Here is a picture of this system.

I took the spare tire out of my Mustang before I traded it, and put the air kit back in. 

I figured I bought it seperate, so I'm keeping t it!

I looked at all the different wraptor  setups on their website and have a couple of thoughts.  It's pretty clear the belt does not have enough contact with the water pump pulley.   I wonder if you could try reconfiguring the belt.   Here is what I mean.  On the drivers side there are two idler pullies.  Let the belt to from the power steering pump straight to the  crank pulley, then use the lower idler pulley on the water pump.  That seems like it would give it 20 to 30 degrees more contact t area

Take a look at how the wraptor system is configured for the fe engine.  You will see what I mean.  on that one those top idler pulley s are sitting much lower and give the belt more area on the water pump pulley.  Maybe on the small block I setup they could be lowered? 

I think this is a combination of weak bearing design, and a concentrated load on the pulley.  The answer may be to get more belt around the water pump pulley.

Just thinking... No actual experience on the issue.

MS wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

How much shorter is a short water pump vs. a standard one?  I'm wondering if you could just run a standard pump and make a pulley that had the belt surface located in the appropriate location.  You could also change the pulley diameter if that was viewed as advantageous, though it would change the speed at which the pump turned.  

 

 
To expand on the idea,  is it possible to measure the amount of offset needed to align  with various Ford pumps?  Then once you know the offset needed, look through various pullies Ford used on pumps over the years from any engine line?  I remember a there is a site that has pictures and identification of many pullies.  Maybe some mismatched combination could be found and shimmer to test it a standard pump would work.   THEN a custom pretty aluminium pulley could be made.

Just a thought...

I had Hedman classic steel headers on that very first Mustang I owned.  No power steering.   The drivers side fit perfectly, and I beat a tube on the passenger side to make it fit.  But I was young and dumb back then, no telling how much the shock tower was rusted and bent.   

I mind of looked to see if I could remember the part number, and wow! how much the price of headers has went up.   I remember paying like 79.95 for those things.   I do remember them scraping the ground a lot...

$@@@ happens!  I guess that's the nature of home delivery.

I saw it.   You win some, you lose some.   Sometimes big purchases are a bit of a gamble.  It is going to go up?  Is it going to go down?   

I still give KM huge props for sending me out a replacement so quickly, and taking care of the shipping.   What are Summits current shipping and defective item policies?

Ron68 wrote:

So, is there a great difference in the GT40P heads vs the GT40 heads besides the angle of the spark plug when installed? More or less advantageous to use the GT40P's. 
Seems a lot of extra hassle and work to find the correct headers that will work with the P's. Why not just get a set of GT40's where there are more options for headers?

Well, for me, it's a cc chamber thing.   It is a 289.   Gt40 heads do have a bit larger chambers than the p heads do.   Both have some pretty wide manufacturing tolerances.   289 needs the smallest chambers you can get. 

I was considering putting the E7 heads that I have on there.   I was cruising the local marketplace, there is a set of D0OE-c heads on there, which are tempting.  Old school!   And there are several sets of 60s 289 heads, that need work to use.   He C at that point, might as well get a set of cheapie aluminium heads.   But that defeats the whole purpose of this.   

This car and engine was supposed to be my low buck mostly parts I had laying around thing.  The p heads are the best that I got. 

I never originally intended to buy new manifolds.  That said the hipo manifolds are for my convertible, not this car. 


 

Quick response update.   I sent Kentucky Mustang that picture of the manifold defect.  They immediately agreed that's no good and are sending me a replacement.    That is great customer service! 

Just think everyone should know that.

I'm mainly taking these pictures for those considering P heads in their early Mustangs.  These are Scott Drake reproduction. 

Full view:



Cylinders 5,6,7,8 closeup.
8

7

6

5


I think much more clearance can be achieved just by removing the casting flash, let alone some iron meat. 

Now onto the other side ..

I went over my options this morning.  I've fretted and thought and over thought and thought again how I could make these heads work on the 63 Gal.   I had Mustang factory shorties on it when I pulled it years ago.  Problem is, I am determined to switch back to the column shifter.  It took me 5+ years to find those pieces!  Here is shorties on P heads.


share fotos
This could actually be workable with massaging.  Except the collector runs right through shift linkage.

Here is the flotech headers I bought to use.  See how it dumps around the number 3, clears the shift linkage, but is going to cause steering issues. See the massaging I did on 3. 


foto naar url

Here is the Flashshark headers.  Just ain't going to work.



Finally, my last option was just plain old factory logs.  Confirmed in serval places people have used them with p heads.  Yeah that's going to be tight... grinding fun!







Left this morning session thinking I wished I hadn't unwrapped it.  Thinking I'm just going to change out the p heads, or modify the piece of unobtatium, and just beat on and use the shorties.  Guess the brig

That is old obd1 scanner.   I can't tell by just looking which interface adapters you have.   Back then every manufacturer had their own design.   If it works, it would be the most handy for someone that has and uses that particular adapter.   Probably someone, somewhere would want it.