1969_Mach1
-
Content Count
2,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by 1969_Mach1
-
-
Those were installed to hold the drum on during assembly. Every new Ford or GM car I worked on with brake drums that slipped over a hub or axle had them. Even into the late 1980's. I've purchased them at a Body and Paint supply store. They called them push nuts where I bought them. You can probably even find them at a Napa auto parts store.
-
RPM, $325 was a good buy. Sometimes you get lucky and the item doesn't have much value to the seller.
-
I installed a Carlite front windshield. Well, I had a glass shop install it with urethane. Since the original was installed with butyl plus for some unknown reason I didn't like the urethane. Maybe because I didn't like the installer, I don't know. Anyway, I removed it, cleaned off all the urethane, and reinstalled it with butyl. It's been fine. The butyl is not nearly as messy to work with, but can be stiff on a cold day.
-
IMO, if it's a 28 spline trac-lok rear and all you have to do is install it, then it's well worth the $500.You are probably in the ball park. Perogie's lists a used original Nodular Case for $495. So $500 for a complete 28 spline trac-lok carrier in an original Noduler case that may or may not seed some attention is fair.
-
barnett468, thanks for taking the time to write up the information. After reading through it, it's obvious by design that as pin overlap increases the crankshaft stiffness (or rigidity as we M.E.'s would say) increases. Which apparently Ford engineers consider when designing them.
I don't doubt there are instances where a 351W block broke with a forged crank. But for my curious mind, I wonder why. Simply because the crank was forged doesn't make sense. Other factors must come into play. Maybe an issue with not quite the correct balancer.
It seems across the board, imported metals are inferior. They may have the same designation and chemical make up but the imported metals always seem either more brittle and fracture or yield (take a permanent deformation) at lower loads then the US counterpart. I worked for a food equipment mfg. for 10 years and occasionally they would purchase imported Stainless Steel. The welders and fabricators always had issues with cracking while forming, poor weld ability, and gauge thicknesses always at the minimum of the range for a particular size.
-
barnett468, thanks for taking the time to write up the information. After reading through it, it's obvious by design that as pin overlap increases the crankshaft stiffness (or rigidity as we M.E.'s would say) increases. Which apparently Ford engineers consider when designing them.
I don't doubt there are instances where a 351W block broke with a forged crank. But for my curious mind, I wonder why. Simply because the crank was forged doesn't make sense. Other factors must come into play. Maybe an issue with not quite the correct balance.
It seems across the board, imported metals are inferior. They may have the same designation and chemical make up but the imported metals always seem either more brittle and fracture or yield (take a permanent deformation) at lower loads then the US counterpart. I worked for a food equipment mfg. for 10 years and occasionally they would purchase imported Stainless Steel. The welders and fabricators always had issues with cracking while forming, poor weld ability, and gauge thicknesses always at the minimum of the range for a particular size.
-
Is it 28 or 31 spline? Does it also have the Daytona pinion housing? What is the condition? Ring and pinion gears still in good condition? They are not too easy to find these days.
-
you do not want a crank that flexes, or at least not one that flexes as much as many do . . in general, a crank that flexes less than another, will actually transfer LESS load to the block, it's simple physics, and you can get the same info from professional engine builders like scott main, owner of cam research whose engines have won world championships in NHRA and from joe sherman and even ATI crank dampers.http://www.camresearchcorp.com/street-cred/
the whole purpose if a crank damper is to reduce crank twist which is flex . . if as crank twists/winds up, it is flexing.
also, crank flrexing reduces engibnbe powrr.
I certainly understand you don't want a crank that flexes, at least I don't. Just trying to make sense out of why a stock block will break with a forged crank and not with a cast crank under the same conditions. I tend to believe it happens. But there's some physical condition happening, impulse dampening through flexure, increased vibration transfer of the more dense forged crank.
I actually completely forgot and didn't have twist in mind when the idea of flexing was mentioned. But bending that can be from the forces applied to the rod journals by the connecting rods that not in the direction to rotate the crank.
It could be many things, I'm not certain.
-
The cast/forged crank discussion goes a lot farther than cost. Contrary to popular belief, a forged crank will not always live longer in all applications. These 351 blocks are pretty strong, but they do flex, and there's no way around it. As the block tries to flex around a forged crank, it tends to break around the main caps. A cast crank will flex with the block. Some people are going to call this crazy, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there are many many examples of this, if you know where to look......On one side-of-the-coin that seems reasonable. The more flexible the crankshaft, the more the forces applied to it are dampened by bending of the crank, and fewer are transmitted to the structure, in this case, this engine block. Actually, technically, maybe this is referring to an impulse. Not %100 certain without reopening an old text book but the idea is there.
On the other side, anything cast is more brittle than its forged counterpart. So disregarding the block, in theory, a cast crank will break before its forged counterpart.
-
I see this thread is mainly about building a stroker motor, which I don't have. But my 2 cents are I do agree with the posts stating to not use Hypereutectic pistons. They cannot tolerate much high pressures from detonation or nitrous (if you plan to use it), etc. I've seen the head of a Hypereutectic piston broke off from detonation. Also, if a builder recommends the KB Hypereutectic pistons, be aware those have the top ring land moved closer to the top of the piston. Because of that, you will have to run a much larger ring end gap. I used one set of those KB pistons, and after what seemed like filing thousands of miles off the piston ring's ends to obtain their recommended end gap, I thought never again.
-
Epoxy sounds like a good idea. Unless you have exceptional welding skills. When I've epoxy repaired a condition like that, I've used the epoxy to bond a small patch of sheet metal on the back side allowing the excess epoxy to fill the holes. So far it's been successful, but I don't have TIG welding equipment to attempt a welding repair.
-
I know they have been around for a while, but I have thought 427 cubic inches from a 351W block is pushing it. Are there any negative aspects of 427 cubic inches from a 351W block? For example, piston compression height so short the wrist pins pass through the ring groove for the oil control ring, life span of the piston rings is short because the stroke is so long, the connecting rods swinging through large angles because of the long stroke.
I don't mean to sound negative. My engineering mind set tends to wonder if there are negative aspects to something like this.
-
Sounds pretty good. If your budget can build a 9" rear end, I'd go that route.
If it were my motor, I'd do some homework and at least call Comp Cams and ask their recommendation on a cam. That is, unless your engine builder has built a lot of 351W motors. From my experience most shops lump the 351W together with a 302 as far as parts selection is concerned. The larger cubic inch 351W can tolerate more cam than a 302 and still have good street manners and driveability. The camshaft characteristic descriptions in the Crane Cams catalog is another indicator of that. For example, I've run both a Comp Cams 284 Magnum Hydraulic Roller cam and Ford Racings X303 Hydraulic Roller cam in 351W motors. Both had good drieability, street manners, and a mild rough idle. The X303 having a slightly smoother idle.
Anyway, do some homework is my 2 cents.
-
The 3.70:1 ratio is the most popular in my area. Overall, ratios of 3.50:1 to 3.89:1 seem to be good for street driven performance. Unless, you plan on cruising down the freeway for a significant distance and don't have an overdrive transmission. The 3.00 and numerically lower ratios are mainly for daily drivers without overdrive transmissions that also see a lot of freeway time.
I'm curious to what type of cam combo works with a 2.79:1 ratio and will make 450 hp?
-
That very true!
-
I think you'll have 20k in that option as well... what is your budget?That was my thought. If the 390 was out of budget, is the 427 feasible? Of those two choices, I'd be inclined to stick to a 390 build. It seems more realistic.
-
Wow, barnett468 a Boss 429, really?!! Mustangs don't get any better than that. I've only seen those in books. Only 500 were made, how many are left? The gt500 is great too. But for some reason Shelby Mustangs never did much for me.
-
Before you start spending money on parts, you might want to consider the cost to build your 8" vs. a 9" rear end. The cost difference may come down to the housing and center section (third member). Used 9 inch center sections are plentiful and usually cheap. I would think the biggest hurdle and cost difference is the housing. That shouldn't be too hard to find. You may not need the strength of a 9" rear end, but if it were my car, I'd have a hard time spending my money to build up an 8" rear end.
-
Do you mean additional insulation because I did not notice additional sealer on my 1969 Mach 1? I do know there is additional insulation on Mach 1's.
-
Isn't it only in the rear wheel wells? That's the only place my car originally had it and still does. I don't know what the body shop sprayed, I don't think it was Body Shultz. I doubt body Shultz was originally used as the undercoating. But it does have a heavy orange peel finish that might best match the original undercoating. You typically paint over it in the color you want. The first appearance I remember of Body Shultz was on lower rocker panels in the early to mid 1980's.
I undercoated (not with Body Shultz) a few new cars back in the 1980's when I was a GM tech. The stuff was in 30 gallon drums and came out of the spray gun so thick it produced a heavy orange peel finish.
-
Wow! I never thought the OEM 15" wheel makes that much difference in turning effort. The effort on mine without the P/S installed and the OEM 15" wheel is difficult. But not so bad that I need something different at this time. But I definitely don't try to turn the steering with the car stopped, especially stopped and the brakes applied.
If you want to switch I would also go the Borgenson route. I don't understand the complaints about the steering not returning to center. Worm and sector gear designs in steering boxes mesh with an interference fit for about 1/2 revolution through center. This eliminates impact loads between the gears inside the steering box as you drive straight, which is most of the time. This by design will resist full automatic returns to center. When I was younger I worked as a GM tech for many years in the mid and late 1980's and every new GM with a steering box did not fully return to center by itself. In my opinion, if the steering easily automatically fully returns to center, the steering box preload adjustments might be too loose. The Borgenson box looks like the cleanest setup with the least modifications to the car which is good.
It wasn't mentioned whether the car is auto or manual trans. I only mention because everything I've read states the Borgenson box will not fit with original manual trans clutch linkage on a 351W. Borgenson offers specific clutch linkage for small blocks. But I don't think it applies to 351W's since the 351W uses different clutch linkage.
-
Wow! I never thought the OEM 15" wheel makes that much difference in turning effort. The effort on mine without the P/S installed and the OEM 15" wheel is difficult. But not so bad that I need something different at this time. But I definitely don't try to turn the steering with the car stopped, especially stopped and the brakes applied.
If you want to switch I would also go the Borgenson route. I don't understand the complaints about the steering not returning to center. Worm and sector gear designs in steering boxes mesh with an interference fit for about 1/2 revolution through center. This eliminates impact loads between the gears inside the steering box as you drive straight, which is most of the time. This by design will resist full automatic returns to center. When I was younger I worked as a GM tech for many years in the mid and late 1980's and every new GM with a steering box did not fully return to center by itself. In my opinion, if the steering easily automatically fully returns to center, the steering box preload adjustments might be too loose. The Borgenson box looks like the cleanest setup with the least modifications to the car which is good.
It wasn't mentioned whether the car is auto or manual trans. I only mention because everything I've read states the Borgenson box will not fit with original manual trans clutch linkage on a 351W. Borgenson offers specific clutch linkage for small blocks. But I don't think it applies to 351W's since the 351W uses different clutch linkage.
-
I agree, fix your power steering. I don't understand the hype of rack and pinion conversions. When restoring mine I also replaced center link, idler arm and steering arm necessary to properly convert it to manual steering. At least on a 351W car, with the 15" diameter OEM steering wheel they are easier to turn than you'd expect. Just use common sense and do not try to turn the steering wheel when stopped. If you do, you'll quickly realize the strain the P/S system endures when people do that, not good. I saved all the power steering components so I return to power steering if I want to.
Don't forget to rebuild the steering box as well. These are fairly easy to rebuild. Even though only the bearings and seals are available, and it won't quite like new, it will help. If you are unsure how to do it, get a copy of the reproduction original Ford service manuals and follow the procedures in them. Actually, you should have those service manuals anyway.
-
I agree, fix your power steering. I don't understand the hype of rack and pinion conversions. When restoring mine I also replaced center link, idler arm and steering arm necessary to properly convert it to manual steering. At least on a 351W car, with the 15" diameter OEM steering wheel they are easier to turn than you'd expect. Just use common sense and do not try to turn the steering wheel when stopped. If you do, you'll quickly realize the strain the P/S system endures when people do that, not good. I saved all the power steering components so I return to power steering if I want to.
Don't forget to rebuild the steering box as well. These are fairly easy to rebuild. Even though only the bearings and seals are available, and it won't quite like new, it will help. If you are unsure how to do it, get a copy of the reproduction original Ford service manuals and follow the procedures in them. Actually, you should have those service manuals anyway.
windshield glass
in 1969-70 Technical Forum
Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply
I haven't seen a glass shop use butyl. Even on older cars that came with butyl like ours. I would have to think its because the urethane is faster to work with. If you have ever watched glass shops replace windshields that uses urethane they typically don't clean off the old urethane. They simply dress it up with some new urethane and install the new windshield. Then use a rag with solvent to clean up any mess.
I'm not saying butyl is better than urethane or visa versa. I think it will come down to your preference.
If you have the glass, its easy to install yourself. That's actually my preference. There are few people I trust working on my cars. The rear glass is fairly easy to install as well.