'71 Mustang Followed Me Home

I used the same wires on both heads John. When I get home I'll look in the parts book and see what if anything it shows.

TRBenj wrote: Gary,, the HM's dropped to a plebeian 8.5:1 around the same time the circ pump was added in late 72 or '73 per Reid... Probably what he meant on this being slightly more desirable (though joe could very well be right about the heads).

Just as a follow up to this and Gary's post about declining comp ratios similar to the auto industry, there was definitely somewhat of a parallel, but HM was an anomaly in the marine industry for just a 1/2 dozen years there at there onset. They were the only marine engine company at the time using the auto maker's higher compression. i.e., premium fuel long blocks, mainly in the 4bbl versions. (For those of old enough to remember or to have gone back and read up, most all 4bbl auto engines up thru at least 1970, Ford 1971, were premium fuel engines, with 9.5 to 11.+ compression from the factories.) For obvious reasons almost all marine engine companies typically used the lower compression, lower HP versions of the auto long blocks. I guess maybe as a result of their racing heritage HM decided to market those higher compression/higher HP engine to their customers.

Some history:
HM 289-4V 225HP (10.0:1 cr)
Interceptor 289-4V 210HP (cr somewhere around 8.5-9:1)

1968?-70 HM 302-4V Original 235HP engine (10.5 cr listed on eng tag) no circ pump
Interceptor 302-4V 210 HP (same typ lower cr)

1971-72 HM 302-4V 235HP (9.5 cr on eng tag). This coincided with advent of this 351 head/cam "marine pkg" from Ford
            to marine eng builders for the 302 which resulted in the new and sometimes confusing 351 firing order for 302-
            4V engines.
1971-On 302-4V engines from everyone else (Crusader, Waukesha, Commander, PCM, Palmer) were rated at anywhere
             from 215 to 225 HP, and most all from what I've read had the typical 8.5 +/- cr.
Only thing I've never figured out here is how HM came up with the higher 9.5 cr than everyone else and if really did still have 235 HP.   Previously I'd just rationalized that they dropped the 10.5 comp b/c of the slightly bigger cc 351 head chamber but made up the HP thru better head flow and cam, but unless they, HM, put 351 heads on std flat top 302 4V shortblocks, then they'd have the same compression as everyone else, and thus very similar HP. I've yet to open an orig 71-72 HM 302 to see if it had different pistons from any others. Almost did this past year but Moody Blue's compression tests just looked too good, and she only needed that rear seal after 43 yrs of service.

So then, while 1973-on 302s have a ID tag labeling them as a "model" 235, the specs list them as only 215HP and only having 8.5 compression, and which is no longer shown on the engine tag. From that point on they were obviously the same core engines used by all the other makers. '73 also marked the beginning of HM using the standard circ water pump.

Much smaller area of curiosity were the HM 351-4V's that were referred to as the model 290. Similarly to the 302s, the 1969-1972 thereabouts 351-4V engines had 10.7:1 compression and 290HP identical to the 1969 auto engines. I'd like one of them:-). After that point the compression fell in line with everyone else's as did the mundane 250HP.

Tune in tomorrow as we'll discuss the Palmer-Crusader 302 connection. jk:-) but sorry I've been lagging so much lately.

Messed around with the boat some this weekend. Installed new impeller, oil change, plugs / wires and cleaned out the leaves, pulled out the seats and Astro turf to find some incredibly brittle vinyl underneath.

Hope to install a temp fuel line and see if I can get this jewel to fire up next week.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]


[/IMG]
From the back of the seats - guess they are the originals
[/IMG]

Pete,
Going to wait and she what happens next week when it's time to see if it runs but I am thinking it will be a fun boat to have at the dock

If it stays with me the plan would be to keep it "as it was" as much as possible. So far the only thing I have noticed that may need to be added would be thee rope guard on the stern as the lifting eye looks like it could be caught by a ski rope (may be how the lifting eye was bent - but I wouldn't think so).

Tim,
Yes to the pylon, when the PO stepped and went through the floor the took it out. Currently it resides in my basement. No visible signs of the rope guard on the deck but I will look closer later this week. Perhaps under the dirt and grime there is some lingering evidence of what may have been. The boat will be introduced to some soap and water this week as well

Tim
It is a 2-1/2" pylon. If you look at the pic above the seat back pic above you can see the female receiver in the bilge. Perhaps the soap and water need to make it to the bilge as well before all the fun begins

I hope this is a help.This is from my 70 Mustang. The 69SS had a huge concoction made from deck rail and fittings that are available today, but it was fugly imo.Maybe someone will recognize the stock this is made from. The bends on the bottom are at about an 85* angle probably to give it a little more resistance to bending at the deck.

Can't say I've ever seen a boat with a solid back half round clearance bar. Many '71+ boats have tubular clearance bars, that's what I have on my Skier. I'd probably stick with what John posted though.

Not sure what you mean by "standard rail and fittings", Pete... That's not what I was referring to.

That flimsy hollow back half oval thing shaved my toe on JDD's mustang.

john b wrote: This was on the 69SS. Standard deck fittings. Very effective, but I don't like it.

Yeah that's a stock clearance bar from about 74-77' Had one on my Tique and nautique from that time period. Yes, they were big, ugly and hard to jump over...

TRBenj wrote: Not sure what you mean by "standard rail and fittings", Pete... That's not what I was referring to.

I was referring to the system CC used just like John posted. Same as Dave mentioned as well as what's on my Tique.

BTW, the "standard rail" is tubing.

Were the vents moved to the center in about 69 to allow for a smaller clearance bar? It would be a bad day if someone tried to use my flimsy style for boarding, or even a hand hold at the dock.

TRBenj wrote: Not sure what you mean by "standard rail and fittings", Pete... That's not what I was referring to.

No picture here, Pete? Shows up fine on my end, but I posted it! We are talking about different clearance bar styles.

John, no changes to the clearance bars for '69. The moving of the scoops from the outer corners to the middle sure made that clearance bar more useful though... Those corner scoops were rope catchers!

It's flattened at the ends and screwed down directly, just like the half oval. Probably a little trickier to make at home because of that, which is why I suggested sticking with the half oval anyways... Though Hw may argue that the bar stock is safer!

I'll try to remember to snap a good pic over the holiday break. This one is a little better: