mwye0627

Funny how you forget stuff. I completely forgot about this 70 notch back I owned for maybe 6 months in Houston around maybe 1985??. Was just looking at old pictures.
Was a factory shaker, 4 bbl and 4 gear. I wasn't making enough money to rub two nickels together and simply couldn't afford to keep it running. One of my proudest moments in life was when my beautiful bride grabbed major 2nd gear rubber in this car! Really wish I kept it, but I don't see how it would have been possible with just starting out life and upcoming family. It's a good memory.

Lowering the upper control arms 1" and modifying them to move ball joint back to increase the caster improved the handling on my cars.

Thank you Jim for being an outstanding guy who helps the Mustang community. 

Its my fault for not asking for the complete picture BEFORE giving advice. I often assume people know more than they do. When I was 10, I had a pretty good understanding of how electrical things worked and hot wired my Dad's car just to see if I could. I didn't want to drive it- and I never told him. A friend asked why I didn't just make another key- and I never understood that attitude. Electrical stuff was cool and I guess that's why I became an electrical engineer.
I've had a Snickers bar and am back to my old self...that's my old grouchy self. I'll help when I can, but stay off my lawn ;) 

The impact  tool won't  even  compare to a torch  for  a  really  stubborn  bolt. You can even   just  use a propane  torch. We also have an  Inductor  that will  remove  bolts  even around a  gas tank. 

Just  got a new batch of  MTF emblems in.  

Here are pictures of a completed pan based in n the T sump kits I am making.
just got them back from plating

Hey guy, 
About a year ago I converted my manual steering and factory suspension to Borgeson Power Steering with all Global West suspension. It's a rougher ride, but handles so much better. That's not the point. The point is the steering was so fast now that I couldn't feel the road at all. If I just tap the wheel it's going into the other lane. I've heard about this "Pressure Reduction Kit" you can do to slow down the steering, but everyone I asked said they don't know. Then I called some distributors and they said it's only for a R & P. I don't have a Rack. So, I said screw it I'm going to try it anyway. The kit is super straight forward. I only used 2 "shims" which reduced it from 1350psi to 1100psi and I LOVE IT! The steering is night and day so much better! I probably could've gone to 1000psi. My other car is an AMG, so I'm used to a tight sporty feel and this reduction kit got me closer to feeling like that! 
 
I just wanted to share in case anyone else doesn't like how fast their Borgeson steering is and wants to tighten it up! If you need any pointers don't hesitate. If I'm giving super outdated info...I apologize. I've been under a rock for 2yrs (raising my Little One!). 

I got some good news today, I got a call from my engine re builder & he says the engine is finished. He has an appointment next Wednesday with the dnyo to have it run to check for leaks, check oil pressure, & get me HP output. Maybe I might have it back by next Friday. (fingers crossed). :)

I just realized I never posted my Coyote swap. I meant to but been driving it instead! 
If you are ever throwing around the "should I or shouldn't I", Do it! Nothing to think about, it's well worth it!
I did mine the hard way and it took nine months, with the kits available now, it should be very quick and well worth it. 
I went with a Griggs racing rear torque arm, Roadster Shop Revo front end. Coyote Crate, Ford puter, Tremec 5 speed and Wilwood Brakes. 
I drove it for a year and a couple months and now the Whipple is going on. I will post pics of that when done. 

The problem with most aftermarket gauge panels ( and yes, even the MTF one) is that they DONT fit 1970 Mustangs. Most people are under the mistaken impression that 1969 and 1970 gauge panels are interchangeable, when they are most definitely not.  Frankly, I didn’t realize it until a few years back when I tried to do one of these panels, only to find that, even though it is marketed as a 1969/1970, it absolutely won’t work in a 1970.
So for the OP, if you have a 1969, shop away and get what you want... but if you have a 1970, better be darn sure the panel was made for a 1970 and NOT a 1969 because they don’t interchange.
For vendors... please stop marketing the gauge panels to fit both years.  I’m sure that is what the manufacturer told you, but it simply isn’t true.  You guys are supposed to be the experts... so get it right.

Well I finished my rebuild and ran it today for the first time. 
I ended up installing a new correct flex plate which is a different bolt spacing to the original and the torque converter wouldn't fit. As this is the correct flex plate I bought a new torque converter which is substantially larger and 2500rpm stall. Engine was rebuild +.020 with 2V heads (were 4V) and some other bibs and bobs. Spent way more than I wanted to.
……………….It runs like a top. No vibration and more power. I also installed an electric fuel pump and my starting problems are gone.
Definitely a worthwhile venture. Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I wish I could pinpoint exactly what was the cause of the vibration but very happy it's gone.

the guy who painted my car did the same thing, everyone asked  "did you run out of paint?" so this was my fix.
 
Problem solved :-)
 
 
 

Not much of a photo person. These are what I can find that are decent quality; 2 of the "70, one of "69 Grande.

I found a post on VMF by Klutch that modifies HF's parts washer to add an electric water heater element. He found that Oil Eater works OK when cold but very well when heated. I took his lead and added a few more modifications to make parts the washer easier to use and last longer. See the attached Word.doc. This was written in LibreOffice on a Ubuntu operating system and then converted to Word. I opened it on a Windows machine and all was fine for me- I hope for you too.
Parts washer.doc

Smart mod, and not too terribly difficult.  Real nice fab work. On my tube arms I moved upper bj back 1/2 inch, and the lower bj forward 1/2 inch.
Did you ever give it a thought to install screw in ball joint sleeves? With them you're able to run the wheel closer to the ball joint. 
On a related note, the closer you get the caster angle to the SAI (steering axis inclination) the flatter your tire patch is during turning. Our Mustangs have 8° SAI.

In a post I had mentioned that I modified my UCAs for more caster and a few members asked me how I did that. I was doing it on my 69 Grande recently and below are some pictures showing the modification. Moved the ball joint mounting holes 20 mm aft. If my memory serves me right, when I had done the math to get +4 caster and ended up with 20 mm. May be someone can do the math using stock spindle geometry and verify that moving upper ball joint 20 mm increases the caster +4.
So, moving the ball joint holes 20 mm aft. Used a card board to trace the original holes and big hole for ball joint, then moved them 20 mm on the card board. Then made a template from the card board and made the steel doubler that is welded to the surface the ball joint is attached. The doubler was a piece of scrap sheet I had that was the same thickness as the UCA metal. Drilled the original and new (moved) ball joint mounting holes on the doubler. Used the original holes to attach the doubler to the UCA using bolts and nuts. had to slice the aft side of the UCA so the doubler will slide in. Welded the doubler and drilled the moved holes to UCA using the holes on the doubler. Had to cut the egg shaped top part and move that to rear so ball joint will fit. Need to trim some areas so ball joint grease fitting fits and is accessible.Then welded and braced everything.
Had done this mod on my 70 Grande a few years ago on a 3 bolt ball joint UCA. 3 bolt UCA is a little less work to modify. As far as I remember, I have +6 or +7 caster on my 70 Grande with stock strud rods and stock LCA.

I guess they didn’t have a big enough press to do it the way the factory did

I am not saying they dont help some ,if you have all the front end bracing they probably do some ,but if you have none of the front bracing especially those who have done a mustang ll type front end ,there is nothing to support the front rails . Every part of a unibody is part of the structure ,the more removed the weaker it gets 

The so called experts...what do they know...glue...spot welds.....huh?
I don't have to tell you things are bad.  Everybody knows they are bad.   Now, some even think that MIG welds are bad....next what will it be....big engines are bad....loud exhaust is bad....big tires...big brakes...gas guzzlers.....oh the big carbon footprint...oh the horror.....thousands will be die...!!!!
Fight back against the idiots, the a**holes, the mis-informed, and the non-believers.   Save it, restore it, MIG weld it, and drive it like you stole it....
I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
 
 

As I said, I don't have much faith in that test. I do have faith in Multimatic's 4-post chassis rig.

I bought this liner from Wallmart ,it is made by rustolium ,$80 for a sprayable gallon and it is just as good as the expensive stuff . Its a two part mix and takes over night to fully cure . I even sprayed it in the roof ,i had a spot that pushed down easily ,it didnt stay down but it was like a soft spot ,after spraying the bed liner ,it would not push down any more,also took out the ringing when you tapped on the roof

First off; I'm not an engineer, I'm not trained to do the math on this stuff, but I do have eyes.
Having read trough this thread, I've come to the conclusion that the premiss of the discussion is wrong. The premiss that SFCs have zero impact on torsional stiffness. The test that is being laid to ground for this discussion (link) is a '67 coupe that has it's shock towers cut out (removing the export brace, which is alone 25% of the torsional stiffness, according to said test.), and then uses bolt-in SFCs. It is in my opinion the absolutely worst thing one can do to a unibody car. The torsional stiffness is now all in the roof (without the help from the export brace) and floorboard, and a few bolts. The test has absolutely no value for modifying a stock unibody Mustang with shock towers. The only thing he documents is how removing the shock towers kills the torsional stiffness of the unibody.
Edit: The windshield and backlite should also be in the car when testing for torsional stiffness. They are a huge part of the cars construction.
I say this, because in my experience, making a Mustang handle, is all about stiffening the platform (unibody) and reinforcing the shock towers, so that they don't move around. That is why we have the big block shock tower bracing, the boss 302 shock tower bracing, the triangulating of the top of the shock tower with the export brace and the Monte Carlo bar. And for the Boss 429, the shock tower-to-firewall brace. Think about it, all racing modifications on a Mustang is about minimizing flex in the shock towers. So how will that car perform when you remove the shock towers all together?
Over to the SFCs. We all know, if you put a jack next to any given wheel on a stock Mustang, and jack it up, that wheel will come off the ground, and the 3 others will remain on the ground. I have the TCP SFCs with the X-bar installed on my car. When I jack up my car, 3 wheels will come off the ground, and the wheel diagonal to the jack will remain on the ground. There has to be some torsional stiffness there, right? I can see it.
Also, I've said this before in other treads; when I installed my TCP front suspension, I drove the car a few days before I installed the SFCs. It was not until then, I felt that I had a new suspension on the car. It felt the same as stock without the SFCs. Again, that tells me they do something.
So, those are my claims; I better back it up.
My brother has a '70 Plymouth Barracuda, with the XV Motorsport level II suspension. XV didn't do anything half-assed when they developed their stuff. They went to Multimatic, to get the Mopar E and B-body torsion tested on a four post rig, and to then develop the suspension. They found torsional stiffness to be on par with modern sedans, and wanted to get them ut to sports car standards. They did it with a boxed front radiator support (like the Mustangs have), shock tower-to-firewall braces, and SFCs. Their SFCs is laser cut to follow the floorboards, and are fully welded in. You can see this on episodes of Dream Car garage, ep 2, ep 3 and ep 4. It's very cool stuff. My brother's 'cuda is like my Mustang, jacking it up will lift 3 wheels.
Here is another proof for my claims. These pictures show my car hanging on a rotisserie, mounted at the rear bumper mounts and the front bumper arm mounts. It is hanging upside down with mint door gaps. It has all the shock tower braces (big block, Boss 302 and Boss 429 style) and TCP SFCs (minus the X-brace) It does not have the Monte Carlo Bar and Export brace installed. The chassis is of course bare, with no extra weight. I'll dare to claim, that a stock unibody Mustang could not do that. I do not believe that SFCs do zero for torsional stiffness, at the proof is in the XV Motorsports videos, where a world leading company like Multimatic is performing the tests on state of the art equipment. If you don't know who Multimatic is, they helped develop the new Boss 302 and the new Ford GT.



On the discussion itself, I belive the convertible rockers will make a difference, but the car should have rear torque boxes as well. But I believe SFCs will do a better job for less money and work.
 

This is what i am going to do for my compressor