Print Page | Close Window

Not another Mustang restoration thread.

Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24377
Printed Date: March-28-2024 at 7:23pm


Topic: Not another Mustang restoration thread.
Posted By: john b
Subject: Not another Mustang restoration thread.
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 4:25am
I have started work on my 70 Mustang. I have seen Pete's signature "keep it original" many times on this site and I have named the boat Theseus' paradox in honor of Pete's signature. I believe that qualifies as a paradox in it's self. I hope to have it finished by the time the water turns soft in northern Wisconsin in the spring of 2012. I will attempt to keep a journal of the work I do to it, and I will no doubt be requesting the help of all of you more knowledgeable than me on CC Mustangs. That includes practically everyone on this site who owns or has owned a Mustang.

Gary S has already been very generous with his time. I pulled the boat out to his house in the rain the day after I picked it up and he took a look at it for me. I enjoyed the visit. Gary's Mustang is beautiful, and at this point I don't believe I am shooting for that level. It's not that I don't want to, I just need to develop more skills to reach that point.

This Mustang is what I would call a survivor. It's not perfect, but is a great starting point. I am the fourth owner. I have interviewed two of the POs and it's condition does not appear to have changed since about 1981 or 82 according to what I have been told. It has been in storage since 92 or 93 and was not used since then. There is some oxidation on the gel coat, but it buffs out beautifully. It has an Airguide speedo mounted on the dash, and a really cool stainless steel rear view mirror that I believe was a Correct Craft option. The second owner said that he was told by the original owner that the Holman Moody graphics on the transom were on there when he bought it new. He has no idea if they were factory or dealer applied, but I suspect the dealer put them on.

At this point I have decided that I am going to do as much detail work as possible to the boat, but leave it pretty much as it was when I got it. I considered having the small chips and scratches repaired by a shop, but I have rethought that and I believe I am content to leave them in, along with the Airguide speedo and the mirror. Gary suggested a plexiglass mount for the speedo and I think I will follow his advice and lose the ugly black unevenly cut bracket it is now on. Leaving the boat as is gives it that look like it is right out of 1970. The boat has no chocks front or rear, and no air horn. Although I have the air horn from the 69 Mustang SS I sacrificed, I am going to leave it that way.

As of now I have removed the deck fittings and sent them to the plating shop. I have about six hours into buffing the deck and it is turning out beautifully. I figure about 60 to 100 hours just in buffing and waxing. I considered wet sanding, but I didn't want to lose the "print through" of the woven roving. I think it is beautiful and it reminds me of a Colnago or Giant carbon fiber frame. It's something you don't get with a chop gun. I have removed the fuel tank and drained it and I found that it has been repaired with aluminized epoxy on one seam. I believe I will be forced to take it in to Gas Tank Renu and have it dipped, welded, and epoxy coated inside. I will lose the Tempo graphics and originality that way, but safety is very important to me.

Pete, please answer this for me, how original is original enough? It is not a smart alec question, I really wonder. Is it generally accepted to change things for safety such as putting the Holley marine carburetor on it in place of the Autolite that by all accounts I can find is original, but vents into the bilge in case of an overflow. I believe I can leave a few of the safety challenged items on the shelf and be OK. This boat will not be a trailer queen. I intend to use it and so do my daughters.



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




Replies:
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 8:58am
John,
Keep going ! It's looking great!

Original VS. safety is a great question. Going by the ACBS judging guidelines, a change for safety would not be a point deduction. However, the change needs to be done correctly. Using a distributor as an example, you would not want to install a modern electronic and just say "I did the change for safety since my old distributor wasn't marine rated". This would be a point (or two) deduction.

You would be fine with the carb swap but also, keep in mind that in the early days of the V8 conversions some of the safety features we have now were not used.

BTW, your project would qualify for judging under the ACBS classification if you wanted to.

-------------
/diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow -

54 Atom

/diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<


Posted By: Morfoot
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 11:47am
Looking good John! Keep up the good work and us posted on your progress. Another classic Correct Craft saved!       

-------------
"Morfoot; He can ski. He can wakeboard.He can cook chicken.He can create his own self-named beverage, & can also apparently fly. A man of many talents."72 Mustang "Kermit",88 SN Miss Scarlett, 99 SN "Sherman"


Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 12:20pm
Looking great John. When I looked it over the only thing that concerned me was the carb.If you do change it,I would go with a 450 cfm. I ran the original non marine carb on mine for years,changing it only because I wanted a 4bbl.A side benefit was better starting and running.Your distributor is already a marine one,due to the fact it has the screen over the vent on the side of the main body.Fuel pump is questionable. I have the exact one you do.I bought a replacement marine one, the only difference I can find is the diaphram "rupture" fitting that connects with a clear hose to the carb.When I rebuilt my pump I put in a fitting for the hose.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 12:33pm
John, I'd take really good photos of the tank. Might be something Marty Mabe can have made up someday?


-------------


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 5:58pm
I think the level of keeping it original depends on what you intend to do. If you are going to show her, then do as Pete recommends, he's the expert. But if your never going to show her, I would not sweat the unseen. You will probably save a lot of money and effort, and spend more time using her, if you don't.

For example, why restore and old rusty gas tank that nobody will ever see if you can put in a modern new plastic one? And upgrading to a marine holley is one of the best things I did for my Mustang. Starts on the first hit every time. I also have an electronic conversion in my distributor and don't think it takes away from the originality of the boat.

To me, none of these really matter, parts wear out and you put new parts in. It's not like installing a tower or anything on a 60's mustang. Although I'm not opposed to a bimini top, you northerners just don't understand our 100 + degree days with the water at 99 degrees. Plus you can always remove a bimini in about 5 minutes.

I actually wish I could get the seen parts original. Need some front seats, a steering wheel and would love a fiberglass engine box. I also don't see anything wrong with using period correct parts even if they were not actually used in your boat. For example, my Mustang had the floor pan. Well it was in horrible shape so I went with a plywood floor instead. But I used a vinyl floor covering similar to what would have been used of the time. In fact, at the last wooden boat show I went to, all the guys had the same covering as well.

Again, if your showing the boat, that's different, but if your using it and don't care about showing, I don't see anything wrong with changing some things. My $.02.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 6:10pm
Originally posted by vondy vondy wrote:

Need a steering wheel

Better touch base with Bruce! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-antique-Correct-Craft-boat-steering-wheel-/250946533854?pt=Boat_Parts_Accessories_Gear&vxp=mtr&hash=item3a6d9439de - Steering wheel

Im sure I mentioned that Ill have those late 60's buckets eventually... but Im afraid they may go over like the emblems I just had made up- they cost more to reproduce than people are willing to pay!

-------------


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 6:26pm
Originally posted by TRBenj TRBenj wrote:

Originally posted by vondy vondy wrote:

Need a steering wheel

Better touch base with Bruce! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-antique-Correct-Craft-boat-steering-wheel-/250946533854?pt=Boat_Parts_Accessories_Gear&vxp=mtr&hash=item3a6d9439de - Steering wheel

Im sure I mentioned that Ill have those late 60's buckets eventually... but Im afraid they may go over like the emblems I just had made up- they cost more to reproduce than people are willing to pay!


Thanks for the heads up on the steering wheel! Not sure I'm allowed to spend any money on the boat right now, with the twins arriving in February.

I was looking forward to those seats What exactly is your process for pulling them? You have the molds already made don't you? Is it more involved than pouring in a resin and popping them out? Just curious.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 7:02pm
Vondy, I do have a mold, but they will still require multiple layers of glass (cloth, mat) and not just resin. Probably a fair amount of time to get them into decent shape... and thats one thing I dont have a lot of! What would you consider a fair price on a set of buckets (glass shell only, no upholstery or aluminum frames)... just curious.

Sorry for the threadjack John!

-------------


Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 7:26pm
[QUOTE=TRBenj] What would you consider a fair price on a set of buckets QUOTE]


One million dollars?



-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 8:43pm
[QUOTE=vondy] I think the level of keeping it original depends on what you intend to do. If you are going to show her, then do as Pete recommends, he's the expert. But if your never going to show her, I would not sweat the unseen. You will probably save a lot of money and effort, and spend more time using her, if you don't.

For example, why restore and old rusty gas tank that nobody will ever see if you can put in a modern new plastic one? And upgrading to a marine holley is one of the best things I did for my Mustang. Starts on the first hit every time. I also have an electronic conversion in my distributor and don't think it takes away from the originality of the boat.


I actually wish I could get the seen parts original. Need some front seats, a steering wheel and would love a fiberglass engine box. I also don't see anything wrong with using period correct parts even if they were not actually used in your boat. For example, my Mustang had the floor pan. Well it was in horrible shape so I went with a plywood floor instead. But I used a vinyl floor covering similar to what would have been used of the time. In fact, at the last wooden boat show I went to, all the guys had the same covering as well.


Hmmm, I just happen to have a spare fiberglass engine box for a 69 Mustang SS.

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



Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 8:52pm
Originally posted by TRBenj TRBenj wrote:

Vondy, I do have a mold, but they will still require multiple layers of glass (cloth, mat) and not just resin. Probably a fair amount of time to get them into decent shape... and thats one thing I dont have a lot of! What would you consider a fair price on a set of buckets (glass shell only, no upholstery or aluminum frames)... just curious.

Sorry for the threadjack John!


Please threadjack anytime with talk about the seats. One million dollars may be a little over my budget, but $600 would be a steal and $800 would be pretty sweet. If I can throw in a blue Mustang hull delivered to offset some of the $ that would work too. LMK I really NEED them.

I need a steering wheel too. I cracked my perfect condition white plastic wheel when I slipped trying to get up from the drivers seat. It was a a bad day. I remember saying OHHH Nooooo, just like Mr. Bill.

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



Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 8:55pm


For example, why restore and old rusty gas tank that nobody will ever see if you can put in a modern new plastic one? And upgrading to a marine holley is one of the best things I did for my Mustang. Starts on the first hit every time. I also have an electronic conversion in my distributor and don't think it takes away from the originality of the boat.

The gas tank isn't rusty at all, it's really in good condition. It just has a repair to a stress cracked seam. It's an easy fix for Gas Tank Renu, but I will lose the original paint and graphics.


.


Hmmm, I just happen to have a spare fiberglass engine box for a 69 Mustang SS.[/QUOTE]

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



Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 9:46pm
Originally posted by john b john b wrote:


Please threadjack anytime with talk about the seats. One million dollars may be a little over my budget, but $600 would be a steal and $800 would be pretty sweet. If I can throw in a blue Mustang hull delivered to offset some of the $ that would work too. LMK I really NEED them.

John, just to be clear, we're talking about the fiberglass shell buckets used ~1969-1970, right? The '71-73 version is very similar as well (slightly wider back). Pictures included in this thread:

http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9982 - Wanted: Bucket Seats

And it was clear that I only have the ability to reproduce the glass buckets themselves- not the metal frames they mount to, right? And that they would still need to be reupholstered? I think that was clear, just confirming.

I ask because your $600-800 offer is quite a bit greater than what I assumed the market would tolerate. Not that I necessarily think they would cost that much to produce (still TBD as I havent made any yet)... but I assumed they would only be attractive at pricing that would be unlikely to cover the cost of the material alone. I'll shoot you an email.

-------------


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 10:18pm
Yes, just the glass shells, just like this one. I have three floor mount brackets and a good upholstery shop.


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



Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 10:25pm
I would think i would pay 400 to 500 a pair for those also

-------------
former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go


Posted By: Keeganino
Date Posted: December-14-2011 at 11:51pm
Originally posted by john b john b wrote:

Yes, just the glass shells, just like this one. I have three floor mount brackets and a good upholstery shop.


That one is not too bad. I had to do extensive repairs to both of my fiberglass inserts. They were cracked all over the place and full of holes were POs had to remount the brackets.

Crack sux


Outlined ready to V out


Ved Out on top


Patched on one side then feathered the edges on the other side to start applying layers starting small and get wider so that the bond is to the original frame and not just to each other.



More feathering


All filled in.


Like it never happened...





-------------
"working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger

http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 1:22am
Can I send you mine? Yours looks really good. I only have one shell, but three floor mounting brackets.

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



Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 2:42am
To those of you who think $400 is expensive for a seat, I offer the following:

http://www.overtons.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=98136&pdesc=Wise_Premium_Ski_Boat_Bucket_Seat_With_Flip_Up_Bolster&aID=601C3&merchID=4006 - seats

To that add seat bases and you are at over $600 per seat.

Here is my beat up gas tank. These ae the graphics I hate to lose.

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



Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 9:13am
take some good pics of those graphics, some of the members here do decals and might do you this one or the template to paint it back on the new tank.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique

Commander 351W


Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 9:40am
6200 Cochran road is 2 miles from my house, actually I even worked on the same road years ago....gas tank address

-------------
"the things you own will start to own you"


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 11:19am
Originally posted by TRBenj TRBenj wrote:

Vondy, I do have a mold, but they will still require multiple layers of glass (cloth, mat) and not just resin. Probably a fair amount of time to get them into decent shape... and thats one thing I dont have a lot of! What would you consider a fair price on a set of buckets (glass shell only, no upholstery or aluminum frames)... just curious.

Sorry for the threadjack John!


That's a tough question. Knowing you are hand making them they would be priceless. I guess in my budget I would pay $200 a piece. Knowing I would have to pay more for upholstering later. That may be too low for you to justify making them. I'm sure there are others on this site with higher boat restoration budgets that would pay more.

Is it the cost of the materials or the labor that you think is making them so expensive? Are you using biax? I have half a roll lying around......

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 11:28am
John, I just replied to your email- we're on the same page. I can either fix that bucket or get you 2 new ones... I think you've finally motivated me to kick this project off!

Vondy, I suspect that even with a mold, these may be a PITA to make due to their complex shape. I foresee having to glass them in several steps, with a fair amount of grinding, shaping and reinforcing involved... so a fair amount of man hours. I'll keep close track of my time and materials on the first few, and see how the process goes. I was planning to use cloth and mat, mainly- the thicker the material, the harder it will be to make corners... but I may still be able to utilize that biax. Lets touch base after I make the first set.

-------------


Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-15-2011 at 5:05pm
too bad those buckets cant be made from aluminum or some injection process, we have a local company that makes water tanks for fire trucks they plastic weld seams , I always forget what type of plastic it is but it seems like you could cut it curve it weld it. I wonder if it could be strong enough

-------------
former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 2:55am
Originally posted by Gary S Gary S wrote:

Looking great John. When I looked it over the only thing that concerned me was the carb.If you do change it,I would go with a 450 cfm. I ran the original non marine carb on mine for years,changing it only because I wanted a 4bbl.A side benefit was better starting and running.Your distributor is already a marine one,due to the fact it has the screen over the vent on the side of the main body.Fuel pump is questionable. I have the exact one you do.I bought a replacement marine one, the only difference I can find is the diaphram "rupture" fitting that connects with a clear hose to the carb.When I rebuilt my pump I put in a fitting for the hose.


At this point I plan to replace the original 4V Autolite automotive carburetor, for safety reasons, with the Holly 600 cfm 4V marine carburetor from my other H/M engine after having it rebuilt. I believe that while it may be slightly large for the application, it should perform well, and the charge velocity will be sufficient to provide good low end torque and not stumble on sudden off-idle acceleration. Any comments or suggestions from those who have been there?

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



Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 11:14am
I think that carb if jetted correctly (may already be ) will work fine

-------------
former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go


Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 11:19am
A few people have reported issues when bolting a 600cfm Holley onto a stock 302... a 450cfm is the proper size, as Gary mentioned.

I have been in a few 'Stangs that ran great with a 600cfm- but they were warmed up to the 250-300hp level.

If youve got the carb on hand already, I say go ahead and try it!

FYI, I broke out the mold last night and put a few coats of mold release on it. I hope to play around with glass early next week.

-------------


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 12:49pm
Thanks for the opinion. The PPO of the 69 SS that the Holly 600 is on told me it ran great with it, but that is his opinion and not backed up by any facts. One owners "great" may be another's "marginal", that's why I ask. The data plate on the 70 H/M engine, a 4V original, says it is rated at 235hp. I believe the interceptor 302 is rated at 190hp, so the 70 is near the lower end of the 250-300 range you mentioned. The 69 was originally a 2V engine rated at 210hp, but it had been changed to a 4V using the proper 69 manifold according to the Ford manifold casting number.

I am VERY excited about the seat news, I will send mine in the next several days. hopefully the ones you make are stronger than. the originals. it seems they all broke. I am #220 and will be hard on seats.

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



Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 1:01pm
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.

Definitely going to make the new seats stronger than the originals... just using epoxy instead of poly will be a good step in the right direction. We also have the advantage of knowing where the weak points are in the original design- so I'll beef up the new ones accordingly.

-------------


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 2:33pm
Tim, keep us informed on those seats and let me know what you would want for a pair.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: 68 Skylark
Date 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


-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3944&sort=&pagenum=1 - 68 Skylark


Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-16-2011 at 9:29pm
Keith I think your looking for one like http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fiamm-Signaltone-Air-Horn-62330w-12V-Compressor-Kit-/230413010200?pt=BI_Heavy_Equipment_Parts&hash=item35a5af8518 - 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.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: Gary S
Date 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.



-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: vondy
Date 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.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date 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!

-------------
/diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow -

54 Atom

/diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-17-2011 at 11:03pm
John, I was going to reply to your email but your profile shows it as private.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: Gary S
Date 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???



-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: vondy
Date 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.



-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-19-2011 at 12:28am
I agree

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date 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.

-------------
/diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow -

54 Atom

/diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<


Posted By: TRBenj
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-19-2011 at 4:40pm
Ha, no rush John.

-------------


Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: SNobsessed
Date 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


Posted By: vondy
Date 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.


-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: Riley
Date 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.


Posted By: Jllogan
Date 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.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001





Posted By: TRBenj
Date 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.





Posted By: john b
Date 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!



Posted By: JoeinNY
Date 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.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001
1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video


Posted By: vondy
Date 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.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 6:02pm
I just got my first batch of chrome back from the plater. I only took in some of it so I could assess the quality before I committed to having everything done at this shop. I am very satisfied. 3 week turn around time and the parts look beautiful. They did this whole batch for $225.00. The windshield hardware was in pretty bad shape, but it looks better than I would expect it to look new. I will be taking the rest of the stuff in later this week.

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



Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 6:10pm
John, I just sent you an email about the chrome!

-------------


Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 6:11pm
shiny

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001





Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 6:17pm
Wow that's nice! And looks to be a great price.

My windshield hardware is not chromed, it's aluminum. I think my lift rings are stainless? But my scoops, step pad trim, and emblem (i lost one) could use a rechroming.



-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 6:30pm
Originally posted by vondy vondy wrote:

Wow that's nice! And looks to be a great price.

My windshield hardware is not chromed, it's aluminum. I think my lift rings are stainless? But my scoops, step pad trim, and emblem (i lost one) could use a rechroming.


You must have different hardware for your windshield than either of my Mustangs. The pieces in the photo are all originally chrome plated, however the two windshield brackets (not pictured) that go between the center piece and the end pieces are brushed aluminum and not plated. The windshield frame is polished aluminum. The lift rings are steel and are chrome plated. Everything except the lifting rings are cheesy die cast (pot metal) and chrome plated. All of these parts, and pretty much everything he does, is triple plated. First it is copper plated, then nickel, then chrome. It should hold up really well. He showed me some Chris Craft hardware he had in there. It is really well made, not pot metal, and it is very heavy.

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



Posted By: DrCC
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 6:50pm
Chrome Chrome Be Bop A Re Bop !!!


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 7:20pm
My window frame and hardware are brushed aluminum. I have the one piece window.

One of these days I might have to mail your guy my parts.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 7:25pm
Wow John! I may have to send him a box to stuff!!!

-------------


Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by john b john b wrote:

Originally posted by vondy vondy wrote:

Wow that's nice! And looks to be a great price.

My windshield hardware is not chromed, it's aluminum. I think my lift rings are stainless?

You must have different hardware for your windshield than either of my Mustangs.

Vondy, I believe you have a Water Bonnet windshield- same as I have on my Skier. I think John's 2-piece windshields are Taylor Made. I believe that would account for the different hardware.

-------------


Posted By: 75 Tique
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 7:47pm
John,

What kind of shape were they in to start. Just dull, or were any of the parts pitted?

-------------
_____________
“So, how was your weekend?”
“Well, let me see…sun burn, stiff neck, screwed up back, assorted aches and pains….yup, my weekend was great, thanks for asking.”


Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 8:01pm
Thanks for the lead on the plating shop John, I estimate that's about $400 worth at the shop I currently use and he's 6 weeks.

-------------


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 8:26pm
dffgd

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



Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 8:48pm
Originally posted by 75 Tique 75 Tique wrote:

John,

What kind of shape were they in to start. Just dull, or were any of the parts pitted?


I had two sets of most everything and I took both sets in for the plater to examine. Although one was in somewhat better condition than the other, he said it didn't matter. He said the cost would be the same and the finish would be identical. He told me that die cast (pot metal) is harder than heavy pieces like the fittings from Chris Craft boats. The problem you run into, he told me, is the loss of detail, or possibly creating a hole in the item if it is pitted deeply and he has to take off a lot of metal in the acid bath and buffing prior to plating.

It is a trip going there. On the counter there were parts from a Whirlitzer juke box, a Schwinn Stingray, a pair of Olds 430 Valve covers, motorcycle parts ect. It seems that a lot of "restoration shops" just send everything to him. Almost all of his business is thorough the mail and he has customers all over the country. It is a small shop with about 4 or 5 employees and does not do production work as far as I can tell, just individual piece plating. I am lucky to have him in my home town.

Here are photos representative of the pieces I sent in.

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



Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 9:12pm
Looks great John. Looks like I will be collecting some parts and sending them his way. I'll be sure to mention your name when I call!!!

-------------


Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 9:31pm
Originally posted by Jllogan Jllogan wrote:

I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive


Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 9:36pm
Those look great. He does nice work! I've got stuff I'd like done, too. Let's not send him too much at once or he'll go up on his prices.


Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 9:44pm
that stuff is beautiful

-------------
former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 9:50pm
He has had great prices for more than 25 years. In this economy I don't think he has any thoughts of raising his prices. The three week turn around time is quicker than usual, so I wouldn't worry about overloading him or missing out on the prices. He is probably just working hard to keep busy like most of us.

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



Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 10:07pm
Originally posted by Gary S Gary S wrote:

Originally posted by Jllogan Jllogan wrote:

I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive


Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam.

I agree that the 60's hulls are thick enough to handle a no foam stringer job.

-------------
/diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow -

54 Atom

/diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<


Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 10:09pm
John, That chrome job looks fantastic! It takes BIG time hours to get pitted die cast back to original.

-------------
/diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow -

54 Atom

/diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique

64 X55 Dunphy

Keep it original, Pete
<


Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by 8122pbrainard 8122pbrainard wrote:

Originally posted by Gary S Gary S wrote:

Originally posted by Jllogan Jllogan wrote:

I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive


Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam.

I agree that the 60's hulls are thick enough to handle a no foam stringer job.

At the same time, adding an extra support rib or 2 may not be the worst idea... if nothing else, it would provide some extra support for the floor panels (especially at the seams).

-------------


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 10:24pm
The reasons I'm considering foam are;
Originality
Floor support
Flotation.
The Hull on a Mustang seems pretty stout, and the roughest day on my chain is a nice day on the Chicago Ocean. Foam seems like an excellent way to support the floor on a Mustang. The fiberglass floor pan doesn't have much strength and I don't want it to develop stress cracks. I have read the arguments on several sites and many threads. My opinion is that either way is OK as long as it is a quality job.

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



Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 10:57pm
Chrome looks great John. Alan I'm assumeing you are still using Super Fine? I'm still waiting for my vents and I sent them waaay before John sent them to his place.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: Keeganino
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 11:36pm
I am crying because I got my stuff done in just nickel because that is what I had locally. Guy was crazy as a hatter and his work was not the best, however it was cheap. Would love to get my exhaust tips done in real chrome. You probably just backed this guy up for the next 6 months with all the business he is going to get out of CCF.

Cool how everybody brings something different to the table on this site. I cannot tell you how many so called salesmen I have educated on their own products because of what I have learned here. Like the kid telling me VR-1 was only synthetic, or the guy at the marina who had never heard of wax hardener for gel coat. I said you have got 5 pints of gelcoat and no hardener so you are missing out on another $100 in sales. They are out of business now, Go figure!

-------------
"working on these old boats may not be cost effective but as it shows its what it brings into your life that matters" -Roger

http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4897" rel="nofollow - 1973 Skier


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-20-2011 at 11:49pm
Originally posted by john b john b wrote:

The reasons I'm considering foam are;
Originality
Floor support
Flotation.
The Hull on a Mustang seems pretty stout, and the roughest day on my chain is a nice day on the Chicago Ocean. Foam seems like an excellent way to support the floor on a Mustang. The fiberglass floor pan doesn't have much strength and I don't want it to develop stress cracks. I have read the arguments on several sites and many threads. My opinion is that either way is OK as long as it is a quality job.


If your planning on putting the fiberglass pan back in, I would definitely foam, it's not very solid just sitting on the stringers and few existing supports. I dug my foam out a couple of years ago and when with just the floor pan, it was not sturdy.

If my pan was any good, I would have looked at putting in a bunch of ribs and no foam. That way I could pull up the pan and air it all out, not have to ever worry about rot. I do love my nice rock solid plywood floor though.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 12:00am
John - Here is Roger's thread where he also tested foam for water soak. Great minds think alike!

http://correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13673&PN=2&title=uks-78-sn - Foam test

-------------
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Ben Franklin


Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 12:41am
[QUOTE=vondy]
If your planning on putting the fiberglass pan back in, I would definitely foam, it's not very solid just sitting on the stringers and few existing supports. I dug my foam out a couple of years ago and when with just the floor pan, it was not sturdy.
QUOTE]

I would agree BUT, there is no more support under the piece between the motor box and rear seat than the rest of the floor. They solved the problem by bonding plywood to that floor pan right? Same too with the toe board. I think that I could bond new wood to the whole pan,what do you guys think? Here is the piece I am talking about-





-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 2:28am
Anyone associated with the site sell Trident silicone exhaust hose? I want to replace mine. I believe this is a good choice.

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



Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 4:21am
Gary, bonding wood to the pan is an interesting idea I had not thought of. It seems very practical if it can be done with no voids or warpage. It would allow the floor to be held down with screws in the original holes and it would be minimally noticeable, retaining an original appearance. It would also be nice to be able to pull it up for inspection or problems. It is something to seriously consider. I agree with Vondy, there is no way the pan can support much of anything. The area under the seat frame in the back has very little strength and one must take care not to put any weight on it when the rear seat frame is out. If you have any thoughts about how to hold the pan and wood together during the bonding I would love to hear them. Possibly you could use the existing holes where it is screwed to the floor and the seat mounting holes to screw it to the plywood in addition to a bunch of clamps. I would be pretty nervous making that bond knowing I could ruin a very good floor pan. I have another one, but as you know it has a big hole in it for the console. After seeing what you have done with your Mustang I was inspired to leave mine as close to original as possible. that is why I called this "not another Mustang restoration", it is more of a refurbishment. I also need to finish it by spring. I really want to have "Theseus' Paradox" shaken down and ready for Green Lake.

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



Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 11:15am
Whether you refoam or not, I would say you most definitely need to put a dedicated floor back in- and not just rely on the floor pan. That pan is THIN! Surely it would flex under foot if unsupported, and would end up full of stress cracks (it is mostly gel, after all). Personally, I would not try to "beef up" the pan itself- I would simply install it as it was originally- fastened down to a solid floor underneath.

As far as I can tell, you have 2 options. 1)Glass over foam (as original) or 2)ply floor. The latter you can do whether you refoam or not. If you dont refoam, then you dont have to worry as much about sealing up the edges of the floor perfectly, as the entire structure will drain and breathe. If you refoam, I would take great care to make sure water doesnt get down into the foamed compartments.

-------------


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 11:33am
Yeah that section behind the engine box would not support anything. I never even had that part in my boat, the first thing I did was make a temp wooden panel to replace it.

You could ply the floor and use the floorplan over the ply instead of vinyl or carpet... sturdy and looks original.

I also would not reinforce the pan with wood, you'd never get it out of the boat. Mine you had to flex to remove it. Plus it would be quite heavy and awkward.

This is what my back panel looked like


-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 12:48pm
Originally posted by 8122pbrainard 8122pbrainard wrote:

Originally posted by Gary S Gary S wrote:

Originally posted by Jllogan Jllogan wrote:

I think no foam is more time consuming as you have to make all those supports but foam is more expensive


Justin on the old Mustangs you don't need the extra support. Mustangs and American Skiers,and I'm sure some others, didn't have foam until it was required,stringer lay out seems the same between foam and no foam.

I agree that the 60's hulls are thick enough to handle a no foam stringer job.


Ok good point. I think it would be interesting to also test how the us composites foam reacts to the water after it has been cut into. I know pete has mentioned concerns because of the cutting the foam and opening the cells. Would be interesting to see what effect that has. Also you could always test some great stuff and see how that holds up comparatively to the two part foam.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001





Posted By: Jllogan
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 12:57pm
well I see that UK actually did that in the thread mentioned. That was a good read. Very intersting.

-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5792&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 1986 Ski Nautique 2001





Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 1:11pm
Originally posted by Gary S Gary S wrote:

Chrome looks great John. Alan I'm assumeing you are still using Super Fine? I'm still waiting for my vents and I sent them waaay before John sent them to his place.


Gary I had superfine do the Hemi valve covers and a few other items, it cost me out the Waazoo and I think the covers could have used a little more work before plating! There was a small dent in one cover that I didn't see while they were painted and I would have thought they would contact me instead of chroming a dent. Barely noticeable but still there and a phone call would have been justified. Phil's a nice guy but if I have anything else it will go to this new guy.

-------------


Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 1:13pm
Originally posted by john b john b wrote:

Anyone associated with the site sell Trident silicone exhaust hose? I want to replace mine. I believe this is a good choice.


I used Trident silicone exhaust bellows on my 81. Nice stuff, get out your credit card.

-------------


Posted By: vondy
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 4:57pm
Originally posted by 81nautique 81nautique wrote:

Originally posted by john b john b wrote:

Anyone associated with the site sell Trident silicone exhaust hose? I want to replace mine. I believe this is a good choice.


Nice stuff, get out your credit card.


No kidding, I had to get two Trident 45 elbows for mine and that set me back $80!



-------------
http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4645&sort=&pagenum=1 - 69 Mustang HM


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 7:44pm
Hi Gary,
Your floor pan looks a little different than mine. Here is the foot board and the section that goes in the center between the engine and under the rear seat. Mine does not have cut outs in it for the exhaust hoses or behind the engine. It is pretty much intact, however it does have wear marks from the dog house chaffing over the years. The plywood backing looks to be 1/4" and does not extend all the way to the rear, probably because the stringers have a slight rise in them under the rear seat. There is also a chaffing mark from the fiberglass seat shell on the panel. They are not noticeable when the boat is together as the seat and dog house that caused them hide them, that is, until you lift the dog house.
A little of the resin that the plywood was originally coated with has begun to chip off. I am not sure what to replace it with, or if I should try CEPS in the areas that have chipped prior to resin. The unfortunate part is that someone at sometime has screwed into the foot board to mount a fire extinguisher judging by the holes. I believe a little gel coat mixing and color match dabbed in the holes would make them hard to see.
I openly admit that although I have restored several boats, I do not have the skills working with fiberglass that many of you on this site do. Keep that in mind if I am asking dumb questions.


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



Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 9:33pm
Originally posted by 81nautique 81nautique wrote:


Gary I had superfine do the Hemi valve covers and a few other items, it cost me out the Waazoo and I think the covers could have used a little more work before plating! There was a small dent in one cover that I didn't see while they were painted and I would have thought they would contact me instead of chroming a dent. Barely noticeable but still there and a phone call would have been justified. Phil's a nice guy but if I have anything else it will go to this new guy.


I understand Alan,it's not like your getting a deal. I like the fact that if needed to drive over Villa Park is not far.I was going to start slowing down on the chroming,but now that John has hooked us,might as well finish.

-------------
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS
95 Nautique Super Sport


Posted By: john b
Date Posted: December-21-2011 at 10:16pm
I just want to be clear on the chroming. There are small imperfections in some of mine. I was told when I brought it in that when doing pitted diecast with detail there are basically two choices. Buff it until the pits are gone sacrificing some detail, or leave some imperfections and plate it. I told him to do it to the best of his knowledge and experience. The scoop has a couple of small imperfections near the detail on the edge, and the script CC badges have some in the recessed area below the letters. That is because I told him to leave as much detail as possible on those pieces. I believe it is important to explain exactly what you want before work is started. There are NO imperfections in the windshield hardware or lifting rings.

Another surprising find. When I bought the boat I tried to see how many hours were on it, but the hour meter lens was so cloudy I couldn't see anything. The PO asked if I knew what that meter was. He said he had no idea. I polished the lens with some plastic polish and got it fairly clear. Surprise, the hour meter is not only really cool with a sweep minute hand, but it was still working. The boat registers 1652:38. I am going to look for a gauge rebuilder and see if I can have a new lens put in it.

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



Posted By: mountaineerminer
Date Posted: December-22-2011 at 12:37am
Gary,

Sorry for the short conversation the other night, I had been on the road for a few days at that point. I just got home this morning and picked up the console from my buddies house; everything looks great!

That plating work you have had done looks amazing!   

Also, what is that Jeep hiding in the background?



Print Page | Close Window