Not another Mustang restoration thread.

Minor thread jack-
I would like to understand more on the longer nose starter. The starter in my '71 has been replaced but is hit or miss sometimes. When it does not engage a love tap with a hammer or screwdriver handle it will engage and turn the engine. It should go as no surprise as Rico, Scott Monahan and I were floating and out of beer with a starter that would not engage it was TRB that had the magic touch to get the starter to engage.
I suspect the PO replaced the starter with one from the autoparts store.

Gary S wrote: Does not matter anyway,if I recall this is the extra engine that you have from the SS right? You know this engine is correct rotation because you have already had it running. Not much of a chance the other engine having the wrong starter on it anyway because a Holman Moody used a special nose starter. Any other starter, lefty or righty will not fit because of it's length. Art told me one can be made up by using a nose and bendix from one and a motor from another but not many people know that. I think it came up when Dave H needed one. This is the time when getting yours repaired can save a lot of headaches

TRBenj wrote: Greg, I think you need a starter rebuild. I'm guessing you have the correct (probably original) starter. If it were the wrong length, it wouldn't engage properly, ever.

Greg,
I agree with Tim. Since you're tapping on it with a hammer, it needs brushes and a communtator clean up.

Not that I don't believe you Gary, but if that were the case, it seems HM would have had to go through a lot of effort to design a bell housing that didn't use a standard starter. It would seem a lot more plausible if the starter were a performance enhancing device.

Now if someone told me that the convention was common in the mid 60's and now defunct, making marine (especially RH) starters of that style NLA or something to that effect, I'd believe it. But to design it that way from the get go? Call me skeptical.

Tim, as you know, the H/M bell housing is their own design. It is aluminum and different from Ford bell housings with the rear engine mounts cast in to allow the BW tranz to be removed without loosening the motor mounts and supporting the rear of the engine.
My question is how do you experienced fellas attack water jacket corrosion? Thermal cleaning works great if you want to bore the engine, but I do not. Redi-Strip can dip it, a process that will remove all of the internal corrosion and not damage any metal allowing it to be reassembled with just a light hone. To do the block, manifold, and heads runs around $500,and takes 3-4 weeks because they are a busy shop. They did all the mechanical components of my M38 Jeep and they looked like new. Maybe that's overkill since I'll be circulating water with some tannic acid through it from the first day. Does anyone think an acceptable job can be done by removing the freeze plugs and using scraping tools, brushes, and whatever I can get into the holes to scrape and vacuum. Is that the recommended procedure? I'm sure this is a common problem.
Gary, as far as I can tell this boat has been used primarily on Paw Paw lake in Michigan and Cedar Lake in WI. It was stored unused since about 2001-2003.

Regarding the starter issue, I'll have to contact The Godfather and find out where he got the new starter on the 72. Tim called me wanting a part # but couldn't find one easily without removing the starter. For the sake of future reference and help to others here I might have to yank it off and have a looksie......

On the manifolds......would using a diluted Muratic solution (or aluminum pontoon cleaner) work in this case for eating the corrosion? We use it here at work for the same reason but not for heavy corrosion removal. No proof that it will but something to think about.

Gary S wrote: ,mine has always ran clear when drained but this year it only run on Quinner's lake. Mud came out when I drained it this time,who knows where it had been

Gary,
Are you sure that was mud? When I was over at CQ's, one of the questions I asked him was were his septic and field was!!

In terms of that crud/corrosion. Muratic acid isn't so feasible with the block and would require the heads be completely torn down. I wouldn't tear down either the head or blocks just because of what you show there. I would get out my wire and pipe cleaner, pop out the core plugs and push the wire where ever I could get it while shop vaccuming the core plugs. Followed by a good stream of compressed air and more vaccuming, then I would sleep real good at night. Although in the future you might lean towards leaving that engine filled with antifreeze in the winter over the drain it and forget it method.

I know a few things about Ford starters, usually learned the hard way over the years.

The short nose starter on the HM's you guys are talking about can still be bought in a RR starter. The ARCO part number is 70107. You can find them new, for sale on the internet. At least I did a few minutes ago. It's a CCW rotating starter which is the right way for a RR marine Ford with this style starter (entering from the front.)

Also Like Tim B. said nobody designed a special starter for this application. If you put a short nose starter (2 inch nose piece) right next to the long nose one (2 3/8 inch nose piece) you'll see that they are the exact same length overall and you can swap the noses from one to another to make whatever version you want. A word of caution, the starters must look the same other than the nosepiece, there were changes in Ford starters and you can't mix and match different styles

You can take your more common long nose starter,pull the nose off, replace it with your old short one and have your RR marine short nose starter that way. I did it with automotive ones maybe 25 or 30 years ago and don't remember having any issues. This was on a 67 Bronco that needed a short nosed one and I had a extra but it had the long nose

An old guy with an auto electric shop showed me how to do it It was pretty easy

The short nose starter in automotive applications was for a standard trans with a 164 tooth flywheel and the long one fit the 157 tooth flywheel and also auto trans flexplates.

There is a difference in ring gear mounting location between 157 (at the rear of the flywheel) and 164 tooth (at the front of the flywheel) dictating the need for starters with different nose lengths. Automatics had the ring gear at the rear of the flexplate like the 157 tooth ring gear on the manual flywheels. Also needed different bellhousings for the different tooth counts.

Might be a little tough to understand unless you've "been there, done that"

Ford had some real confusing flywheel/ring gear and starter variations over the years.

I know nothing about HM bellhousings, flywheels etc but I'd tend to think they had a 164 tooth flywheel on engines that used the short nosed starter. Maybe somebody here could count their HM ring gear teeth to verify or dispel this.

Thanks again Ken. That made my day. I think it may be a good idea to get a new one just because 45 years may be pushing it. Do you have any knowledge of the rocker numbers I can't figure out?

When they only get used 3 times per year they can last a long time...

Hollywood wrote: When they only get used 3 times per year they can last a long time...

Really? How about day to day vehicles that are probably started over 600 times per year and last for years and years.

Hollywood wrote: Your day to day lesbianmobile is 60 years old?

Holy sh!t I just spit my drink all over my desk.

Hysterical.

JPASS wrote: [QUOTE=Hollywood] Your day to day lesbianmobile is 60 years old?

Holy sh!t I just spit my drink all over my desk.

Hysterical.

Yea, funniest thing I've seen lately.

John,
The electrolysis method of removing rust has come up and I believe it was for exhaust manifolds. I commented it being a "line of site" process so if internal surfaces need de rusting, the electrodes must be placed inside the cavity and preferably the shape of the cavity. It's the same principle of electroplating only in reverse.