Forums
NautiqueParts.comNautiqueSkins.com - Correct Craft Upholstery and Part
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Not another Mustang restoration thread.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Not another Mustang restoration thread.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page    <1234 54>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-16-2011 at 3:44pm
Hey, Vondy,
You probably saw my reply to one of your posts informing you that I have a spare fiberglass dog house from the 69 Mustang SS. I know you are a long ways away from Chicago, but unless I work out the logistics with Tim for the hull it will be unspoken for.
ALSO;
Here is my suggestion for the website. How about an "empty hitch" section where you can post either your need for transportation for your boat or boat parts, or post your travel to an area with an MT hitch or space to transport parts. The two parties could work out payment between them,, whether for gas, money, or cucumbers. Whatever works for them. It could make some of those "too expensive to ship" parts and boats affordable and pay some of the expenses of the driving party. You all know what I mean.
Just a thought.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
68 Skylark View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: October-20-2005
Location: Lapeer, Mi
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 68 Skylark Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-16-2011 at 7:56pm
John B

You mentioned you had the air horn from your '69 Mustang. You would consider selling it? Our Skylark is missing the horn and the previous owner filled the hole but it is still visible. I have always considered replacing the horn.
Please let me know if you would be interested in selling it.

Thank you,

Keith
Back to Top
Gary S View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: November-30-2006
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 14096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gary S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-16-2011 at 9:29pm
Keith I think your looking for one like this
The only difference between this one and my original are stainless steel trumpets and a slightly different shaped base. I bought this one,way better than trying to repair and rechroming mine.
69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport
Back to Top
Gary S View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: November-30-2006
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 14096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gary S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-16-2011 at 9:47pm
I think John the key to the seats is the "foot" you saw on mine.I asked Tim if he thought CC put it on and he agreed,he has seen them before.This would take almost all the stress out of the seat back and bottom. I am planning on making one for my other seat.

69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport
Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-16-2011 at 10:25pm
I was impressed with how your brace performed when you sat in the seat. Original or not it is a good idea and one I intend to incorporate into my new seats. Judging by the absence of the original seats in the Mustangs I have seen both in person and in the diaries they need something to prevent them from breaking.
I have to tell you and Vondy, I frequently dream of your Mustangs. I really like my new one, and with every part I remove and examine I find it to be in better condition than I had thought when I bought it. It will look very nice when it is done and I know I will love it and be very proud of it. That said, I still prefer the Mustangs with taffy ivory decks and color on the hulls, regardless of whether it is blue, red, or olive.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
vondy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: November-29-2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vondy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-16-2011 at 11:33pm
Thanks John. The stang is far from perfect, pics always look better . I'm hoping she will really shine once I get around to wetsanding.

As for the engine box. Does yours have the humps for the HM risers? Or was it one of the larger fiberglass ones that accommodated them? I can't remember.

Actually I have been offered one, I won't say by who to protect the identity of the individual , I just have to go pick it up. Wife is on bed rest now until the "birthing" so we won't be traveling anytime soon.

I still need to get my photos worked out for my restoration post. I can send all of them to you if you want.
Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-17-2011 at 4:33pm
[QUOTE=TRBenj] There were a few different flavors of 289/302's... the 2bbl Interceptors were rated at 165hp and 190hp, and presumably used something on the range of a 300cfm carb. The 4bbl Interceptors were rated at 210hp and seem to work well with the 450cfm 4bbls that came on the later 302's (Waukesha/PCM, Conq/Crus/Palmer, etc) that were rated at 220hp. The H-M's were a bit warmer (at least originally), so the 210hp 2bbl's had 500cfm carbs. I always assumed that the 235hp 4bbl's still used something on the range of 450cfm... but I could be wrong. ReidP probably knows off the top of his head.

I have done quite a bit of research on the C8AF-AE Autolite carburetor that was on my 70 H/M 235HP 4V engine. I found that it is pretty rare and unique carb that was not available on Ford cars sold to the public after 1966. It was however sold to Carol Shelby for use on the 68 Shelby GT500s for approximately the first two weeks of production. After that Shelby GT500s were built with the more common Holley carbs. The carb was also used on late 60s Police Interceptor 428 Ford engines. It is rated at 600cfm. A core goes for about $500.00 since it is necessary for a correct restoration of an early Shelby Mustang GT500, many of which were changed to the more common Holley early in their lives. After speaking to the two Mustang POs I am convinced it came on the boat from H/M for several reasons. The two previous owners both said that it had never been changed and no engine work other than tune ups and replacing the H/M maniflods had been done, and it was not available except as a fleet purchase for the Police Interceptor 428, or to an OEM contractor. Since H/M was the official race contractor to Ford they were authorized to purchase anything in Ford inventory. If you check the Ford intake manifold casting number it indicates that it is a 1969 manufacture for an industrial application. That is how the block # of the H/M engines are reportedly marked as well. Since Ford did not use these manifolds on a car line ie Galaxie, Fairlane, Mustang, ect. they marked them for industrial application. I do not know of any industrial application that utilizes a 4V carburetor so the manifold was most likely made only for H/M and a few of the Shelby Mustangs that used iron instead of aluminum intake manifolds.
In light of this information I feel that the 600CFM is not only appropriate for this engine, but is the the size it was originally equipped with.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-17-2011 at 9:30pm
I got the title for my "new" Mustang in the mail today. Wisconsin has changed it to a 69 on the title. Maybe the clerk doesn't like 1970.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
8122pbrainard View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: September-14-2006
Location: Three Lakes Wi.
Status: Offline
Points: 41040
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 8122pbrainard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-17-2011 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by john b john b wrote:

I got the title for my "new" Mustang in the mail today. Wisconsin has changed it to a 69 on the title. Maybe the clerk doesn't like 1970.

I certainly would not worry about it! All my boats are registered in Ws. and like all states, villages and towns, all they are interested these days is getting the revenue! I have one Alumicraft I inherited that never made it through the proper channels after the death of my mother/father. I still just "forge" his name and send it in!!    They do not care!


54 Atom


77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<
Back to Top
vondy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: November-29-2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vondy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-17-2011 at 11:03pm
John, I was going to reply to your email but your profile shows it as private.
Back to Top
Gary S View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: November-30-2006
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 14096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gary S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-17-2011 at 11:46pm
[QUOTE=vondy]
As for the engine box. Does yours have the humps for the HM risers? Or was it one of the larger fiberglass ones that accommodated them? I can't remember.
QUOTE]

Here we go again David The motorbox that was in John's 69 SS is this one here.His boat is 27 newer than mine which is like yours with the wood box,it does not have the humps.It looks like Tim's 71 Skier motorbox,why were there so many different boxxes???

69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport
Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-18-2011 at 1:20am
The box on my 70 Mustang, M 2799, which, according to Wisconsin DNR, has now magically become a 69, is identical in style to the 69 SS in shape as far as I can tell. There are differences though. The engine box on the actual 69, MSS 2595 has one vent in the the rear of the box. The 70 box has two vents, one on each side. In both cases the vents are the same ones used in the bow scoop. The 70 box is the same color as the boat, whereas the 69 box is a light grayish blue, presumably to compliment the blue hull.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-18-2011 at 1:24am
Originally posted by vondy vondy wrote:

John, I was going to reply to your email but your profile shows it as private.


Sorry, I will try to change my settings. Nothing private about
john@bee-man.us to CC fans.
I was confused by the verbage

Show my Email Address
Hide your email address if you want it to be kept private from other users.

I picked NO to this question. It seems ambiguous.


Hit me anytime!
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
vondy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: November-29-2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vondy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 12:21am
OK, so they had the square fiberglass, the "humped" fiberglass and the wooden upholstered ones for the HM's. I think I like the humped ones best.

Back to Top
Gary S View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: November-30-2006
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 14096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gary S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 12:28am
I agree
69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport
Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 12:31am
Without a doubt, the humped box is the bomb!
It appears that Mustang has no chocks on the deck either.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
8122pbrainard View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: September-14-2006
Location: Three Lakes Wi.
Status: Offline
Points: 41040
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 8122pbrainard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 8:57am
The humped dog house is cool! But, just for reference, My 70 Cuda with the H/M had the flat top box.


54 Atom


77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 12:06pm
By '70, CC had switched to the flat top box. I believe that box to be the same shape as the one commonly used in the Ski Nautique (and other models) through 1982. Its possible that some '69's came with the flat top box- but it seems *most* were still using the more curvaceous glass box found on Reid's '69 Baby Blue (pictured above).

That boat came with an Interceptor, btw. I have been told more than once that the humps added to the rear of that box in '68 ('67 and earlier glass boxes were flat on the back) were to accomodate the H-M snails, but when pressed, I could not recall a H-M powered boat that had that type of glass box... the ones I could think of either had wood boxes (like Gary and Vondy) or the flat top glass box, like John's.

I believe the earlier glass box to be narrower- allegedly you can fit a set of pyramid (PCM style) manifolds on a 302 under it, but not by much. Im skeptical that you could fit a 351w under the box, even with the smaller manifolds. The flat top box should be able to fit either.

As far as those additional aluminum supports under the rear of the glass seats go, I have seen them on enough boats to believe that they are original. I do think they were gone by '71 though, as my Skier does not have them. Those seats are still 100% original, and are not broken, by the way. I think some strategic reinforcement, improved materials, and proper care will have the new seats outlasting the originals by a good stretch.
Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 3:38pm
Tim,
I hope you don't mind waiting until after the holidays for me to send you my seat frame and base. I am very frightened of the counter area at UPS this time of year. If you need them sooner I will gather my courage.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-19-2011 at 4:40pm
Ha, no rush John.
Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 3:43am
I am looking to tap the fountain of knowledge here. I am having such a good time with this Mustang, and everyone knows how one thing turns into another.
I am considering removing the old foam and either replacing it with new, modern US Composite foam, or possibly leaving it as a foam free boat. I know Gary has experience in doing this and I am sure others may have input as well.
My question is what issues will I encounter by placing a foam free plywood floor in the boat, effectively raising the floor elevation by 1/2 inch? Are there fitment issues I am not anticipating? I would appreciate any input. The foam appears dry each place I have sampled it, however it is much more porous than the US Composite closed cell 2&4 pound I have worked with before. I am going to try a soak test on a small piece and see how quickly it absorbes water.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 4:31am
I have started my foam experiment to see how well old foam performs as a sponge. While handling the foam I noticed how porous it is and it crumbles very easily. It may have decomposed somewhat over the past 42 years. Imagine that!

The tools I am using for this experiment are, a piece of very dry foam from the bottom of the boat near the port exhaust hose, a digital scale accurate to within 0.1 grams, a plastic mesh bag formerly containing delicious Cuties (the citrus fruit, not something hanging around you youngsters and your Nautiques), some old washers for ballast, a plastic bucket, and about 4 gallons of tap water.

I first weighed the piece of foam dry as it came out of the boat, the weight was 3.6 grams.

I then immersed it in water for a period of 60 seconds and again weighed it to determine the weight with the surface wet, the weight was 11.2 grams.

I placed the foam inside the mesh bag and sealed it with a piece of wire wrapped around several washers and at 0000 hours 12-20-11 I placed the foam in the bucket. It was fully immersed about 5" below the surface.

I intend to remove the chunk of foam periodically and weigh it to see how much water it absorbs over time. Some time in the near future I will cast a piece of US Composite 2# foam and subject it to the same conditions, then compare the results. I have seen it done and over a period of between 6 months and 1 year it gained very little weight.

I'll update this from time to time.

1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
SNobsessed View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: October-21-2007
Location: IA
Status: Offline
Points: 7102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SNobsessed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 10:56am
John - Roger from UK ran a similar experiment last year. It will be interesting to compared your results to his. (I'll try to dig up his results after work, can't surf during working hrs)
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Ben Franklin
Back to Top
vondy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: November-29-2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vondy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 11:16am
I did no foam and 3/4ish plywood. I'm sure it raised the floor slightly but not enough that I noticed. You'll cut notches in the floor for your engine mounts to mount directly to the stringers so the floor won't be an issue there. Actually I had to add some blocks to raise mine.

[/url]
Ended up getting some larger wedges too.

I also added some ribs for support without the foam.
Back to Top
Riley View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: January-19-2004
Location: Portland, ME
Status: Offline
Points: 7946
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Riley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 11:44am
Vondy, nice work! Where did you get those metal wedges?

John, the only possible problem I see is the fitment of the console if you're making it an SS. On the Barracudas there is room to install a thicker floor. Not sure about the Mustangs.

I don't think there's any doubt that old foam will hold water. We pulled about 400 #s of it out of our Mustang and didn't put any back in.
Back to Top
Jllogan View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: May-18-2011
Location: canton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 1728
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jllogan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 12:09pm
couldnt you just plain everything down a half inch? Then the floor would be the same? I am doing new stringers so I have made mine to accomodate the wood, I added a little more rake towards the bilge as well. This is on a newer boat though, so the design is different. I also added floor supports with a channel and a drain. I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive and a faster job. I would be much further along if I had done foam. I just could put foam back in my boat after what I pulled out. I was on the fence until then.
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 12:16pm
I bet the SS console wouldnt be an issue to fit. By the looks of it, it sits behind the dash anyways. Worse case, it needs a little trimming.



Back to Top
john b View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: July-06-2011
Location: lake Sweeny
Status: Offline
Points: 3236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john b Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 12:54pm
Mine isn't an SS so the console wouldn't be a problem.
I suspect that so many of these boats are waterlogged because either the foam is inferior to what is available today, or the foam has broken down over the ages, or a combination of both. If this foam absorbs water quickly, as I suspect it will, I will be tempted to replace it with new foam. If I go with a plywood floor I will cut it using the fiberglass pan as a template so it is minimally noticeable.
Vondy, you may need a block under your engine mounts because they are upside down as compared to the mounts in my Mustangs.
1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox"
If everyone else is doing it, you're too late!

Back to Top
JoeinNY View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: October-19-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5693
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JoeinNY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 1:01pm
Dropping the stringer height by a half inch could make the stringers less strong.. depending on the strength of the bond between the floor and the stringers, not a huge issue but in the back of the boat the stringers really are not that deep so it hurts to lose a significant portion of the height. After this kept me up at night for weeks and weeks going back and forth between raising the floor and lowering the stringers I ended up splitting the difference, lowering all the stringers .25 inches and raising the floor height .25 inches and have slept soundly ever since.
1983 Ski Nautique 2001
1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy"
Holeshot Video
Back to Top
vondy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: November-29-2007
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vondy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-20-2011 at 2:20pm
Actually I had turned my front mounts over before the stringer job. I needed the front end to move down in order to get the alignment perfect. I don't know if my new stringers were a touch shorter or if my engine was not in the exact same place front to back, but I ended up being too low. I've said it before... putting everything back together was the hardest part of the job.

The mounts came from a buddy of Pete's. Chris Craft guy. These were the shorter ones, I ended up sending them back to them and swapping for the longer ones that went a bit taller. They are much better for aligning than trying to drill holes through wooden wedges in the exact spot.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page    <1234 54>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Copyright 2024 | Bagley Productions, LLC