FYI FORD - MustangSteve's Ford Mustang Forum
The Internet's Most Knowledgeable Classic Mustang Information
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT CLASSIC FORD MUSTANGS, YOU HAVE COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE!
MustangSteve has over 30 years of Mustang experience, having owned 30 of them and restored several others. With the help of other Mustangers, this site is dedicated to helping anyone wanting to restore or modify their Mustang.... THERE ARE NO DUMB QUESTIONS!!!!!
Visit MustangSteve's web site to view some of my work and find details for:
FYIFORD Contributors' PICTURES - Power Brake Retrofit Kits for 65-66 Stangs - Classic Mustang FAQ's by MustangSteve - How to wire in a Duraspark Ignition - Mustang Ride Height Pictures and Descriptions - Steel Bushings to fit Granada Spindles to Mustang Tie Rods - Visit my EBAY store MustangSteve Performance - How to Install Granada Disc Brakes MustangSteve's Disc Brake Swap Page - FYIFORD Acronyms for guide to all the acronyms used on this page - FYIFORD Important information and upcoming events

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Those of you who are running newer transmissions » Today 12:47 AM

Ron68
Replies: 9

Go to post

I have a three row custom built radiator that I run with my 351W and it also cools the 4R70W. I have power steering, but no A/C and I don't often drive in 100 deg. temps, but I've experienced no problems due to heat with the transmission. I recently replaced the deep sump pan I was running (clearance issues) with a stock AOD pan, and still no heat problems.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Update to the Fatman Fab front end. » Yesterday 10:59 PM

Mochaman
Replies: 9

Go to post

She is already together, got the front end aligned this morning and drove it all day today. Steering is great now. Tighter turning radius than before. I am very happy with the results. I am looking at doing this same front end for Anna's convertible. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » I was watching Bitchin rides » Yesterday 9:01 PM

MS
Replies: 10

Go to post

Maybe those California cars don’t rust

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » E-lect-trickle partz » Yesterday 7:23 PM

Ozblitz
Replies: 5

Go to post

Glad you were able to track down what you needed.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 5 speed conversion » Yesterday 4:06 PM

What gasket are you running?  You could swap to a steel shim head gasket and gain back some compression.  Its not going to be a ton, but its fairly cheap and not terribly hard, just a lot of labor. 

You could mill the iron heads too while they're off.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 5 speed conversion » Yesterday 2:06 PM

Michael H. wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

... with 3.25s I wouldn't be rushing out to swap gears for 1/4 point of gear.  There's something left on the table, but no enough to justify the expense in my opinion.  It would be cheaper and easier to add another 25HP to the engine and achieve the same end result...

I agree... that's why the 3.25's are still in there.

TKOPerformance wrote:

...
The 289 is a great engine, but it depends on how its configured.  The stock A and C code engines were cammed down to produce good low speed torque, and for the engine's size they did.  To make HP though you have to twist that little engine above 5,000, and you're not doing that with an A or C code cam...


I've put a small performance cam in my 289, but it still has the lower compression C-code pistons in it.  I know could swap to flat-top pistons, but it runs well and is very reliable so I hate to tear into it that deeply.

I'd love to put some aluminum heads on it, but 58cc is the smallest chamber I can find.  My understanding is that the stock 289 heads were 54cc, so going up to 58cc would mean losing even more compression.  I guess I could buy some aluminum heads and have them milled down to 54cc chambers, but that adds more expense to an already expensive endeavor.... plus, I'm not sure which ones have enough material to allow them to be milled that much.

You've got that right in both instances.
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 5 speed conversion » Yesterday 1:50 PM

Michael H.
Replies: 17

Go to post

TKOPerformance wrote:

... with 3.25s I wouldn't be rushing out to swap gears for 1/4 point of gear.  There's something left on the table, but no enough to justify the expense in my opinion.  It would be cheaper and easier to add another 25HP to the engine and achieve the same end result...

I agree... that's why the 3.25's are still in there.

TKOPerformance wrote:

...
The 289 is a great engine, but it depends on how its configured.  The stock A and C code engines were cammed down to produce good low speed torque, and for the engine's size they did.  To make HP though you have to twist that little engine above 5,000, and you're not doing that with an A or C code cam...

I've put a small performance cam in my 289, but it still has the lower compression C-code pistons in it.  I know could swap to flat-top pistons, but it runs well and is very reliable so I hate to tear into it that deeply.

I'd love to put some aluminum heads on it, but 58cc is the smallest chamber I can find.  My understanding is that the stock 289 heads were 54cc, so going up to 58cc would mean losing even more compression.  I guess I could buy some aluminum heads and have them milled down to 54cc chambers, but that adds more expense to an already expensive endeavor.... plus, I'm not sure which ones have enough material to allow them to be milled that much.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » fuel problem » Yesterday 1:37 PM

Gas goes bad because it has a lot of volatile compounds in it, which evaporate or boil off (remember these aren't water, and some compounds boil at room temperature or slightly above).  High octane gas goes bad faster than low octane because there are more volatiles in it to increase the octane (primarily MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether).  Some of it is also the proportions of various hydrocarbons, as gas is not a homogeneous mixture; there are what they call light and heavy ends referencing individual hydrocarbon molecules as well as their chain length.  The lighter hydrocarbons vaporize more easily.  There is a difference between the concentration of the octane molecules in the gas and research octane (the number given the fuel, e.g. 93, etc.), but the actual octane molecule concentration does play a role in the research octane number.  Octane is fairly light, and thus vaporizes fairly easily, lowering the quality of the fuel.  Certain molecules oxidize easily as well, so they join with atmospheric gasses and become something else, thus leaving the party. 

Of course ethanol makes the gas go bad a lot faster.  Ethanol itself is basically immune to detonation, but it burns at a lower temperature and has less chemical energy than gas.  Then it brings water, which I'm guessing has a really low research octane number...

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Cobra parts » Yesterday 12:41 PM

Bullet Bob
Replies: 8

Go to post

Steve, we have friends from the Hemet/San Jacinto area which isn't too far from there.  The are traveling right now but will be here this afternoon.  He isn't a Mustang or car guy but he can recognize junk and may be able to help.  They'll be here 'til Sunday so if he feels he can help next week I'll let you know and we'll hook up by phone after Thanksgiving.

BB

 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Cobra parts » Yesterday 12:16 PM

lowercaresteve Yah, I know Auburm is quite north of this seller.
He is in Sun City near Canyon Lake / Menifee CA
Any near there??
687072mustang

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » fuel problem » Yesterday 11:52 AM

red351
Replies: 5

Go to post

Even ethanol- free gas jells over time. But it takes more then  just a few years before its turns into a dark thick varnish. But on the hand gas starts to deteriorate almost after day one. Once it starts to smell like turpentine its not gasoline anymore, its paint thinner/brush cleaner. I'm not real sure how the FiTech works. Is your fuel cap vented for sure or maybe a fuel hose bent a little too much that's restricting the flow?

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Update to the Fatman Fab front end. » Yesterday 11:39 AM

rpm
Replies: 9

Go to post

That's gotta be a bit of a relief there Ed. Think you've got enough time to put her together for the 2018 Bash? 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Update to the Fatman Fab front end. » Yesterday 10:25 AM

Rudi wrote:

I dunno, it may be just me but I get real scared when I see any welded steering components!

Its all about the quality of the welds.  In the 4x4 world welded spindles and steering parts are common, and I've yet to see a failure, even with huge tires and the abuse they go through rockcrawling.  Something that thick I would definitely back bevel, and probably do a root pass and stitch pass on top with blasting in between to remove all traces of slag.  I'd have to stick weld something that thick though.  Guys with the right machines could MIG or TIG those arms. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Update to the Fatman Fab front end. » Yesterday 10:18 AM

6sally6
Replies: 9

Go to post

Rudi wrote:

I dunno, it may be just me but I get real scared when I see any welded steering components!

Let's hope they "back-ground" the welds to get 100% penetration.
6s6
PS.........BTW.....Nice legs Mochaman!!!!!

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » fuel problem » Yesterday 10:14 AM

6sally6
Replies: 5

Go to post

Yep! ^^^^^^^
My "plan-of-attack" for the cursed "earth friendly" fuel is:  The Mustang... I only put in 20 dollars worth of hi-test at the time unless..........I plan to drive it a good many miles.
ALL my yard equip get ethanol-free fuel. When its an "open-system"(vented to the atmosphere) like old cars and yard equip.....the al-kee-haul in the ethanol absorbs moisture in the air.(the way dry-gas/ de-icer./methanol etc. work!)
The cure?!!!!!!!! Get ethanol free gas if you only drive the Mustang on pretty days.
6sal6

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Update to the Fatman Fab front end. » Yesterday 10:06 AM

Rudi
Replies: 9

Go to post

I dunno, it may be just me but I get real scared when I see any welded steering components!

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » fuel problem » Yesterday 10:04 AM

Yep, ethanol is the worst thing to happen to gasoline.  It falls out of suspension with the gas and settles to the bottom of the tank.  Its hygroscopic, so it absorbs moisture.  This puts water in contact with your fuel system parts.  Nothing good comes from it.

There are two reasonably simple solutions.  You can buy a product called Startron.  Its a blue bottle sold at NAPA and most places that sell or service small engines (chainsaws, etc.).  Add 1 ounce per gallon to fuel and it stops any ethanol related nonsense.  I add it to all my mixed fuel for my saws, leaf blower, etc.  Then I add it to my last tank of fuel prior to winter storage for my tractor, my '67, etc.

Another solution is to add some 2 cycle oil to the fuel.  It doesn't stop the ethanol from falling out of suspension, but it does coat everything in the fuel system with a boundary layer of corrosion protection.  Mixed at 100:1 you'll never know its in the fuel, except you won't have problems anymore.  I'd advise using old school TWC-3 non synthetic for this because the synthetic stuff doesn't burn in 4 stroke gas or Diesel engines and can cause issues.

I find ethanol to be a non issue on vehicles that see constant use.  If you're filling the tank once a week you'll be fine, but boy when they sit does it wreak havoc.  I don't have a source for non ethanol gas here.  There used to be a couple stations that had it, but they've all closed or stopped selling it.  One solution I know some big companies use is to put the gas in 1,000 gallon or larger tanks and let it sit for a month.  By that point the ethanol has settled to the bottom.  They cut the pickup tube so it only draws from no more than 1/4 way off the bottom of the tank.  When the pickup stops drawing they drain off the crap in the bottom of the tank, have it refilled, and start over again.  A bit impractical for the average guy, but it shows the lengths those smart enough to realize the problem go to in order to avoid it. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 5 speed conversion » Yesterday 9:33 AM

Typically you need to go up a half point in gear to notice a difference, and a full point is VERY noticeable.  Going from say a 2.72-3.73 is a great swap.  It will feel like the car has another 100HP, and dragstrip times will bear that out, as typical reduction is a full second off your ET.  Coincidentally every 10HP added to an engine equates to a 0.10 reduction in ET, so adding 100HP equals a 1.00 reduction in ET.

With an OD trans the impact on cruising RPM is much less of a concern, but like I said, with a Fox sourced T5 and that 3.35 first gear it can make 1st gear too short.  In that combo I tend to think that a 3.55 rear gear is the best compromise.  But, with 3.25s I wouldn't be rushing out to swap gears for 1/4 point of gear.  There's something left on the table, but no enough to justify the expense in my opinion.  It would be cheaper and easier to add another 25HP to the engine and achieve the same end result. 

The 289 is a great engine, but it depends on how its configured.  The stock A and C code engines were cammed down to produce good low speed torque, and for the engine's size they did.  To make HP though you have to twist that little engine above 5,000, and you're not doing that with an A or C code cam.  The K code engines went solid lifter and got close to 1HP/cube in stock trim, and with the Shelby mods exceeded it.  But its a trade off for worse low speed manners and a loss of low speed torque.  That's when taller gears help because it gets the engine into its powerband sooner and bolsters that soggy bottom end.  With greater RPM potential the tall first gear isn't really an issue. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » fuel problem » Yesterday 9:31 AM

josh-kebob
Replies: 5

Go to post

You can thank, or curse, ethanol for the jell problem. I made the mistake of using that fuel in my 4 wheeler and after several weeks, it wouldn't run. I cleaned the carb and removed a bunch of clear jell crapola... I'm fortunate to be able to purchase pure gasoline in my area, and that's all I use now...

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 5 speed conversion » Yesterday 9:05 AM

Michael H.
Replies: 17

Go to post

The 3.25:1 was a noticeable improvement over the 2.79:1 and definitely a worthwhile upgrade.  I just wish I'd gone for just a little bit more, and I think the 289 would be in the torque band better cruising at a slightly higher rpm... I can't prove that, but it just "feels" that way to me... whatever that means.

Having said that, I'm not sure I'd want to go lower than 3.55:1 because of the low first gear in the T5.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » fuel problem » Yesterday 8:24 AM

retired 65
Replies: 5

Go to post

Has anyone heard of unleaded fuel taking on a jell, slimey appearance sometimes?  I have been chasing a fuel starvation problem after running the vehicle on the road for a couple miles.  It keeps stranding me where I have to limp the car back along side of the road.  Let it set for a while and starts up and runs another 2-3 hundred yards.  I have taken out the fuel sender/pick-up and now have a shut off valve after the tank and before the fuel tank. The line is off before the fuel filter and when I open the valve, I just get a trickle of fuel out of it.  I have pulled out the sender and ran water through it and the filter on the end of the pick-up and it flows fine.  The sock isn't blocking off the end of the sender either.  I have changed from carburetor to a FiTech EFI and had same problem with the carb set-up.  I seem the remember an article where the fuel would jell up and cause problems.  I can't see any when I took out the sender and can't see inside the tank.  I have changed the fuel lines when I did the conversion.  The whole system has 3/8th lines, supply and return.  The tank is a new tank .  If that is the problem, is there an additive that would take care of that problem?   The vehicle is a '65 and 392W motor. Any suggestions? Thanks  Jerry

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Update to the Fatman Fab front end. » Yesterday 8:14 AM

Always good to hear when a company makes good.  There are so many times when all you hear are the negatives. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Those of you who are running newer transmissions » Yesterday 8:08 AM

IF, he goes with a lockup converter.  I certainly would, and its a point worth making.  Lockup converters always command a peremium and its tempting to ditch the lockup to save cost on an aftermarket converter.  Also, if your cruise RPM will be higher than the stall speed there's effectively no reason to run a lockup.  I don't run one in my K5 Blazer because my highway cruise RPM is higher than the stall speed of my converter.  This saved cost on the converter and eliminated a potential failure point.  That's also a fairly radical truck I've built (450HP N/A, 600HP on spray, big tires, 4.88 gears, but I built and kept my 700R4). 

Stock converters will all be lockup BTW, so if you're just reusing what the trans comes with its a non issue. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » I was watching Bitchin rides » Yesterday 7:47 AM

Bullet Bob
Replies: 10

Go to post

I always wondered about all these shows where they rebuild early Mustangs.  They do ALL the metal and body panel replacement but never mention or show any cowl replacement and from my limited experience, that is the root of much of the rust trouble.   Hmmmm?

BB

Board footera


REMEMBER!!! When posting a question about your Mustang or other Ford on this forum, BE SURE to tell us what it is, what year, engine, etc so we have enough information to go on.