Here is another version http://sbftech.com/index.php?topic=30287.msg395619;topicseen

BILLY WALTON from GEORGIA wrote:

Those are interesting would like to see Mustangsteve and Daze opinions on them.

Just what I was thinking :-)

The nice part would be that no modification to the old rods would be needed.

Hi
I was thinking of fabricating some strutrods bearing for my 73.I dont wanna destroy the old rod, instead use it. I have seen a solution that RRS i Australia manufacturs.  My idea, use a spherical bearing with a holder thats wld to a plate. Bolt the plate to the chassi with 4 bolt. Insert the rod with a sleeve and now its fully adjustable. Will the bearing holder resist the force from the car when breaking/accelerating ? Its a snap ring that holds the bearing in place on one side.

TKOPerformance wrote:

So consider this:  with a 3.27 first and a 3.5 final drive your overall first gear ratio is 11.45, which I would consider to be too tall for a typical V8 naturally aspirated car.  A swap to a 3.25 final drive nets you a 10.63, which is closer to the theoretical ideal of 10:1.  I agree with MS that a 3.00 is going to be too low, because that puts you on the other side at 9.81.

3.25 seems the best way to go, Thanks.

Great info,Thanks  the cam is a howard roller. Pretty standard I would say.
Basic RPM Range: 1600-5600
Manufacturers Description: Mild idle, great all around street, good low end torque & horsepower.
Intake Duration @ .050": 217
Exhaust Duration @ .050": 225
Advertised Intake Duration (@ .006"): 270
Advertised Exhaust Duration (@ .006"): 278
Intake Valve Lift with OE Rocker Ratio (1.73): .571"
Exhaust Valve Lift with OE Rocker Ratio (1.73): .577”

Maybe I just leave the 3.50 in hmm
 

I measured one and its gonna hit the cylinder heads, so Im leaving that thought for now.

I think It might be possible to fit in my 73.Should be sam size roundwise but narrower against the cylinder head

BobE wrote:

Not sure if it available to you in Sweden, but try the RockAuto website.  One can check parts for different years and see if the same description/part numbers go from year to year.  

Good idea Thanks 
 

TKOPerformance wrote:

Pretty sure all the newer Mustangs use hydroboost not vacuum. 

I thought they left the hydroboost in 2004..  

This for a 2015  https://www.ebay.com/itm/294024406401

Daze wrote:

Mach173 wrote:

Daze wrote:

I think you would be a lot happier with the system if you ditched the hydraulic throw out bearing and went with a slave cylinder.

Maybe true, but I have invested quite an amount of money in this solution. Il keep it for now :-)

I totaly get that.  If you change your mind I am hppy to help you figure out what you need and i'm betting you could make the swap for not much money.  You could retain your pedal assembly and all you would need would be a slave cylinder, a clutch fork, a throw out bearing, and then to make a bracket.  I bet you could do it all for less than $100.
 

Thanks for input :-)

A friend who has s similar setup in his Firebird68 tried the clutch last night. It was exactly the sane feeling as is clutch. I am letting this be for now. Thanks for input.

5/8” x 1-3/8”  IS what RAM recommends on the other hand Malwood claims that  We don't think there should be an issue with using our 3/4" master with the set up you have now. You have chosen a heavy duty clutch but even with that, It should be a good fit and work well with the pedal feel being good. Il be back with some progress news I hope soon.

Hi
I got in touch with Malwood. They are recommending Our 5/8” x 1-3/8 “ Master cylinder should solve the issue.. I have RAM throw out bearing,   https://ramclutches.com/product/78132/