Not another Mustang restoration thread.

TRBenj wrote: Pete's out to lunch on that one, the PCM's are pretty bulletproof as evidenced by Joe! I would definitely keep the core velvet... Pumps and other hard parts do wear out and can be costly.

Tim,
I feel you're out to lunch! As evidenced by Eric, I trust what he ALWAYS had to say.

I think you have selective memory, Pete. :)

If I remember correctly, Eric's 2 gripes with the PCM boxes were the fact that they didn't handle water intrusion well (duh) and the cost of hard parts made them expensive to rebuild. I think he would wholeheartedly disagree with your "not as beefy" assessment.

The fact that the oldest 1.23 trannies are now 25+ years old, and are STILL touted as an upgrade over the 1:1 should tell you something. They make a pretty nice transmission.

Oh and the fact that they came behind the 435hp 502ci Python engines should speak to their robustness as well. I wish I had such good luck with my 72c. ;)

But if he used his boats, he wouldn't get 20+ years out of an impeller or set of points.

Who's Eric?

Riley wrote: Who's Eric?

Eric Lavine - previous owner of fantastic finish marine.   

Starting in on the project in 2 weeks. I'm thinking it may be better to remove al the dis-bonded fiberglass, CPES the stringers, make a nice fillet joint, and lay up new glass. Any thoughts?Stringer dis-bonding

John,
I totally agree with Tim. I know it's been discussed to try and re bond the existing but that would be difficult to get the complete surfaces bonded especially down at the bottom. Plus, I agree with CPES route. If you can get the wood out, it would also be great to get the CPES on all surfaces. Get the cheap diamond wheel in the RA grinder and go at what glass is still there.

John check on these 5 pages,there are bulb holders a couple of pages in. Might be worth a call if you don't see the ones you need. led bulbs and sockets

I think he just wants new sockets Pete. That site looks to have everything he might need
Bulb and socket and just bulbs,so many in fact it looks like over kill!

Same place has the replacements for 57's

I'd want to know how HM was getting that 10.5:1 before swapping out heads... Small chamber heads or piston choice? I'd want to keep the CR above 10 with the p's.

20-40hp should certainly be noticeable. That should be realistic if the original heads are nothing special and you can keep the CR up.

I think I have the answer to the 10.5 : 1 C/R on my 69 & 70 HMs. I located information on a 302 4V head that was available in 1968 J=code Mustangs and Shelby GT350s. It was similar to mine, but had 58cc chambers with 10 : 1 C/R and 230HP in the J-code 302. The 4 speed J-code cars heads had smog ports but the automatics did not. A Ford engine rebuilding site said this: "The elusive 1968 302-4V head is unique for its smaller 53.5-cc chambers, which increase compression". There is a variation on these heads I found reference to on some Mustang threads. These heads have a casting number of C9OE which indicates it is a 351 head, but it clearly has 302 cast into them. All of these heads I can find mentioned have a casting date of February or March of 1969 and were cast at the Cleveland Foundry. My head shows a casting date of March 14, 1969 (9C14). According to my research and that of others who posted on the threads, these heads are not mentioned in any Ford or engine rebuilding specifications. Some call these heads a 1969 non- L4 change head. These heads reportedly have a 53.5 cc chamber, no step on the rocker studs, no lash caps, and one piece spring retainers. According to what I have found these heads are very hard to come by. According to some they can be machined to accept 1.94/1.50 valves, but some suggest that this may reduce the charge velocity and thereby reduce the low end torque while possibly increasing the upper end a bit. In light of this I am questioning whether there really is a benefit to the GT40P heads since they have a larger chamber creating lower C/R These 302 heads appear to have been specially made for applications not related to Ford retail products. I suspect they were cast for Shelby and Holman Moody like some of the other parts and that is why there is no information available on them. I will keep the original heads and spend the $$$ to have them checked and reworked if necessary.

:

DVskier wrote: A Fram filter? Are you trying to cause Pete to have a heart attack?

it's ok, it's pre 2003 so it's practically original.

Thanks Tim. It's definitely going to be necessary to measure the chambers. It is possible it has 0.104 gaskets instead of 0.040 because the heads were milled when the top end overhaul was done sometime in the past. By my calculations the difference in gaskets would be about 12cc and result in about 1-1/2 points unless they were milled an equal amount and assuming an equal crush. It is now clear that I don't know what I have. I am happy to have the extra set of heads just in case.

Lookin good,great to see you making progress John. Really lucky with the weather, I guess it's making up for the crummy spring we had.

You can probably fill it with epoxy and fiber, (I forget the name, but it is drillable), and be good to go, but undoubtably some will say you need to do a complete stringer job now. I would opt for the repair if the damage is confined to the area of that hole and rot is not extensive.