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?

  • Index
  •  » FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion
  •  » 67-68 questions

    • 1 of 1

       

    1/13/2021 8:34 PM  #1

    josh-kebob
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Madison, AL
    Registered: 4/06/2013
    Posts: 2,902

    67-68 questions

    It's been a long while since I've turned a wrench on these year models, thus the following question.

    As background, dear old dad (aka ME) has the honor of reassembling my son's 67 cougar. I feel like Christopher Columbus as I seek and discover all the parts that have been boxed up for the past four years. I hope I have enough steam left in me to get This done.

    This ride will be sporting a stock 289 and a T-5 trans with clutch cable kit, along with PS and PB

    So, I'm looking for first hand experience regarding exhaust headers for this application. Only interested in headers that fit and fit without any percussion engineering, etc. In other words, no surprises, just a straight bolt up job.

    So, anyone with first hand experience with this set up, please weigh in.
    I'm not interested in any IMHO inputs, etc so, please refrain from posting those.

    If I'm asking for something that's unobtainable, I'll just go with hipo mannys for this daily driver and call it a long day...

    Thanks in advance...

    Last edited by josh-kebob (1/13/2021 9:26 PM)

     

    1/13/2021 10:15 PM  #2

    MS
    Forum Originator

    Offline

    From: Canyon Lake, Texas
    Registered: 1/24/2013
    Posts: 12,263

    Re: 67-68 questions

    Josh, the 67-70 have the same engine bay.   I have owned a bunch of 70 Mustangs.  My choice would be hipo manifolds. You know the benefits.  Additionally, JBA headers are always the best fit, allowing best tower clearance and spark plug access as well as ease of installing upper flange bolts. There may also be others, but I know personally the JBA stuff fits well.

    I have the correct rebuilt/restored power brake booster and pedal and proportioning valve for it if not already equipped.

    On the T-5, be sure to use the 93 or earlier version.  The 94-95 repositions the clutch cable entry to the bellhousing in a lower position where it will interfere with the power steering ram.

    Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     

    1/13/2021 11:20 PM  #3

    josh-kebob
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Madison, AL
    Registered: 4/06/2013
    Posts: 2,902

    Re: 67-68 questions

    Thanks Steve.

    I purchased the brake pedal support, cable kit and T5 from you way back when in the Ovilla days....been that long.

    I'll be in touch regarding the PB booster, etc.  Going to finish getting the engine buttoned up first....

       •Thread Starter
     

    1/14/2021 5:58 AM  #4

    John Ha
    I FYI 24-7

    Offline

    From: Mitchell, SD
    Registered: 4/02/2013
    Posts: 932

    Re: 67-68 questions

    I'd love to see some photos when you're farther along.  My very first car was a 67 Cougar.  

    Founding Member of the Perpetually Bewildered Society
     

    1/14/2021 6:46 AM  #5

    TKOPerformance
    Hyper FYIFORD ADDICT

    Offline

    From: Newark, DE
    Registered: 12/15/2014
    Posts: 7,502

    Re: 67-68 questions

    I used JBA headers and built my exhaust from a Magnaflow kit using some elements from a JBA H-pipe.  The header fitment was generally good, except they interfered with my Borgeson PS box.  It required putting a good sized dimple in one tube to clear and several rounds of installing and removing the LH header to get it right without just bashing the tube.

    The exhaust fit well.  I engineered tailpipe brackets to allow me adjustment for the tips relative to the GT valance (I modified a set of rolled lip GT tips to fit the 2-1/2" exhaust).  There's some drilling for hanging the mufflers.  I used wrap around clamps instead of the included guillotine ones. 

     

    1/14/2021 8:01 AM  #6

    TKOPerformance
    Hyper FYIFORD ADDICT

    Offline

    From: Newark, DE
    Registered: 12/15/2014
    Posts: 7,502

    Re: 67-68 questions

    Forgot to mention, because you noted running a T5, I also run a T5 and used the MS cable clutch system and there was no interference issues with that system and the headers. 

    Last edited by TKOPerformance (1/14/2021 8:02 AM)

     

    1/14/2021 9:46 AM  #7

    kardad
    I FYI 24-7

    Offline

    From: Lexington Ky
    Registered: 12/03/2019
    Posts: 305

    Re: 67-68 questions

    As TKO stated,
    I have the JBA's on my 68 and with the factory steering box there are no issues and all fit well. When I installed the Borgeson steering box I had the same issue and had to dent the header tube as well I raised the engine 3/16". When I did that it seemed to help my above 70 MPH driveline vibration, telling me I needed to lower the rear of my T-5. Which the tubular mount that I have wont do (So I will be modifying it).
    While talking about Trans mounts, I have the tubular one vs the one that is made from flat metal. So I am getting ready to put a T-5 in a 68 Cougar so we ordered the other mount to compare and it locates the trans mount about a 1/4" lower than the one I'm using in the Mustang.

    I too have the MS cable set-up and it fits and works with Zero issues.

    I will second what MS stated, and if it is a stock or slightly modified 289/302 I would run the Hi-po manifolds. We have a 66 FB with a 302(5.0) with Ford E-cam and Crane 1.7 rockers on a stock rebuild, and stock E7 heads. It has a factory cast iron intake and Autolite 4100 carb, with electronic ign. and cast iron Hi-Po exhaust manifolds. It has a T-5 (3,35 first gear) and a 3.70 rear. This has been the most reliable, trouble free of all the cars for the last 18 years.

     

    1/14/2021 10:41 AM  #8

    RV6
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Pine Junction, CO
    Registered: 3/01/2016
    Posts: 1,249

    Re: 67-68 questions

    Josh,

    I installed Hookers when I did the T5 swap years ago (1993). I used a late model bell and original Z-Bar linkage. The car has PS/PB/AC and the headers needed no massaging.
    https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hok-6901hkr/make/ford/model/mustang/year/1967
     

    Last edited by RV6 (1/14/2021 10:41 AM)

    Gary Zilik - Pine Junction, Colorado - 67 Coupe, 289-4V, T5
     

    1/14/2021 3:34 PM  #9

    Ron68
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Mukilteo, Washington
    Registered: 4/01/2013
    Posts: 1,579

    Re: 67-68 questions

    I have the JBA shorty headers in my 68 (351W) and the Borgeson power steering conversion, and I have no fitment issues with the headers, other than a small protrusion on the block I had to trim off on the driver's side.  The steering box and Pitman arm are also clear. I do have 5.0L GT 40 heads installed too, so there's that. 

    68 coupe - 351W, 4R70W, 9" 3.25 -- 65 convertible - 289 4v, C4, 8" 3.00
     

    1/14/2021 4:03 PM  #10

    kardad
    I FYI 24-7

    Offline

    From: Lexington Ky
    Registered: 12/03/2019
    Posts: 305

    Re: 67-68 questions

    The deck height is higher on the 351/5.8 and I am assuming that is just enough to clear the top of the box. I think the deck is about an inch plus higher than the 289/302/5.0
    The third tube back hits the top of the box, and the taller deck eliminates that I guess.

     

    1/14/2021 8:21 PM  #11

    MS
    Forum Originator

    Offline

    From: Canyon Lake, Texas
    Registered: 1/24/2013
    Posts: 12,263

    Re: 67-68 questions

    351w deck height is 1/2” taller than the 302:5.0/289
    Measured at a 45 degree angle, not vertically.  Sorry.  Too lazy to do that math to figure out the vertical dimension.

    Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     

    1/14/2021 8:33 PM  #12

    Nos681
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Atlantic Mine, Michigan
    Registered: 7/14/2016
    Posts: 3,336

    Re: 67-68 questions

    RV6 wrote:

    Josh,

    I installed Hookers when I did the T5 swap years ago (1993). I used a late model bell and original Z-Bar linkage. The car has PS/PB/AC and the headers needed no massaging.
    https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hok-6901hkr/make/ford/model/mustang/year/1967
     

     
    Gary, did you have to use p/s drop bracket for the ram?

    I did on 65, no other mods required to Hooker 6901’s.

    I removed the choke heater tube.

    Used with:

    289/C9 heads/C4
    and
    5.0/E7 heads/T5

     

    1/15/2021 5:48 AM  #13

    TKOPerformance
    Hyper FYIFORD ADDICT

    Offline

    From: Newark, DE
    Registered: 12/15/2014
    Posts: 7,502

    Re: 67-68 questions

    MS wrote:

    351w deck height is 1/2” taller than the 302:5.0/289
    Measured at a 45 degree angle, not vertically. Sorry. Too lazy to do that math to figure out the vertical dimension.

    0.354"

     

    1/15/2021 9:52 AM  #14

    RV6
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Pine Junction, CO
    Registered: 3/01/2016
    Posts: 1,249

    Re: 67-68 questions

    Nos681 wrote:

    RV6 wrote:

    Josh,

    I installed Hookers when I did the T5 swap years ago (1993). I used a late model bell and original Z-Bar linkage. The car has PS/PB/AC and the headers needed no massaging.
    https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hok-6901hkr/make/ford/model/mustang/year/1967
     

     
    Gary, did you have to use p/s drop bracket for the ram?

    I did on 65, no other mods required to Hooker 6901’s.

    I removed the choke heater tube.

    Used with:

    289/C9 heads/C4
    and
    5.0/E7 heads/T5

    Yes I used the drop bracket and a heat shield. My remove the drop bracket and just go with the heat shield. Choke heater tube was utilized so it is still there.

    Gary Zilik - Pine Junction, Colorado - 67 Coupe, 289-4V, T5
     

    1/15/2021 12:08 PM  #15

    6sally6
    Hyper FYIFORD ADDICT

    Offline

    From: Surfside Beach,SC
    Registered: 4/02/2013
    Posts: 6,855

    Re: 67-68 questions

    josh-kebob wrote:

    .

    Kind of a pain to try and finish someone elses project. I'm current looking through boxes and looking for all the finishing parts for the 289.
    More to follow and thanks again for the assist.

     

    I/we can relate..... The crank balancer bolt on my build (years ago) totally grew legs and ran away! I was soooo careful to label and segregate ALL the parts and stuff too!
    NEVER did find it N-E-V-E-R !!  (Got a freebee from a local garage)   
    6sal6

    Get busy Liv'in or get busy Die'n....Host of the 2020 Bash at the Beach/The only Bash that got cancelled  )8
     

    1/15/2021 2:40 PM  #16

    TKOPerformance
    Hyper FYIFORD ADDICT

    Offline

    From: Newark, DE
    Registered: 12/15/2014
    Posts: 7,502

    Re: 67-68 questions

    6sally6 wrote:

    josh-kebob wrote:

    .

    Kind of a pain to try and finish someone elses project. I'm current looking through boxes and looking for all the finishing parts for the 289.
    More to follow and thanks again for the assist.

     

    I/we can relate..... The crank balancer bolt on my build (years ago) totally grew legs and ran away! I was soooo careful to label and segregate ALL the parts and stuff too!
    NEVER did find it N-E-V-E-R !! (Got a freebee from a local garage)
    6sal6

    Why I learned year ago to save spare stuff like that and put it in my hardware bins so I actually know where it is.  I've got a couple ford balancer bolts, a couple cam retainers with the bolts, distributor hold downs, etc.  Stuff comes in real handy.  Nothing is ever truly junk in my shop.  If nothing else I save the good OE hardware from it.  Its so much nicer than typical bulk hardware you get at the box or auto parts stores. 

     

    1/15/2021 7:35 PM  #17

    MS
    Forum Originator

    Offline

    From: Canyon Lake, Texas
    Registered: 1/24/2013
    Posts: 12,263

    Re: 67-68 questions

    TKOPerformance wrote:

    MS wrote:

    351w deck height is 1/2” taller than the 302:5.0/289
    Measured at a 45 degree angle, not vertically. Sorry. Too lazy to do that math to figure out the vertical dimension.

    0.354"

     
    How did I know that was going to happen?

    Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     

    1/15/2021 7:56 PM  #18

    josh-kebob
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Madison, AL
    Registered: 4/06/2013
    Posts: 2,902

    Re: 67-68 questions

    MS wrote:

    TKOPerformance wrote:

    MS wrote:

    351w deck height is 1/2” taller than the 302:5.0/289
    Measured at a 45 degree angle, not vertically. Sorry. Too lazy to do that math to figure out the vertical dimension.

    0.354"

     
    How did I know that was going to happen?

    Clare-voy-aunt??!!

       •Thread Starter
     

    1/15/2021 8:18 PM  #19

    rpm
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: Bakersfield, Ca
    Registered: 9/17/2013
    Posts: 3,662

    Re: 67-68 questions

    MS wrote:

    TKOPerformance wrote:

    MS wrote:

    351w deck height is 1/2” taller than the 302:5.0/289
    Measured at a 45 degree angle, not vertically. Sorry. Too lazy to do that math to figure out the vertical dimension.

    0.354"

     
    How did I know that was going to happen?

    🤣🤣🤣

    Bob. 69 Mach 1, 393W, SMOD Toploader, Armstrong  steering, factory AC.
     

    1/16/2021 4:19 AM  #20

    50vert
    Senior 24-7 FYI Addict

    Offline

    From: QLD Australia
    Registered: 4/01/2013
    Posts: 1,427

    Re: 67-68 questions

    TKOPerformance wrote:

    MS wrote:

    351w deck height is 1/2” taller than the 302:5.0/289
    Measured at a 45 degree angle, not vertically. Sorry. Too lazy to do that math to figure out the vertical dimension.

    0.354"

    Thanks TKO for the chuckle I had over your record shortest post. It WAS funny!!! 

    "Those telephone poles were like a picket fence"
     

    1/16/2021 7:36 AM  #21

    TKOPerformance
    Hyper FYIFORD ADDICT

    Offline

    From: Newark, DE
    Registered: 12/15/2014
    Posts: 7,502

    Re: 67-68 questions

    Heh.

     

     

    1 of 1

  • Index
  •  » FYI Ford, Classic Mustang Tech Discussion
  •  »  67-68 questions

    • 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.