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 » Full Chassis - Roadster Shop » Today 4:59 AM

I would assume the shop labor rates are a minimum of $50/hr per man.  The top tier shops I'm sure its $100 or more.  I doubt much rolls out of Kindig's shop that costs less than $150k.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Full Chassis - Roadster Shop » Yesterday 6:39 AM

Mach1Driver wrote:

RPM, aka Bearing Bob wrote:

Guys that use a chassis like this usually have a shop build the car, and aren't thinking about what they could also use the money to buy.

Too true. Its the sort of thing you see a lot of on Kindig builds, where price seems to be no object. 
 

Yep.  They are the This Old House of car builds for sure.  I remember watching that with my Dad and how he used to say stuff like "they must have a money tree out back", and "Budget?  Oh, no, we can't work on anything that has a budget."
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Borgeson Pump vs Ford (67 w/289 PS) » Yesterday 6:36 AM

Another thing worth noting is that I found the amount of assist the pump was set at the factory to provide to be excessive and made the handling twitchy.  I greatly reduced the assist with the kit from Borgesson.  I've wondered if that in any way adversely affected the pump load on the belt, causing more flex and eventual failure.  BUT, I still stand by a two point mount being Mickey Mouse.  On a Chevy you would loose one point of mounting if you installed headers (they loved to hang stuff off the exhaust manifold studs), and I would always engineer a replacement for that 3rd point.  Never had single issue.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Borgeson Pump vs Ford (67 w/289 PS) » 4/10/2024 6:05 AM

It clears.  I have a factory AC compressor on my car.

Ron, some people may just be luckier than others on the bracket.  Mine failed.  There are a bunch of posts about failures on various forums.  Having messed with accessory drives on various makes and models over the years I can tell you no factory mounting system is anywhere near the way Borgesson mounts that pump, basically relying on bolts and spacers, which can flex with no triangulation.  Overall they build a great system, but the pump bracket and lower column bearing leave a lot to be desired. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Borgeson Pump vs Ford (67 w/289 PS) » 4/09/2024 6:56 PM

Yes, to each his own, but consider this: I've had a rebuilt '67 Ford PS pump, a control valve, and all the parts to convert my '67 from manual to power sitting on a shelf in my shop since about 1994.  My '67 has a Borgesson system in it.  If you're wondering why I would spend money on something I in essence already had; its pretty simple.  I drove a car that had factory PS and hated it so much that I decided I would simply live with the manual steering, and never installed the factory stuff.  20 years later when I decided to do some updates to the car the Borgesson was available.  Not at all sorry about that swap.  Maybe one day the Smithsonian will want that factory setup, because that's where it belongs IMO, next to the steam engine and the cotton gin. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Full Chassis - Roadster Shop » 4/09/2024 6:48 PM

John Ha wrote:

It seems like you could add subframe connectors to the stock car and have essentially the same thing

Ding, ding!

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » When determining length 5.0 roller engine push rods with pedestal » 4/09/2024 5:41 AM

MS wrote:

Not knocking the guy, but typically guys that “were Ford mechanics for 30 years” are really good at bolting factory stuff back together but are not necessarily adept at modifying anything.

Completely agree.
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Borgeson Pump vs Ford (67 w/289 PS) » 4/09/2024 5:40 AM

I know no one wants to hear this, but Ford has never exactly been known for their power steering pumps.  The GM derived Saginaw pump by contrast was more or less the industry standard for decades.  In fact everything that wasn't a GM that was built by a company that didn't want to design their own pump (AMC, International, etc,) simply bought pumps from Saginaw.  Personally I would use the Saginaw pump.

What I will say is that the Borgesson mounting bracket for the pump is at best Mickey Mouse.  It flexes too much and causes noise and can allow one of the bolts to fail.  Engineer a better mounting system or you can run a Fox accessory drive with a serpentine belt and an adapter to mount the Saginaw pump in the Ford PS bracket (Wild Horses 4x4 has them).

Another thing worth noting is that the Borgesson lower column bearing is also at best Mickey Mouse.  Get the Mustang Steve one instead. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Full Chassis - Roadster Shop » 4/07/2024 12:58 PM

Bob, I love my Mustangs, but if I win the Powerball I'm buying a Porsche 911 Turbo, a Porsche 959 (never imported), or a Nissan Skyline GTR (the R34 body style they never imported).  Maybe all 3 depending on the amount of the win. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Full Chassis - Roadster Shop » 4/07/2024 6:26 AM

IMO a colossal waste of time and money.  You can get whatever front or rear suspension you want in a classic Mustang without the need of this.  If you need the rigidity because the car makes so much power then you need a roll cage anyway, for safety if nothing else.  To me, this is a solution in search of a problem. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Drive Shaft Safety Loops » 4/07/2024 6:22 AM

RTM wrote:

I wonder if the plate used for the convertible floor pans can be used as a safety loop? I already added a heavy piece of bar stock to the front of it.

If it meets the criteria I posted earlier I would think so, but that is the criteria tech inspectors go by, so its got to meet it to qualify as a DS loop at the track. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Motor Trend Article: How the ’90s Saved the Ford Mustang » 4/07/2024 6:20 AM

Rudi wrote:

Bullet Bob wrote:

I always thought that the Mustang II saved the Mustang marque.  Oil crisis, gas rationing, long lines, people giving away perfectly good 16 mpg "big" cars for very little down against $2500 Toyotas and Datsuns that would get a bit over 20 mpg.  When thing started to settle down Ford came along with the Fox which, IIRC, had a 4-banger, a V6 and a weak sister 302 for engines.  But  the name was still alive and they had something to build on.  JMO

 
That has always been my recollection as well with many magazine articles that support that.
There are many other theories but the production numbers seem to prove the point.

I did some reading on the origin of the Fox platform.  Development was green lit by none other than Lee Iaccoca in '73.  The idea was to replace the Mustang II and Pinto compact chassis with a universal chassis which could be used across Ford's divisions and sold in both the US and Europe.  The first running prototype was actually a '75 Ford Cortina (only sold in Europe) which used torsion bars in the front instead of coil springs (thank God that didn't make it to production).  The first cars sold using the platform were the '78 Fairmont and '78 Mercury Zephyr.  The redesigned Mustang followed in '79. 

Interesting that we've often talked about how the Mustang was slated to die in favor of the Pinto, but there's no mention of that in anything I read.  Keep in mind that Iaccoca was responsible for the Mustang.  It was his baby, and he was president of Ford.  Ultimately he would have had to be the one to kill it, which seems unlikely.  What was slated to happen was that what would become the Mustang II was slated to be based on the Maverick, not the Pinto, but in ended up being based on the Pinto.  This seems the origin of the urban legend about the alleged demise of the Mustang in favor of the Pinto.  Iaccoca was even quoted as saying, in response to declining Mustang sales that "The Mustang

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Drive Shaft Safety Loops » 4/06/2024 5:57 AM

I've experienced exactly one u-joint failure in my lifetime.  My buddy's '95 Lighting kept making this noise on take off and I told him likely it was a bad u-joint.  Of course I didn't know what I was talking about, until a month or two later he tried to pull out onto the highway and the rear u-joint let go.  Trashed the aluminum driveshaft too.

I think if you inspect the u-joints regularly the odds of one failing is pretty slim.  Safety loops are for racing, where cars running fast with 5,000 RPM clutch dump launches or coming off the line on a trans brake shock load the drivetrain to a degree never seen on the street.  I have seen u-joints fail at the strip and its is not pretty (catapults the car if its the front, etc.).  IIRC NHRA mandates a loop for cars running 13.99 or quicker, must be within 6" of the front u-joint, and must be a minimum of 1/4" thick x 2" wide or 7/8" x 0.065" wall tubing.  Mounting criteria is not specific.  I've run faster than that at the strip without one and never broken one, and the tech inspectors are pretty lax at my local track. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Motor Trend Article: How the ’90s Saved the Ford Mustang » 4/06/2024 5:49 AM

Bullet Bob wrote:

I always thought that the Mustang II saved the Mustang marque.  Oil crisis, gas rationing, long lines, people giving away perfectly good 16 mpg "big" cars for very little down against $2500 Toyotas and Datsuns that would get a bit over 20 mpg.  When thing started to settle down Ford came along with the Fox which, IIRC, had a 4-banger, a V6 and a weak sister 302 for engines.  But  the name was still alive and they had something to build on.  JMO

Ah, the 255 V8.  Dark days.  Dark days.  But we made it to the other side.  Thus proving the maxim I try to live by: This too shall pass. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » A little more progress » 4/05/2024 5:44 PM

RPM, aka Bearing Bob wrote:

The standard bearing on early Mustangs ain't the best for side loads when cornering. I've never seen a floater on a drag car.

Door cars use them.  My buddy had a 6 second certified  chassis he bought as a roller and it had a Mark Williams full floater with 40 spline gun drilled axles in it.  I think the rear alone was probably $10k,  He paid $3,500 for the entire chassis as a roller, dropped the 409SBC and PG out of his Nova in it and ran 8.90s at like 150MPH like mowing the lawn.  It was consistent enough to bracket race and win.  Then life, kids, etc.  Fun while it lasted. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Motor Trend Article: How the ’90s Saved the Ford Mustang » 4/05/2024 5:40 PM

Steve69 wrote:

My wife had 1987 firebird formula with the 305.  That thig was a dog.  My 1979 Mustang stock 5.0 could blow the doors off of that.  

I have an '86 IROC with a 350 and its not much better.  It handles like its on rails.  The rear suspension (torque arm) is definitely better than the Fox setup, but overall the Fox is just a better car and always had much better aftermarket support (of course they sold more Mustangs each year than Camaros, Firebirds, and Corvettes combined).  Yeah, the 305 was a boat anchor.  Under 4" bore with a long stroke.  Wouldn't rev, but it didn't matter because a TPI couldn't flow enough air after 5,000RPM and the HEI wouldn't throw a spark after 5,500RPM. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 289 engine question » 4/05/2024 5:48 AM

Quicksilver wrote:

I just sold a 351 (1969) stock block, pistons, rods, crank, cam, and timeing chain & Cover for $400 droped to  $200.00 just to get it out of the garage. 6 months on CL. Now 2 other people have called about it. Got a complete 301 and a radical 289 left.

CL was probably the problem.  It just doesn't get the traffic ti once did.  Most stuff moves on FBM now. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Motor Trend Article: How the ’90s Saved the Ford Mustang » 4/05/2024 5:46 AM

Uh, yeah, the Mustang saved the musclecar.  No decade saved the Mustang, that's just dumb.  Yeah, yeah, I know it was gong to get axed in favor of the Pinto, but that didn't happen and the Fox body is what saved the musclecar, affordable V8 performance, and without it today's car scene would look very different than the Big Three still competing for bragging rights with high powered cars.  The Fox body proved that EFI and emissions didn't end performance; in fact they made it better than ever once the factory engineers and good old hot rodders figured out what those two things made possible.  The first EFI Fox rolled off the line in '85, so not sure how a decade that didn't start for another 5 years saved something that had already hit its stride by the '90s. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » A little more progress » 4/05/2024 5:40 AM

RPM, aka Bearing Bob wrote:

Nice. Did ya ever consider a floater rear axle?

A full floating rear is primarily used in applications where the rear has to carry a ton of weight (3/4 ton and above trucks).  Such rears are by their nature absurdly heavy.  My F250 has a 10.5" Sterling that's a full floater (axle shafts bolt to the hub flanges, vehicle weight is supported by the hub bearings).  The benefit is that the vehicle's weight is born by two big tapered roller bearings on each side instead of one ball bearing and the axle shaft.  If the axle shaft breaks you can't loose a wheel, and can still flat tow the vehicle (heck you might be able to still drive it on the front axle in a 4x4).  The ring gear and carrier in that rear weighs about 80lbs.  The rear hub to hub weighs like 350lbs.  Brutally strong?  Oh heck yeah.  I never broke mine with 1,000lbs/ft of torque in a vehicle weighing 8,000 lbs.  I've also had 3 tons of weight in the bed (per the dump scale) and towed some heavy trailers.  Nothing is indestructible, but its as close as it gets. 

In a care weighing 3,000 lbs, even making insane power a rear like that is still overkill to a level of insanity.  Now, the aftermarket may have full float kits for rears not originally sold as full floaters (I actually have one in my K5 Blazer built by Warn for the 10.5" 10-bolt), but the best use for these is for off roading (big tires, ridiculous torque via gear multiplication in low range, etc.) where you may need to extricate a broken vehicle in some backwater and even just being able to tow it with all 4 wheels still on the truck is hugely important.  A street car is probably never going to break an axle (especially a 31 spline one).  If you have rear discs you aren't going to lose a wheel even if it does.  A 31 spline 9" is going to be plenty for any street car application, and even a lot of race car applications.

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » 289 engine question » 4/04/2024 4:32 AM

I remember years ago in Hemmings there were ads for guys selling blocks, heads, etc. by casting number/date code for guys doing a "numbers matching" restoration.  IMO, a 289 has little value when a 5.0 bolts in its place and has a factory roller cam and much better heads.  A 5.0 is also typically a better platform for a stroker build because the cylinders go deeper into the crankcase than an average 289.  I would spend some time on eBay, etc. and see what they are asking (also check how long the listing has been up, because there are people on eBay who want stupid money for stuff and are content to let it sit for years until someone maybe buys it). 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » When determining length 5.0 roller engine push rods with pedestal » 4/03/2024 5:06 AM

1.6 is the stock rocker ratio.  They used 1.72s on the Cobras with the same pushrods as the GTs.  The cam would probably have to be huge to make a real difference.  If this is a new engine build then its probably worth checking, but IME pushrod length is affected most by decking the block and/or heads.  Aftermarket heads, different thickness HG, etc. can all make a difference.  If none of that's been done/changed I doubt you need different length pushrods.

Also, you'll need a solid lifter to check length.  A hydraulic will just collapse as you try to pattern the valve stem tip. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Third Part Extended Warranty Experience? » 4/01/2024 6:15 PM

I used to think gas trucks had torque too.  If you're really going to tow; there's only one way to go.  You'll understand that gas truck tows like its still in park when you tow with a truck with makes power without need of spark. 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Third Part Extended Warranty Experience? » 4/01/2024 12:57 PM

I agree with Ron.  The odds of a catastrophic failure (engine/trans, etc.) in a newish vehicle with only 88k on the clock are about 0.  That's really all those warranties tend to cover. 

A while back I bought a used '07 F250 with a 5.4 and 177k on it for $6k.  I sunk about $8k into it.  Once I get the rust fixed and those areas painted let's call it $18k total (purchase price and repairs).  A lot of guys are like "why'd you do that, should have just bought a new truck."  I'm like "In what world does what I spent on this one come anywhere near the cost of a new truck?"  Oh, and this one was already a work truck, so its nice (for a work truck), but its not brand new nice where I get to stress over every scratch and ding.  The bottom line is, until it starts costing me anywhere close to the down payment and monthly payment on a new truck (to say nothing of higher insurance) I'm fine with what I've got.  I can fix it A LOT for that figure.  Also, as an older vehicle its got all the creature comforts, but its still relatively simple and parts are relatively cheap. 

So another thing to consider, if this is basically a low mileage per year toy hauler, is getting an older, cheaper vehicle and go through it.  I know the Super Duties pretty well at this point.  Maintained they are VERY reliable, regardless their generation.  Their biggest enemies are rust and bad owners. 
 

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » Speaking of classic Mustangs.... » 3/31/2024 12:34 PM

Keep in mind I'm a bit younger than ya'll, I grew up in a Chevy family, though, the first cool car I remember my Dad owning was a '55 T-Bird he had restored (I found some pics he must have took during the resto after he passed).  Having a 3rd vehicle that was fun and working on it was just what I was raised to believe men did.  It would be high school before I realized how many men of my generation were auto illiterate.  I started spinning wrenches on cars and boats when I was about 10.  Dad liked that I could get in places he couldn't (I got his hands, so I definitely understand that now).  We had a 29' Scaraab that used to tear up the impeller for the water to the heat exchangers.  Royal PITA for a regular sized man, BUT for a modest sized kid it was much easier. 

Like I said, mostly Dad, my uncle (who lived in the farm house of the old farm on which I grew up (and where I still live)), and even our neighbors were all Chevy guys.  Round about 12 I started going to the Atlantic City Car Show every year with my dad, and often my uncle and/or neighbor.  I just gravitated to the Mustangs more than the Camaros.  Maybe it was because I knew I wasn't getting a Vette for my first car (money nonwithstanding that would have been a hard no from Dad), and Chevelles seemed too big.  I just liked the look of the Mustang, especially the '67-'68 Shelbys, which I knew I'd never afford (even back then).  The rest I suppose is history.  The good news was these weren't new cars when I bought mine in '91 or '92.  I'd been banking money since I was born (half of all money from every birthday went in the bank), and had been working since I was 12.  I bought what I could afford and made it better as I had time and money.  I used every birthday and Christmas to get car parts.  Dad did pay to paint the car (provided I had a 3.0 or better my junior year), but everything else I did myself and paid for myself. 

RTM, I never made a choice based on gas mileage either.  I re

FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion » where is the link to breaking in the rear gears to a Car?? » 3/30/2024 4:59 PM

Texas! wrote:

If a new ring & pinion need a break-in period why is there nothing in the Owner's Manual of a new car/truck about it?

Probably because the manufacturer doesn't care so long as its not necessary to get the rear past the warranty period.  Or, because the gears may already be lapped in or something at the factory making it unnecessary. 

Every set of gears I've ever bough that came with instructions stated you should change or oil after driving a shot distance or time.  I live by the maxim that oil is cheap, but the stuff it lubricates is expensive.  The minor inconvenience of changing the oil after running the gears in is small compared to peace of mind, AND the manufacturer having to honor the warranty in the even of an issue.  BTW, its not a break in period.  My understanding is that you are simply removing any metal or gear coating that is shed due to everything being new.  I've rebuild a bunch of rears and there's always some trash in that initial oil change.   

As far as the Truetrac, no, nothing special required.  I run one in the rear of my F250, and installed it after a full rebuild with new Yukon gears.  I changed the oil after 50 miles and all seems well. 
 

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.