better than Carroll Shelby. When the Cobra 289 peaked out on the racetrack, there were several ways of making it go faster–most expensive, one cheap. One of the more expensive ways was the Daytona coupe body. The late Ken Miles found a better way. At Sebring in 1964, he shoehorned a Ford 427 NASCARized engine into a Cobra roadster. The experiment came to rest, sorely bent, against a palm tree, but Miles persisted. By the end of the season, at Nassau, he had another one bolted together. It blew up, but the die was cast. Early in 1965, Shelby announced the Cobra II with a 427 cu. in. V-8 replacing the 289. That June, at Le Mans, two of Ford’s rear-engined GT prototypes appeared with the big 427 instead of the 289. The Europeans hooted and jeered at the bulky, heavy, unsophisticated V-8 with its pushrods and single four-barrel carburetor. A year later, Ford 427s swept the first three places at the French classic, with Shelby’s two entries dead-heating the final lap. What the 427s had beaten was a team of 270 cu. in. Ferrari V-12s with multiple carburetion and four overhead camshafts. The Italian engine developed almost as much horsepower as the Ford–425 hp vs. 485–but it was much more tautly stressed and, therefore, fragile. Which is the whole point of 7-liter Fords, Cobras, and now, Shelby Mustangs.

For '67, Ford offered the Mustang with their tried-and-true 390 V-8, which has a bore and stroke of 4.05 x 3. 78 inches. Ford also builds a 428 V-8 on the same block with a bore and stroke of 4.13 x 3.98 inches. Why not, reasoned Shelby, use this engine in the '67 Shelby Mustang? Why not indeed. The car is called the GT 500 and its engine is called the Cobra Le Mans.
VIEW 11 PHOTOS

Somebody is telling a little white half-truth.

Please note that the Cobra Le Mans engine displaces 428 cubic inches. That sounds like a hair better than the 427. In fact, they are two entirely different engines. Both have the same external dimensions, but the 427 is more oversquare, with a bore and stroke of 4.23 x 3. 78. The 427 is a racing engine, full of the kind of intestinal fortitude that makes it capable of enduring 500 miles at Daytona and 24 hours at Le Mans. The 428 is a passenger-car engine, and nearly $1000 cheaper than the 427. Few people would be happy with the 427 unless they were racing it. It’s noisy, balky, and an oil burner at normal highway speeds.

The GT 500 is not a racing car, although but for a few subtle differences its engine is the same as the one that propelled Shelby’s Fords to victory at Le Mans. Seven liters in a Mustang! The early GT 500 engineering prototype was the fastest car ever to lap Ford’s twisty handling loop, except for the GT 40s, of course. And the same car cut a quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds at 106 mph. Super car!

So we braced ourselves when we stuck our editorial foot into the first production GT 500. And when it only turned 15.0 at 95, we were a bit disappointed. That’s only 2/10ths of a second quicker than the Mustang 390 automatic (C/D, November '65) and last year’s GT 350H automatic (C/D, May '66), and not quite as fast as the original GT 350 4-speed (C/D, May '65). But then we thought back on the earlier GT 350s and realized that what the old Shelby Mustang does with difficulty, the GT 500 does easily.

 The GT 500 is an adult sports car. Shelby’s Mustangs have come a long way in three years–from adolescence to maturity. The '65 GT 350 was a hot-rodder’s idea of a sports car–a rough-riding bronco that was as exciting to drive as a Maserati 300S, and about as marketable a proposition. The traction bars clanked, the side exhausts were deafening, the clutch was better than an advanced Charles Atlas program, and when the ratcheting-type limited-slip differential unlocked, it sounded like the rear axle had cracked in half. It rode like a Conestoga wagon and steered like a 1936 Reo chain-drive, solid-tire coal truck … and we loved it. It was a man's car in a world of increasingly effeminate ladies' carriages. You drove it brutally and it reacted brutally. Every minute at speed was like the chariot-racing scene in "Ben Hur."

Unfortunately for Shelby, the market for a car as hairy as this was limited. One state's motor vehicle bureau complained that the brakes, although virtually fade-proof, required too much pedal pressure. Apparently, the inspectors' leg muscles had atrophied from years of dainty stabs at over-boosted power brakes.

 For 1966, Shelby toned the GT 350 down from a wild mustang to a merely high-strung thoroughbred. It was barely tame enough for the Hertz Corporation, which bought 1000 of them and put them into service as the hottest rent-a-cars the business has ever seen.

The GT 350 still wasn't acceptable to a large enough body of potential buyers, so, in 1967, an abrupt change in policy has transformed the Shelby Mustang. The $1000-or-so above the price of a comparable Mustang that used to go into expensive, unseen mechanical improvements is now lavished instead on exterior styling changes. The back lot at Shelby American's remanufacturing plant is littered with stock Mustang front and rear sheet metal, and engine and trunk lids. In their stead go fiberglass panels stylized by Ford's Chuck McHose, working in close co-operation with Shelby American.

The new nose piece arches tautly forward, forming a deep cowling for the headlights (changed from duals to quads, with the high-beams centered in the grille, driving-lamp style). The hood features an air scoop even larger than last year's, now divided by an air-splitter, and it's still functional. At the rear, the new trunk lid and tail piece combine to form a racy-looking aerodynamic spoiler lip. No one would say for sure if high-speed tests had proved the efficiency of this styling gimmick or not—but it looks right. Finally, the side louvres have been replaced by scoops—big hairy scoops that poke out into the airstream beyond the boundary layer. Actually, these are to let the air out; stale interior air exits through the inconspicuous slot behind the scoop. The forward facing scoop leads to a narrow venturi area that helps draw air out the rear slot. That light behind the scoop flashes when the turn signals are on and glows steadily when the brakes are on. Another pair of funnel scoops are installed at the rear of the sculptured side panel—this time to blow air at the rear brake drums. A pair of giant taillights running almost the full width of the Kamm-inspired tail completes the Shelby look. As a whole, the Shelby Mustangs make the regular Mustangs look sick.
Underneath, the Koni shock absorbers have given way to less expensive adjustable Gabriels; the traction bars are gone; the noisy racing differential has long since disappeared; and the Shelby Mustang has become a lot less like a NASCAR stocker without becoming any less roadable. The engineering is now built into stock parts instead of having to be included in extra hardware. Klaus Arning and the same computer he used in setting up the suspension of the Ford GT 40 and Shelby’s Cobra II determined the front suspension geometry, and the front anti-sway bar has been reduced from an almost immovable one inch to a more compliant .94 in. The rear leaf springs are now equipped with little rubber bumpers called "hopper stoppers" that are designed to prevent axle hop under hard acceleration. Most of the competition-bred racing equipment is still available—if necessary—as options. Oddly, the rear springs are stiffer this year (135 lbs./in. vs. 115 lbs./in. in '66), but the actual ride is smoother. 'The front springs of the GT 500, at 365 lbs./in., are naturally stronger than those of the GT 350, at 330 lbs./in.
We drove, briefly, a '67 GT 350, and noted how busy and mechanical the engine sounds. Jumping from that into the GT 500, the most marked difference was in engine noise, which is practically non-existent in the 428-engined car except for a motorboating exhaust throb. Our test car also had an automatic transmission (it will be difficult to get a GT 500 with a 4-speed manual), power brakes, fast-ratio power steering, air conditioner, shoulder harnesses and roll bar. (More about these last two items later.) All the viciousness had gone out of the car, without any lessening of its animal vitality. It still reacts positively, but to a much lighter touch. The power brakes, we felt, were a little oversensitive, but the automatic transmission was near-perfect. The GT 500 accelerates powerfully at any legal speed, gets off the mark with little wheelspin despite the absence of a limited-slip, and shifts very crisply. The automatic is a beefed-up Ford C-6, and each gear change feels like "a shift and a half," in the words of one staffer. The power steering is among the best we've driven, partially because it's quick, but mostly because we could actually feel the road through the wood rim wheel (standard equipment).
 In softening the car to make it more acceptable to a wider market, some of the sheer handling virtuosity of the old GT 350s has been lost, but not much. As you might expect, the car understeers until you get the throttle open. It tracks well in a corner, and is exceptionally agile in evasive maneuverability tests for a 3500-lb. car. Our handling tests were made with 40 psi in the Goodyear Speedway E70-15 tires (similar to Firestone's Wide Ovals), so the harshness control was not all it would be with normal pressures (28 psi front and 24 psi rear).

The acceleration was not all it might have been either. With less than 100 miles on the odometer, the engine was tight and breathless at anything much over 5000 rpm. The redline is 6000, but we got the best acceleration times letting the automatic shift by itself at 5100 rpm. (Note open-rear)

The .74 G braking ability might have been better if the power brakes were more controllable. Wheel lockup was hard to avoid, and harder to correct—pedal pressure has to drop to near-zero before the locked wheel begins rolling again. This is a trait common to Ford power brake systems, and a better compromise between the touchy Dearborn system and the old GT 350 leg-buster could be worked out.
We're sure someone will utter a cry of protest, but to our knowledge, the '67 Shelby Mustang is the first production car to offer a true rollover bar as standard equipment. Not a thicker roof section, but a real live roll bar. The shoulder harness is not standard equipment, but like the GT 500's automatic transmission, it will be difficult to get a Shelby Mustang out of the showroom without one.
The roll bar itself is a tubular structure, covered with padding, and welded to the chassis. Where it curves up into the roof, tabs poke out, and bolts secure the bar to the car's top in the threaded holes intended for the upper attachment point for Ford's over-the-shoulder shoulder harness. Shelby's shoulder harness is the double type. Another pair of tabs are welded to the roll bar, and to these are bolted a pair of inertia reels made by Advanced Safety Devices. The reels exert a half-pound pull, thus requiring no adjustment by the user, and lock at .5 G, something like a window shade mechanism in reverse. The shoulder harness strap divides just behind the user's neck, the halves passing over his shoulders to fasten at points on either side of the seat. A standard lap belt is used in conjunction with the shoulder harness, but because the halves don't come together at the lap buckle, like racing harnesses, it's the only shoulder harness we've seen that women can wear. These devices have to be seen and felt in action to be believed. At the risk of encouraging showroom traffic by curiosity seekers, we'd recommend that our readers stop by Shelby American dealers and try the shoulder harnesses. Then, no matter what other car you may buy, drop a line to the manufacturer and suggest that he offer shoulder harnesses like this on his cars.
 The rest of the GT 500 interior is stock Mustang, except for a few points. An oil cooler is standard equipment, but had been removed for some obscure evaluation on our test car, and an oil temperature gauge had been mounted under the dash. It never got over 230° F, incidentally. Our car also had the optional folding rear seat and an instrument cluster (ammeter and oil pressure gauge—the pressure was a steady 60 psi). The presence of the shoulder harnesses greatly complicated entry to the rear seat, what with climbing through a mass of nylon straps and ducking the inertia reels.

The air conditioner controls were confusing in an otherwise well laid-out interior, but this small annoyance was more than made up for by Shelby's special wood-rim steering wheel. It has much less dish than Ford's, thus placing it in a perfect position for effortless control.

That, then, is the GT 500. A grown-up sports car for smooth touring. No more wham-bam, thank-you-ma'am, just a purring, well controlled tiger. Like Shelby says, "This is the first car I'm really proud of." Right. We've come a long way since bib overalls too, Shel.


http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1967-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-road-test

8
They had at least three claimed "STOCK" 68-1/2,  "1 of 50" Lightweight MUSTANG's at Mecum, Florida


The first two look breathtaking in their engine bay's,  both were SOLD at $200,000 and $245,000:

https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0117-269793/1968-ford-mustang-cobra-jet-lightweight/

https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0117-269792/1968-ford-mustang-cobra-jet-lightweight-daddy-warbucks/

THEN you have one claimed to be Dave Lyall's that NO SALE'd
68-1/2 lightweight complete with smog-system and who knows what else commonly found on "stock" Mustang's.

https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0117-279007/1968-ford-mustang-cobra-jet-lightweight/

Is there anyway any 1-50's ever were delivered with smog?............................
   What else is incorrect?...............................



Highlights
•1 of 50 Lightweight Mustangs produced
•Delivered to Ford in Dearborn as a marketing vehicle
•Factory sponsored drag car driven by Dave Lyall
•Sold to Lyall for $1 to compete in the Super Stock wars
•Documented with copies of the window sticker, Lyall's $1 contract, Michigan title search, Ford internal memos about the 428 Cobra Jet Lightweight Mustang program and Marti report
•Finished in Lyall's racing livery
•428 Cobra Jet engine
•4-speed manual transmission
•Cragar wheels, Hurst shifter
•Radio delete, bucket seats
•Photo documented frame-off restoration

9
Henry FORD vs Enzo FERRARI  Never knew what exactly pissed off Henry at Ferrari and some FORD's Le Man's  secrets to boot. 1964, 65 and finally 1966 when the mighty FE stepped up to bat:
 Segment outlining the history of Ferrari vs Ford GT40 at the 24 hours of lemans during their Christmas special.

 Here is the full episode, (its all good) but

------------if you just want the GT40 bit skip ahead to the 45 min mark.===========

http://123moviesfree.com/watch/the-g...123movies.html

http://123moviesfree.com/watch/the-grand-tour-s01-2016-online-free-123movies.html

10
FE Technical Forum / Re: Thinking about casting some valve covers...
« on: December 26, 2016, 02:22:53 PM »
Re: "Actually I think most of the die cast 429 CJ covers around today came from 70-72 Police Interceptor engines. Most of these were painted blue."


         Wow I had an addiction to 429PI heads for my offshore-powerboat. While I bought and swapped numerous 429PI parts including manifolds I never saw a blue painted valve cover from one. I'm pretty sure one pair of the 429PI cast valve covers still has the Emissions decal and those are not painted

11
FE Technical Forum / Re: Thinking about casting some valve covers...
« on: December 20, 2016, 07:30:04 PM »
The statement:

  "the 429 CJ aluminum valve covers were actually cast in Japan as far as I know.  They were very thin and cracked easily around the bolt holes which is one reason they bring quite a bit of money today."

          This thread just sent my butt out to check out one of the three pairs of 429CJ/429PI/429SCJ factory VC's I own. IF those covers are sand cast all I can say is the precision is awesome. They have small type-print raised part numbers inside and very intricate casting protuberances that locate the breather baffle and drip-rails. Seems to me IF they were sand cast they would not be a smooth as they are?...... Their inside surfaces are just as smooth as the outside's.  That is some darn impressive casting. Odd I guess but none of mine are cracked - I always thought the 385 series cast VCs were far stronger than the factory BOSS 302/351C VC's that crack just by looking at them. If I recall (?) there were early/late BOSS 302/351C VC's with the later's being a bit less prone to cracking. There were an awful lot of "factory" BOSS 302/351C VC's that were available with all sorts of different designs on them*. I never collected or went after BOSS 302/351C VC's  but I watched my cohorts go after them.
 *I vaguely recall Cougars, Ford Motorsport, Pantera and Ford Industrial versions

12
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Has DragWeek ran it's course for HotRod?
« on: December 13, 2016, 02:42:02 PM »
At least Drag Week had exceptional live coverage on line by Hot Rod. Engine Masters was lacking video coverage and even failed to make the results available.

13
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Love this car
« on: December 13, 2016, 10:05:56 AM »
Always gets me with Pro-Street. There's 4-5 that regularly show up at the monthly Cruise In: Loud as hell, spewing race gas fumes, slightly stepping on it - which is a big HERE I AM/LOOK AT ME to the crowd and Cops.    Going deep into the hard core race parts bin while under the guise of street legal (20 miles on it) .  Nothing indicates it's been on a race track.   Learning from Jay about the fine-print of Drag Week. Do I dare say it's safe to say it would be lost there?

14
Drew thanks for a good laugh to go with my morning coffee. It wasn't in any kind of Hands Off historical museum, I just may have leaned into the huge flywheel to determine if it was seized, but kind of figured after laying-hands and my back into it that it was likely to much reciprocating mass to even budge even if it were not seized. 
   The thought of a gent trying to hand-crank that motor could have made for a great silent film -- and they'd not have to stretch the cables far for lightning!
           I fetched a self-propelled Honda Mower a neighbor had put out with the trash. I dragged it home picking up the rear drive wheels (I was riding a bicycle). When I got home I gave it a pull thinking it would have a broken rod/no compression, bent crankshaft and the damn thing started right up 1st pull. I've had it for about a year - EVERY TIME I've pulled the cord it's started first pull. Doesn't matter if it was run out of gas and filled back up - 1st Pull. Let it sit for a month+ 1st Pull = Start. NEVER seen a motor that cranks first pull every time.   
        The size/mass of that dinosaur, up-draft carb, primitive ignition. Boy it would be a bear. I'd be running a rope around the flywheel, removing a board and looking for a horse! 

15
Drew I was going by the "age" of the Norman Studios, who'd a guessed they bopught a 10-30 years old Generator to power the studio's. Odd the other generator is a belt driven hit & miss model.  I recall seeing some DC power lingo on the instrument panel.  The GM-12 ramps up a nightmare trying to search but I found an "image":

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8399534334_4a21376f73_z.jpg

   Pardon my asking but how the heck did they start "monster" motors like that back in their day?....................


Kind of strange to me why they needed that much electricity 15-25Kw  & (what ever Kw's the other made - two Gens) to make movies and develop the silent films.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 60