Mach1 Driver

I haven't looked at the marker light in ages. The diagram shows a ground wire and one to power the bulb. I'm not certain if the ground side is also grounded at the receptacle. It doesn't make a lot of sense for Ford to do both, and if it isn't it makes the 70 circuit easier to construct- the only change would have been wire. I think its more likely that you have bad ground(s). Clean and reattach. Disconnect the battery and do ohmmeter tests from the bulb ground contact points to the chassis. Also check the grounds from the engine to firewall, and at every light. The big culprits are the 1157 bulbs which have two filaments and a common ground. If you loose the ground to that bulb the power goes through the unused filament and to another bulb in the circuit. There are lots of them, and the combinations are very hard to predict.

Above you state "everything stays illuminated (no blinking)". It is normal for the tail lights to stop blinking when pressing the brake, but hood and front turn signals should continue to flash. The marker lights should not flash on a 69. Since this all started with side marker lights, it could be that they installed 70 side marker lights on your 69. The 69 has a wire to the bulb and a ground. The 70 doesn't have a ground- it has a wire leading in and out. You can see the explanation of this rather bizarre 70 circuit in How To "1970 Mustang Exterior Lights" if interested. Do the usual stuff- check all connections and check grounds at every bulb.

Describe the tranny...and "everything" please

That's what I'd like to know- for a 351W with a roller cam

They look like Dynacorn, but I couldn't be sure so I got them from WCCC because of their description: Improved reproduction right and left hand hood hinges for the Mercury Cougar and Ford Mustang. Much heavier duty compared to the originals, thicker metal and slightly wider hinge bars. These hinges weigh 4.35 lbs, originals weigh 3.2 lbs. Hood hinge rivets have the 'plus' markings like seen on the 1969-70 hinges. Save your hinge springs, these do not come with the new springs. it will be easier to fit and adjust these hinges prior to installing the springs on them. We use an old section of seat belt for removing and installing hood hinge springs. If you only need one, we sell these individually as well. Here is a helpful youtube video that will shoe you how to adjust your hood. BTW, that's 36% beefier than production hinges

These are the best I've found https://secure.cougarpartscatalog.com/store/p/12539-Hood-Hinges-Driver-and-Passenger-PREMIUM-PAIR-Repro-1967-1970-Mercury-Cougar-/-1967-1970-Ford-Mustang.html?attribs=88

lumpy in all the right places

It takes forever to get it done, but mine is waiting in line for an upgrade from AM/8 track to AM/FM/8 track/USB/bluetooth with additional power output http://www.barrys8trackrepair.com/

does this help?

In the appliance industry asbestos wasn't removed from products until the mid 80s as I recall. We were in lock step with other American industries at the time.

I've been leaning toward a 4R70W because it bolts right up to a 351W, but wonder what has been done lately with the 6R80? Its a 6 speed Ford that is wider for most of its length and about 100 lbs heavier, but a little shorter. The only hit I got in a search here was behind a Coyote in 69 Mach with extensive metal rebuild. Does anyone know of a more conventional swap of one of these beasts into a classic? My guess is that the tunnel is too small.

Shes a beauty

Schematics are used to understand the circuit and aren't cluttered with information that isn't necessary to do so. A wire diagram will tell you wire colors and plugs and where to connect a wire. Those abound on the web.

I don't believe anything new will fit a vintage Ford- will it guys?

I say it a little differently: too much is never enough

Agreed, I plan on both rockers and SFCs. I know the upper seat platform and lower boxes prevent twist, but dang both cause problems. The seat platform will mess with the console and the lower boxes are in the way of the exhaust. What did you do in these areas? I guess the question for a fastback is how much is enough?

X3 nice story. Also thanks for your families service. Welcome, and keep her rollin.

Following is a timely and very interesting post in a thread titled “Torque boxes vrs subframe connectors”, on 1-27-18 in VMF. Both patrickstapler and Huskinhano are senior members of VMF and are very knowledgeable and respected. Patrick’s profile does not mention his occupation, but from the math I have to assume he is a mechanical engineer. Patrick is having a spirited debate with Huskinhano about the merits of convertible inner rockers and related parts. If there will ever be a resolution to this argument it is because of the math stated here. Patrickstapler: Alright...lets do this again. Read the whole thread or just these parts below...up to you. Chassis stiffening Quote- originally posted by Huskinhano Originally Posted by patrickstapler Tom, you Shaun has a very detailed page on his site about lowering the 'vert seat pan. It does remove "some" of the structural support but not all. If you are considering a partial cage already, another addition is to remove the seat pans altogether and tie the 'vert inner rockers across the mid section with formed tubing to the floor and then add stringers front to rear for attaching the seats. Pat, I saw Shaun's post on that. Shaun made note of possible losses of the modified seat pan IIRC. Let's say one foregoes the seat pan due to their height. Just how effective are the inner rockers now? This is something you could probably answer, the stamped steel inner rockers have a larger CSA (cross sectional area) then the steel 2x2 tubing. Would the stamped sheet metal rockers with their larger CSA be stiffer then the 2x2x.125 tubing with it's smaller CSA even though the wall is thicker? The reason I have given thought to a 6 point cage, I'm not really crazy about the idea but it would solve a few issues. It would make the body a lot stiffer. The main reason is I would like to try the standing mile with the ECTA at Wilmington OH. One of the guys on Bangshift who I'm friendly with not only races a S10 with a Mercedes 4 cylinder diesel but is on the tech committee. He said 3 point belts is all that's require to run up to 135 MPH but on older cars they really like to see a 6 point cage. There is some safety on the street with the cage but having the cage would require different seats and 5 point belts. The old snow ball effect. Then again do you want to be climbing over side bars to get in and out? I know they make swing away kits and you could just keep the side bars out on the street but then you're taking away from the structural rigidity defeating a main purpose of the cage. End quote by Huskinhano patrickstapler continues: The difference between the two are pretty drastic. You have to consider the section modulus (generally the resistance of a shape to bending) and the inertial moment (generally the resistance of a shape to twisting) between the two shapes. Comparing a 2"x2"x.125" square tube to a 3"x6"x.06" (guessing at rough size here) 'vert inner rocker it looks like this: Square Tube Section Modulus = .55 in all directions Inertial Moment = .55 in all directions 'Vert Inner Rocker S(x) = 1.81 S(y) = 1.24 I(x) = 5.42 I(y) = 1.87 In reality, the differences may be more substantial than this with the 'vert inner rockers as they are essentially the mirror opposite of the outer rockers all welded together. I believe (and I may be wrong) the factory install of the 'vert inners was a only a outer and inner section welded together with one vertical divider wall. What I did on my car is weld in the full inner rocker with its own vertical wall to the already existing outer rocker with its own vertical wall in place. My car effectively has complete rocker assemblies welded back to back with spot welds top and bottom and full stitch weld along the top edge of where the two rockers meet. So from the above, I imagine the reason Ford added inner rockers is to keep the car from breaking in half length wise...since there is no roof structure to perform that function. From the numbers above, you can clearly see that simply adding a pseudo full frame via sub-frame connectors would most likely not prevent this type of failure. Second, I imagine the reason Ford added the inner one piece seat pan AND the outer seat pan boxes WITH solid plate tying the two together at the hump is to alleviate twisting...again, no roof to perform that function. Now apply these principles or thoughts if you will to hardtops or fastbacks. Yes they have a roof to perform the functions of alleviating longitudinal bending and twisting. However, only enough to keep the car from failing. Ok, so lets add some sub-frame connectors. Again, using the numbers above, you can clearly see they do not and will not perform the same task as adding inner rockers. Now lets add cross bars between the sub-frame connectors. Ok, we have maybe eliminated some small amount of twisting. Visually if you will, now imagine instead of cross bars of say 1 3/4" x 1/8" wall (guessing here) which has a section modulus of .24, we add all of the 'vert inner and outer seat pans and 'vert inner rockers. We have already proven via math, the sub-frame connectors pale in comparison to 'vert inner rockers. So compare the cross sectional area (more cross sectional area...higher section modulus...less movement) of the inner and outer seat pans that span the entire width of the floor and weld to the entire width of the floor top and bottom and weld to the 'vert inner rockers. You can see you have effectively created a huge boxed in inner and outer structure that is welded side to side, top to bottom, and inner and outer versus simply tying the front and rear frame rails together which do very little to prevent twisting or adding two small tubes side to side which also do very little to prevent twisting. I'm not saying the sub-frame connectors or cross bars do nothing. I am saying they do very little in comparison to other methods. I will also admit that adding the 'vert parts with torque boxes may not be for everyone. It is a very invasive and time consuming project. Not to mention you do have to deal with the hump over the hump and use some of the 'vert interior pieces. This may also not be for everyone. These are just my thoughts...they may not be considered accurate by some or all. However, I also believe if Ford could have gotten away with simply adding sub-frame connectors and cross bars, they probably would have because it is a hell of lot faster and less expensive.

Very nice work. When you get around to it let us see what you did to the lower pan- I'll probably need to do something similar.

Very neat and clean, and an elegant solution. Since hardly anyone will have access to a hydraulic hose crimper, I wonder if the flange on the insert could be massaged down manually? Maybe support the inside of the insert on a curved surface and place an appropriate thickness of curved sheet metal on the outside surface as a spacer and then tap the flange down to the temporary spacer. The internal gas cap threads in the insert make it difficult to support that way. Hmmm. Anyway, nice job.

Huh, I didn't know that the 69/70s didn't use the one piece seat platform. A platform is sold for 65-70 but I suppose that is just because it fits all those years. That got me curious so I looked in my Osborn 70 Weld & Sealant Assembly Manual (I hope there aren't many changes from 69 to 70 as a 69 manual is not available). It shows 10812-3 Front Floor Cross Lower on each side, and two platforms, one on each side on the top 10672-3 Front Floor Cross Upper. So it wasn't clear- it sounds like you thought about installing the lower pans, but did you do it? How about you Bob?

I found this template for cutting the console: Jim Osborn Reproductions Convertible Console Cutting Template Its for a 65-66, but the profile seems to match. I'm sure its safer to just make a cardboard template using a Home Depot contour gauge:

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/Duraspark_distributor_recurve_instructions_page-2.html

Some people say the convertible rear seat isn't as wide, but it doesn't come close to the inner rockers, so I don't know why that would be. I think all I'll have to do is cut a notch out of the plastic inner panels for the rockers. I'll have to investigate.