Muzz 66 wrote:

Unseen evil spirits are the only explanation.

 
I airways blame it on the wife after she comes out and does an "inventory"....

Bearing Bob wrote:

Really cool houses in your neighborhood tweet66.

  Grew up here, came back for family and friends.... most of this neighborhood was built in the 30's, way before my time

I gotta be honest, every time I see an update on your car I am amazed at the craftmanship, BUT
I can't lie I get a little jealous.... I don't think mine will ever look that good🥺

Tucked away with family

I think 4 post is easier for everything EXCEPT suspension and brakes

Welcome Jim. Nice ride! You said you're in South Jersey, where about? Thought I would have noticed another yellow Stang. I'm in Pennsauken

Ken

I put a set of 07 Shelby seats (essentially the same seat frame) in my 66 coupe and another set of 06 seats in my 65 Falcon without much of an issue. I used the 66 tracks mounted to the newer seats, offset a little rearward on the seat for more legroom. 

MS wrote:

If one were to NEED the wedge kit because the UCAs were moved more than 1", it would make more sense and cost a ton less to just pie cut the UCA right inboard of the balljoint, bend the end of the UCA downward and then reweld it and add some strengtheners....

I ran the wedge with a 1 5/8" drop for about 15 years without an issue. When I decided to upgrade some other components, brakes, steering etc.. around the UCAs I had I did exactly this. Took maybe an hour to do both sides and eliminated the wedge. Opentracker had a good write-up on this a few years back

Al Newman wrote:

Seems that Ford decided to mess with valve shrouding back in the '80s, and they completely screwed up the 5.0 engine family for a year or so. Sounds like a project designed to ruin a set of heads for sure. Now, if the heads in your mind are already junk, no worries. It is just money, right? The last time I set about to improve a set of heads, I assembled all tools necessary to do the job, opened the first one, drank it, opened another, drank it, and so on until I was satisfied the heads were good to go. Never laid a hand on the heads. Thats called the "pop-a-top" method.
Best
Al

This had me rolling on the floor!!! I'm using this method the next time I come up with some "bright idea" to add to the list of projects I have just to get the car done...
 

I used a flywheel from a 63 Galaxie with a 289 that I had parts left over from. Just happened to fit. I did have it re-drilled to use a diaphragm clutch though. Take a look at late model trucks with the 5.0L, most should be an 11" clutch and a 164T flywheel with the correct 50oz balance for later (1981+) blocks.

MWM wrote:

In my next life, I want to be a welder!

 

Still fighting to get through this one

If you want the center section of the axle centered in the car you'll have to shorten it and adjust the backspacing on the wheels accordingly. If you're not worried about it, it's a straight swap from everyting I've read. A few people have said there is some "percussion engineering" required on the passenger side floor pan for the driveshaft.
86-93 Mustang 8.8 is the same width as a 67-70 8" with no offset to the center section but you need Ranger 5 lug axles and is 28 spline. 94-98 Mustang 8.8 are the same width as well but with 1/2" longer axles (bakcspacing adjustments again..) and still 28 spline. I shortened a 98 Exploder 8.8 by 3.75" on the drivers side and used two passenger axles for my 66 coupe and wound up with a rear 3/4" narrower overall (wheel mount surface to surface) than the 8" that was in there. Helped me put the 255/45/17's in there without rolling the fenders.