Jump to content

1969_Mach1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,590

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by 1969_Mach1

  1. Posted · Report reply

    I use the largest radiator Griffin offers on a mild 10.7:1 351W. I am using a high flow water pump with a high flow 160 degree thermostat, and a 6 blade 17" Derale fan (not electric) with original fan shroud. The combination works okay, the motor runs about 180 deg in mild 85 deg ambient temps. I wanted to post this because even though it works okay for my situation I don't know it will cool a 408 CID Windsor with or without A/C. That may be tough, the small engine compartment traps in a lot of heat, plus, I'm thinking also creates air flow issues through the radiator.

  2. Posted · Report reply

    From the pictures I've seen in articles, not a fan of it. I'm not a fan of new cars in general. But I definitely wouldn't consider the 2015 Mustang if I were in the market. I keep my cars for a long time and I don't see a lot of new car features going the distance.

  5. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    That's the book. Even if you don't use any of the modifications in there, it's still interesting to see what was done back in 1969 and 1970. I tend to be old school and still like books.

     

    The 1" UCA drop won't effect the ride and feel of the road. It will lower the front of the car a little. From geometry, it will be much less than 1 inch. There are thicker coil spring upper insulators if that is an issue. What the 1" drop does is reduce the camber change as the wheel moves up and down throughout the range of suspension travel. This keeps the tires in better contact with the ground when cornering. To simplify, the camber angle is a measurement indicating how much the top of the tire leans inward or outward. The top of the tire leaning outward is positive camber and leaning inward is negative camber. A vertical tire has 0 degrees camber.

  6. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    I agree with SA69mach, for a street driving car, the results of the stock components can be great. My preference would be to upgrade a few items over original, the coil springs and insulators, sway bar and bushings and end links, and shocks. Also, if its in your budget, consider the reinforced stock style upper and lower control arms. Lastly, I would also incorporate the 1" Shelby drop for the upper control arms. That is free, just some labor making a template that bolts to the existing mounting holes in the shock tower and has pilot holes to locate the new drilling location, and drilling the new holes.

     

    There is an old reference book, (thin like a magazine) titled Boss 302 Chassis Modifications. It has several different stages of chassis modifications to stock suspensions. It may be old technology by today's standards but has some interesting info in it for stock suspension upgrades.

  8. Posted · Report reply

    I'm not certain on a stock alternator, but I spoke with a local alternator rebuilder and on 3g conversion they were having belt slippage complaints from customers.

    I put the hipo pulley on my 3g to give more belt wrap and so far no problems on my Cleveland.

     

    I had the same issue. I installed a small frame 3g and would occasionally have belt slip on acceleration or when starting the engine. I installed a larger diameter pulley for more belt to pulley contact area and it seemed to solve the issue. Since it's a higher output alternator, slowing it down a little with the larger pulley hasn't affected anything. Other than that it works much better than the original stock alternator and cleans up the wiring since it uses an internal voltage regulator.

  13. Posted · Report reply

    Nothing wrong with kits as long as the parts are good quality. Kits were not around when I did mine. On a side note, since your Mustang does not have factory front disk brakes, are you certain it's a Mach 1. I've haven't seen Mach 1's without factory front disk brakes. That doesn't mean they weren't offered with drum brakes, it's just my observation.

  14. Posted · Report reply

    In my opinion, if the lower control arms are the only upgrade to tubular, it is not worth the extra cost. I rebuilt the front suspension in my Mach 1 with OEM Ford and MOOG parts. It was a long time ago and that is why I was able to purchase control arm assemblies and lower spring perches from Ford. If I were to do it again I would go with the OEM style control arms that have been reinforced. A few companies sell them, Maier Racing is one that comes to mind. Whatever you decide, if not tubular, stick with MOOG or Raybestos brands as much as possible and not their lower end line of products.

  15. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    I use to run a 750 vacuum secondary on a 351W 4 speed in my Mach 1. I now use a 700 cfm Holley mechanical secondary and have also tried a Holley 650 cfm mechanical secondary carb. In my case both mechanical secondary carbs outperform the 750 vacuum secondary. Whatever you choose make sure it has provisions for the kick down linkage for your C6. The Holley ultra double pumpers are set for the auto trans kick down linkage. If you're set on the idea of a vacuum secondary Holley, people seem to have good luck with the older 780 cfm Holley, list 3310 and not 3310-x where x is 1,2,3,4... Its basically a 750 vacuum secondary with down leg boosters instead of straight leg boosters and also a secondary metering block. For some reason it works a lot better then a 750 cfm vacuum secondary.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    I agree when your seeing 351M, it's referring to a 4 barrel 351 Windsor motor. Check your vin tag on the dash. I don't recall the exact character, but it is probably an 'M', which is a 4 barrel 351 Windsor. I've never heard or read in any of my Mustang reference books about 351 Cleveland motors being installed in a 1969 model year Mustang.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    If your referring to a small, about 1/4 inch diameter port, a metal tube or sometimes hose would connect to it and go to the hot-air automatic choke on the carburetor. Air would simply pass through the tube and be heated by the exhaust manifold. The hot air would heat the bimetal spring in the choke causing the choke to open. The fitting doesn't pass through to the interior of the exhaust manifold and is usually just left open when any other type of choke, i.e. electric, manual, is installed.

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Unless your getting a good deal on the 1976 motor, you might want to consider a 1985 or newer 302. Only because 1985 and newer 302 blocks are hydraulic roller cam compatible. Lastly, if you have a manual trans with stock clutch linkage, the newer blocks do not have the threaded boss for the bell crank pivot and you would need the retrofit bracket for it. NPD and other Mustang parts stores sell it.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    Unless your getting a good deal on the 1976 motor, you might want to consider a 1985 or newer 302. Only because 1985 and newer 302 blocks are hydraulic roller cam compatible. Lastly, if you have a manual trans with stock clutch linkage, the newer blocks do not have the threaded boss for the bell crank pivot and you would need the retrofit bracket for it. NPD and other Mustang parts stores sell it.

×
×
  • Create New...