BuckeyeDemon

with 200 lb leafs without shocks, I can really bounce mine up and down (caltrac bars and del alum rear shackles). I have alston double adjustable shocks and with them set full loose it can still bounce a lot.

you're right. that photo is not enough for me to come to any conclusion.

refer to your statement that I put in bold. how can you say this is the case for Brian Conway's seats when he didn't supply a photo with the right angle? what am I missing? Normally I would expect a simple one sentence response.

i'm not adding words to your posts. you wrote as quoted above. we are talking about mach 1 seats. it's simple. keep avoiding the question by talking about everything besides my question.

clearly i'm missing your point. somehow you can see the issues with an area of a seat not even shown in a photo. you state that all mach I interior from TMI has had the same problem, yet I show one example that looks perfectly fine to me in terms of that listing. it also makes no sense to me why you are trying to talk about distinctive and foam in response to me. name dropping doesn't impress me. sorry.

here is my mach 1 seats with covers from TMI. compared to this 52 mile mach 1. http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/mump-1002-1969-ford-mustang-mach-1/photo-gallery/#15 the front listing sure looks like it's there on mine like the original. I still don't believe how you can make the accusation based on the supplied photos.

consider removing the shocks from the lower mounts and bouncing the car up and down in the back. you might find the springs may not be protecting your car from the tire rub by very much at all, even with the higher rate.

i'm not sure how you can make this assessment from the photos provided (not quite the right angle)?

I see. what's the OD measure and how does that compare to the carb mounting surface?

if the bases are truly the same except one has a little longer lip, then I would think you could trim it down to the length of the other and be fine. it seems to me, if you trim it down and parts of the carb start interfering, then you would clearance those locations and probably have to refiberglass those locations.

that looks like great info for people. to me, it looks like the best thing for people to do, is order the one with the longer lip, which allows the owner to trim as required

consider recessing the tips a little bit. the factory didn't have them out too far as illustrated by this 52 mile mach 1. http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/mump-1002-1969-ford-mustang-mach-1/photo-gallery/#10

I generally trailer if it's around 1.5 hours or longer, so i'm not the one to get any real advice about long trips in a car like this. I would have zero issue with a v8 revving 2300 rpm for extended periods. 4.11's with a .65 overdrive would be the same as a car without overdrive that had a 2.67 rear gear. if someone were to go on a forum and talk about their 2.67 rear end gear and if it was too high on the highway they would probably be laughed at.

low to mid 2's

I have a tire that's ~26.5" tall, 0.64 overdrive with 4.11's. on the highway at 65-80 it's really nice. doing 45-55 it wants to lug a bit in OD. I wouldn't want any less but would even consider something like a 4.30.

same here...

did they recently stop making the 215/65 15 T/A in a RWL? I was able to get that size in RWL for mine a few years ago.

PM email to me.

i don't know much about brakes, but that appears to be less area than what's in the stock type piston KH setup I have on my mustang. are those dimensions for the rear or for a 6 piston front where there are two piston at 1.75 and one at 1.375?

I have collected a number of pictures for 69/70 mustangs with the magnum/BFG tire combo that shows a lot of examples of different sizes if interested.

I don't think the measurements on the boss 302 site would include the midplate/spacer. I would say your base measures around 4.5". That's just my interpretation. the important dimensions for people would probably be in reference to the carb mounting surface. good luck getting that info though...

thanks. i'm not seeing any info of value. It's so annoying when they don't give you any real specs for what you want to buy so you can compare to other manufacturers. sorry that I have nothing to add...

does baer provide the specs of the components anywhere (e.g. rotor thickness, caliper piston area, brake pad area/volume, etc)?

http://www.boss302.com/shaker.htm

it's looking really nice. I like the color. looking forward to seeing it around!