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

  2. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    My experience with KYB Gas Adjust shocks is this. When I was younger I put them on a 4wd Ford Ranger long bed pick up. This was back when the KYB Gas Adjust shocks were just hitting the market and the high pressure gas was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread. The truck was stock with the 2" lift option offered from the factory. With these shocks it had a bone jarring ride. You could feel every crack and pebble on the road. Pot holes, railroad tracks were horrible.

     

    After about a month of that I replaced them. This was back before mail order was easy so I went to a local 4wd shop. After telling them what I was removing they showed me broken shock mounts from a customers pick up that had these KYB Gas Adjust shocks.

     

    In my opinion, KYB Gad Adjusts are garbage. I don't know why some places bundle them with suspension kits. Regardless of your suspension, KYB Gas Adjusts will make the ride more harsh. If you swapped them out the ride quality will probably get a little softer. Gabriel Adjustable E's use to be a popular low end performance shock but have long been discontinued.

  3. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    After some research I believe your second cross member is correct as you stated.

     

    It just dawned on me why mine looks like your first cross member and my Mach 1 is a 351w and FMX trans car. I inherited this Mach 1 from an older brother. He initially had a 69 fastback with a C4 trans and was doing a restomod type of restoration. In the process he purchased the 69 Mach 1 from the original owner because it was in better condition and decided to scrap the 69 fastback project. However the previous owner had removed the motor and trans from the Mach 1 and sold the long block. Ultimately, I ended with both cars and both were dismantled to the shell with the Mach 1 on dollies. Since I was only able to locate one trans cross member it must have been from the fastback with the C4 trans. The original FMX cross member was either lost or my brother never got it from the previous owner.

     

    Off hand, Perogie Enterprise is the only source I know of that would know with certainty and have a correct used and possibly NOS cross member. I briefly looked at Perogie's website and they list used trans cross members for C4, C6, FMX, 3 and 4sp. separately and each with a different price so there may be a difference. I am going to call them because now I am curious if mine is correct for my 4sp. even though it fits without issues. But again, I believe your second cross member is correct for the FMX.

     

    On a positive note, you may be on the right track to solve the fan height (too low) issue.

  4. Posted · Report reply

    Hate to say this. But, from your pictures, mine is shaped the upper picture (the one you said doesn't fit correctly). Again, mine is a 351W factory A/C car with an FMX trans. Plus, it also works with the 4sp. I installed. I think there is only one trans mount (insulator, not the cross member) for these cars regardless of trans type. Could somebody have possibly given you a trans mount for a different car or maybe a pickup? What didn't line up with the cross member?

  6. Posted · Report reply

    Bump Stop: Rubber pad (if you will), one at each wheel attached to the car body or frame that the suspension hits when bottoming out preventing metal to metal contact between suspension and car body or frame. On Mustangs, in the front they are attached to the bottom of the coil spring outer covers and contact the upper control arms when bottoming out. In the back they are attached to the frame rails directly above the axle and contact the axle when bottoming out. In the back there is also a pinion snubber but that serves a different purpose.

  8. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    Something is still not quite right. Shouldn't have to raise the motor for it to fit.

     

    I don't know how many trans cross members there were. I went from an FMX to a 4sp without any issues using the FMX cross member. It didn't cross my mind there may be a different cross member. It's working fine, but now I'm curious.

     

    Are those 5 gallon buckets and blocks of wood for jack stands supporting your freshly painted car?????

  9. Posted · Report reply

    I know originally there were different motor mounts for convertible cars. They were about 1/2 inch lower than the coupe and fastback motor mounts. Today, I have only seen coupe and fastback OEM style motor mounts available.

     

    This is a stretch because I think there is only one trans mount option. But have you verified the trans mount components are correct. Possibly the motor and trans angle is incorrect causing the front of the motor to be a little too low.

     

    Like I said, mine is a factory A/C 351W car and the fan was close on the bottom as well. But that is with a 17" 6 blade Derale fan and I was able to rework the shroud to fix it.

  11. Posted · Report reply

    The fan in my 69 Mach 1 with a 351W is close to the bottom of the shroud as well. The clearance was minimal with a stock radiator and when I installed a Griffin rad I had to slot the mounting holes for the shroud and modify the shroud in the lower rad hose area to lower the shroud. Raising the motor can cause a few issues. The most common being hood clearance for a 351W depending on intake manifold and air cleaner combinations. What diameter fan are you using?

  12. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    First off, I'm sorry for sounding critical, but, the car is so low with a stock suspension that it may hitting the bump stops fairly often and large diameter wheels with short profile tires that the original suspension was never designed to work with. How can it not have a rough ride? In stock form, although too tall for most people including myself, these cars had a soft ride.

  15. Posted · Report reply

    I think currently all Ford Racing cams offered for small block Windsor motors are hydraulic roller. Unless there is old stock somewhere, a Ford Racing hydraulic cam for small blocks isn't available.

     

    I would suggest talking to whatever cam vendor you prefer. That's a tall order to have a cam with a lopey idle in a low compression stock motor. Don't forget, does the car have A/C, if so, the heater and A/C controls are vacuum operated? Also, does it have power brakes?

  16. Posted · Report reply

    I see from the picture your in the middle of a restoration. I'd replace the cracked shock tower and still install a reinforcement kit on both. It reinforces similar to what latoracing's pictures show. At that stage of restoration, even if you have to invest in a MIG or TIG welder its still best to replace. Back in the early 1980's my older brother's Mach 1 cracked both shock towers. The cracks were welded and about 6 months later other fatigue cracks started occurring.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    If they are butchered. I would not repair them. People often repair small cracks. The cracks you are seeing are fatigue failures. By now the metal has become more brittle so will tend to keep cracking even if repairs are made. Repair or replace, I would definitely install the shock tower reinforcement kit.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    I went through this with mine. I was told by a local Mustang parts and restoration shop my 3 bolt crank damper, and passenger side water pump exit was an early 1969 351W setup. I was told in 1969 the change was made to 4 bolt dampers and drivers side water pump exit. So, apparently there are early 1969 and late 1969 setups for a 351W.

  20. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    Well, as surprising as it might be, it seems that the voltage regulator is at fault here. After my first post, I mesured 17v with engine running!! I understand faulty parts out of the box, but this regulator, brand new repo, worked fine for 2000 miles and then decided to quit today... The battery has suffered in the process (got it tested at Advanced: 13,5V and 445 CCA).

     

    So what does "stuck mechanical regulator means"? Are there other options (with 3 wires alternator)?

     

    Myself and many others have replaced the original style alternator and external regulator with a newer Ford 3G (small case model) alternator with internal regulator. I bought mine through Ford Racing years ago and it came with the electrical connectors and instructions. It's discontinued. I think it fits a 1994 or 1995 Mustang GT with a 5.0 motor. You would also have to get the wiring connectors. Most parts stores also sell the connectors these days. The alt. pulley (not the alt. fan) off the original 1969 alternator will fit the 3G alternator. The 3G has two internal cooling fans. Since the belt is more prone to slip with that small diameter pulley on the 3G alt., a larger diameter aftermarket or I think Boss 302 alt. pulley is needed. The larger pulley enables more belt contact surface which stops the slipping. Since it is a higher amperage alt., it still operates fine with a larger pulley, even at idle.

     

    The end result doesn't look original like yours, but certainly operates much better.

     

    It would be nice if they made an AGM battery that looked original.

  23. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    I agree that those mechanical regulators were never very good, are slow to respond to changing electrical loads, and stick. I would replace (upgrade) it simply because they do not work very well. I have had batteries do what yours is doing on many cars or trucks. On mine, it was always a bad battery and never a voltage regulator/charging issue. Load testing the battery would indicate a bad or shorted cell. Three times specifically the batteries have been fairly new, one was an Interstate, another from Sears, and the third from Napa and on different vehicles. The other times the batteries have been 4+ years old.

  25. Posted · Edited by 1969_Mach1 · Report reply

    Yeah, stainless steel is tough to form and tends to crack when cold forming when mild steel won't. I've designed and engineered a lot of stainless steel food processing and packaging equipment with my last employer. It has very similar mechanical strength properties as mild steels so I am not certain why it doesn't cold form as well and is harder to cold form and machine. Plus, putting stainless to stainless fasteners together without anti seize will almost always gall up and lock together.

     

    Knowing that I had thought I like the stainless for corrosion resistance, but if I had issues with fitting leaks I would start over with steel.

×
×
  • Create New...