Mach1 Driver

Very Nice. What did the second 20 gal tank cost? Those look like bent metal fuel lines? Are those the sender wires going up the middle from what is probably the sender (in the front) toward the filler neck (in the rear)? By the way, the Tanks Inc tank is 22 gallon, 6 more than yours.

Cheers guys

How to make braided stainless steel fuel line using AN fittings. This video is by DIY Auto School featuring a crusty character named Pete. This isn't exactly passive aggressive stuff. He's a little cranky using f-bombs liberally, and just for fun start watching for hand gestures starting around 9:40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIpq4XV2wJ4

AN Hose and Fittings.doc

I've been researching a couple of items: Timing control: 1. If you are not running boost or nitrous Fitech says the stock points distributor works very well with no need to use timing control. 2. With boost or nitrous you need to use timing control. They suggest an MSD Probillet 2 wire distributor with magnetic pickup. For half the price get a TSP distributor but use a phasable rotor from MSD #84211. You need to disable any advance and let the EFI control it. Pump Type: In tank pump: Less likely to run out of fuel from car's movement Quieter Probably need a new tank Probably most costly (with a new tank) $490 before hose and fittings Easily vented (we need this) Fittings on pump (tanksinc)- supply, return, vent In-line pump Probably the cheapest option Noisy May need surge tank to assure fuel is available (read www.rowand.net/Shop/Tech/EFIBasics.htm) Command Center Shortest run of high pressure hose (assuming it is positioned in the front of the vehicle) Around $400 before discount Where to put it? Without moving the battery or windshield washer bottle about the only place to put it is in the wheel well and then for safety it should be covered/protected. In a front end crash this could provide a rather large reservoir of fuel. Return line: All of the above require a line back to the tank 1. The Tanksinc in tank pump already has fittings for supply, return and vent. They are positioned on top of the tank so a suitable cover will have to be fashioned to protect these lines and they will have to go out through the floor in front of the tank into the area around the differential. Don't forget to seal it up. 2. The In-line pump and Command Center both require you to get a gauge sender unit with a vent provision; or add a return connection to the tank; or you can use a Moroso #65385 that goes below the filler neck and allows fuel to drain down into the tank. I'm fairly certain you would need to cut off the bottom of the filler neck and loose the ridge around the bottom that helps to seal it. This also puts an exposed hose with fuel in the trunk that should also be covered. This isn't a place you want fumes to collect. Fuel lines: 1. Russell Twist Lok hose- what most FiTech customers use. It does not have an external braid. The sizes are -6AN and -8AN, with -6 being 3/8†and -8 is 1/2â€. AN stands for Army/Navy which standardized these fittings around WWII. Maybe thats why they are so freeking expensive- the government got involved! This hose pushes over barbs in AN fittings and by most accounts is difficult to install. You have to put the fitting in a vice, lube the hose/fitting (some even use a heat gun) and then twist the hose onto the fitting to lock it in place. Theres a funny video showing how one guy does this: 2. The hot tip is double braided stainless hose. It looks good and is expen$ive. I like it because the hose is trapped between the internal barb as above and an external screw-on cover and isn't nearly as hard to install. You just use a wrench to screw on the external cover, and you don't have to womp it with a big stick. Fittings: So far I've only researched my option (see below) using Russel Twist Lok un-braided hose. I intend to research the use of double stainless steel braided as time permits and intend to report my findings. 1. Using Russel Twist Lok hose and fittings from Tanksinc: A. To pump GPA-4 supply fitting: 660443 ¼ NPT B. To 660443: 624013 Straight* -6AN Twist Lok fitting. This goes to -6AN hose C. 6AN hose from pump to filter Note: D-H edited on 12/24/15 1:25 pm D. To hose at filter: 624013 Straight* -6AN Twist Lok fitting E. 624013 screws on filter inlet. F: Filter Fitech 80112 G: 624013 screws on filter outlet. H. 624013 Straight* -6AN Twist Lok fitting: This goes to -6AN hose. I. 6AN hose from filter to EFI J. The FiTech EFI already has -6AN inlet and outlet fittings installed on the throttle body for Russel Twist Lok hose. If you wish to use braided hose these fittings must change. K. 6AN hose from the throttle body outlet (return) to tank. L. 6AN hose to 624013 Straight* -6AN Twist Lok fitting M. 624013 to: 660443 ¼ NPT N. 660443 to pump inlet/return. O. To Pump barbed Vent fitting: the size is not specified but I assume it is 5/16†since the Remote Mount Rollover Vent Valve definitely states it is 5/16â€. Use low pressure neoprene 5/16†fuel hose and hose clamps. Edit on 12/28/15 Tanks Inc confirms the barbed vent fitting is 5/16" *Straight fittings may be replaced with 90 degree 624163 or 45 degree 624083 Disclaimer: all of the above part numbers are to the best of my ability and have been checked over the phone by tanksinc. If they are wrong you accept all responsibility, so don't cry to me. My preference: Since I'm getting rust from my tank (gee and after only 46 years), I intend to replace the tank anyway, making the “in tank pump†my best (and cheapest) option. As is illustrated above I'm looking at a Tanksinc.com tank with GPA-4 pump. The pump has connections for supply, return, and a vent. I'll add a rollover tank vent (same vendor) up above the differential, then use a fuel cap that will seal the filler neck.

Hi Danno, could you tell us what headers and engine you have? MikeStang used FPA.

Thanks MikeStang, that's a really great write-up that will help immensely

Sounds good to me Bob; you've got to protect yourself. It will be nice if it works out but not catastrophic if it doesn't. Its a generous offering of your time and a great way as a group to work out the technical details involved in the swap on virtually the same cars.

Yup, guess there's more legwork involved, sorry Bob.

Here's a link to an inertia switch - also known as a rollover switch. It shows you what it is and instructions to install it: http://www.jegs.com/i/Painless+Performance+Products/764/80160/10002/-1

I intend to keep the old metal line but flush it out unless someone convinces me otherwise- and use high pressure hose sparingly where needed. I don't know about a braided line- seems it could droop between the tie-up points and has a long way to run.

Count me in too.

I agree, it seems like a good option. Their pump mounting plate has fittings for the supply, return, and a vent. They sell a remote rollover vent valve as well. As you know our cars currently vent out the fill cap. I remember watching the end of an episode of Bitchin Rides where the customer nailed the throttle and a wave of gas spewed out the back of his 69. If we vented the tank we could go with non-vented caps, and maybe add a modification to the fill pipe so it doesn't vomit gas all over when filling. The only down side I see is that the Tanks Inc. tank has the sending unit and pump mounted on the top middle, so the supply, return, and vent lines will be on the floor of our spacious trunk, along with the spare tire and everything else. We will need to add a removable plate to protect them and run the lines through the floor. No biggie. The GPA-4 pump will deliver 255 LPH for up to 630 HP which is more than enough for me... and what I'm planning. While I'm thinking about it, we won't be needing the mechanical fuel pump and can get "block off plates" from Sumit and other vendors, although it appears they don't come with gaskets or chrome bolts.

69 351w Mustang and Maxjax. 12/20/15, Dannmar has apparently recently changed the lift arms on the Maxjax. Instead of the square pads, now they are 5†diameter round pads. The arm lengths have also changed: from the centerline of the arm pivot to the end of the pad is 29†minimum and 42.5†maximum. The max is shorter and the min is greater making the lift much less flexible. To calculate the balance point of the car you need to know the front and rear axle weights. I got this from an article on a 69 428 Cobra Jet that was complaining bitterly about the front axle weight being 2140 lbs with a total weight of 3607. Since the 351w weighs in at 3175, I subtracted the difference and came up with a front axle weight of 1787 (W1), and a rear axle weight of 1467 (W2) for a 351w. The distance from the front bumper to the front axle is 37.375†(D1), and 145.375 (D2) to the rear. The formula is: (W1xD1)+(W2xD2)= total moment. That equals 86.065†from the front bumper to the center of balance, or where the center of the lift posts should be. You want to balance the car on the lift or you will unduly stress the concrete that is supporting everything. The distance between the jack posts for me is determined by the minimum arm length and jack points on my other car. If you position the Stang at the balance point, the rear lift arms won’t reach to the rear frame rails by the spring hangers, so I am forced to use the rear jacking point on the pinchweld. Yes I still have the original jacking sticker in the trunk. You can buy special pucks/pads that have a grove in them for the pinchweld, and Dannmar recommends this over a chunk of wood with a groove. Since the front pinchweld jacking point is so close to the tipping point, I use the front frame rail with the lift arm fully extended. I still don’t feel comfortable with this and use tall jack stands front and back to stabilize everything. I do feel comfortable using the pinchwelds for support on this 46 year old car because the car and I lived our lifes in sunny California for all but 1 of the last 46 years and it has very little rust- probably less than me. My Stang is disassembled at the moment so I can’t take it to the nearest public scales. If someone wants to fine-tune this calculation, give me the axle weights and fuel level with no people. Gas weighs about 6 lbs/gal, so a full tank can be like having a teenager in your trunk! I wrote this in Word and have a nice CAD drawing showing all these relationships, but for some reason I can't get the graphic to copy into this post. I converted it from CAD into a windows meta file. and all is visible in Word, but not here. Perhaps you can see it in the attachment. 69 351w Mustang and Maxjax.doc

Mine is currently stock, but I intend to use the Edelbrock top end kit- heads, intake manifold and cam. It will give you 400HP, and 412 ft lbs from an otherwise stock 351w with 9.5:1 compression

I see what you mean about the headers, they fit around the AOD with plenty to spare. Very nicely done- your Stang looks like it was born with that tranny.

OK, looking forward to more posts

Concerning the use of the stock shifter with the Lentech Street Terminator 4R70W "The pattern is P, R, N, OD/D,2,1. So O/D and D share a position and an electric switch is used to cancel o/d when desired. A separate install/wiring kit has a fitting to get through the case to access the solenoid for the OD delete function. It does shift fully auto up and down through all 4 gears in OD position. You can hold 1st and 2nd manually as desired". So the reasons against the AODE or 4R70W further up in this post: 4) Still have funky manual gear selection. B&M has a "Hammer" shifter but it is unknown to me at this time if it will fit into a 69 Mach console or what clearance is below. Anybody tried this? All of this is addressed with the Lentech mentioned immediately above. 5) Fatter tranny so must use shortie headers. Anybody know what headers will work with a 351w and 4R70W in a 69? MikeStang says FPA Ford Powertrain Applications has long tube headers that fit a 351w with a slight tweak of a prybar "it didn't take much but I got it done and they fit fine now. The clearance issue was on the passenger side btw... I actually had to remove the nut on the idler arm and grind the washer down that's on there because it was actually bigger than the damn idler arm casting body haha". The driver side fit fine but required a power steering drop bracket that lowers the end of the PS ram a little to clear the collector area- this available from FPA apparently. I think this makes the 4R70W the clear winner of the four: GearVendors OD, AOD, AODE or 4R70W

Since the angle of the transmission has to be the result of the engine mounts and your aftermarket transmission support, and I would likely have the same problem, do you remember whose you used?

Mike I'm a little confused about whose headers you used- in my post you said FRP (probably FRPP Ford Racing Performance Products) and here you say FPA (Ford Powertrain Applications). Did you resolve your fit issue above? I'm sure I'll have the same problem. Does this have anything to do with the special power steering bracket you told me about? Thanks

From MikeStang in your post above (#2) it sounds like you didn't have any trouble fitting your FRP's around the transmission, but in another post about your driveshaft alignment issues you wrote the following and I wondered if the idler arm issue was resolved with the use of the PS bracket? Or is this not related? Oh on a side note my FPA headers had 1 tube hitting the Idler arm on the frame and I called them about it and when I told them I had an aftermarket trans and xmember in the car his first answer was for me to loosten the transmission and shift it over some to get the clearance I needed because he said those aftermarket X-Members are never right... I was like WTF I need like 1/64" MAYBE 1/32nd and your telling me to move my transmission alignment ?? REALLY?? He said they have a jig for their headers and build a lot of them and that he doubted it was off. They had plenty of room to rotate the tube down and still have same ground clearance but im sure there is a reason the build them like they do. Also my car feels more sluggish now that I have the Stepped primary long tubes as opposed to my home built / modified 1-7/8" shorties that leaked.... its sounds different, and runs different.... Not to pleased with the results of long tubes :(

Thanks that's very helpful. 1. I'll look into the Bauman controller- there are 4 or 5 out there so its good to know which are well received. I'll definitely go with their harness. 2 I didn't know any long tube headers would fit around a 4R70W- that helps keep the air pumping. Good tip about the PS bracket. 3. I read that some guys buy aluminum or even carbon fiber driveshafts- that must be expensive. 4. I too was concerned that the Hammer shifter would look out of place in a Mach console. I contacted Monster Transmissions who sent this email: "You don't really need to change the shifter, the transmission will still go through all gears you just wont be able to hold it in 1st you'll be in 2nd. Or you can get to Shift works and they have kits for this." This makes it sound like in the standard shift pattern PRND21: 2=3 and 1=2?? I have sent an email to Shift Works but not received a reply.

I've been trolling the web and found the following, most of which was posted by Rory on 1/18/08: Reasons for an AOD- 1) Cleaner install (not visible to the casual observer - stock drive shaft, no switches). Reasons against an AOD- 1) Heavier, less efficient than C4, C6, FMX (more parasitic loss) 2) Requires mods for big blocks or high power applications 3) Funky manual gear selection Reasons for a GearVendors- 1) Works with any transmission or engine 2) double the number of gears 3) very strong Reasons against GearVendors- 1) Heavier than C4, C6, FMX, AOD, AODE, 4R70W (when added to existing transmission) 2) Parasitic loss due to rotating mass 3) Visible mods - short driveshaft, switches, unit itself 4) No way/difficult to have a parking brake 5) Must change oil in OD every 5k miles 6) GV is long, adds extra complexity, and shortens the drive shaft causing alignment issues leading to harmonic vibrations. At least one Stang owner had to use a carbon fiber drive shaft to eliminate about 95% of the vibration. 7) GV is costly plus you probably want to rebuild your existing tranny before adding the OD. Reasons for an AODE or 4R70W- 1) Many design improvements over the AOD (e.g. stronger) 2) Flexibility in shift programming 3) Programmable lockup for greater efficiency 4) Clean install (few visible mods) Reasons against AODE or 4R70W- 1) Requires computer module 2) Heavier than C4/C6 3) Not for big blocks (adapter available?). 4) Still have funky manual gear selection. B&M has a "Hammer" shifter but it is unknown to me at this time if it will fit into a 69 Mach console or what clearance is below. Anybody tried this? 5) Fatter tranny so must use shortie headers. Anybody know what headers will work with a 351w and 4R70W in a 69? In other words, there is no clear winner; all have their advantages/disadvantages...but I am leaning toward a 4R70W at this time.