Search



Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs (Tech)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search

Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-04-2014, 08:42 AM   #941
racer_dave
2nd Gear Member

 
racer_dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Vehicle: 1967 Mustang Fastback
Location: Michigan
Posts: 329
Default

Lynn,

Thanks for the update!!! I can feel the frustration, for sure. So the racer in me (who's used to having to modify everything!) has a couple questions...

1- If you go to a manual rack, would you gain some pan clearance? I'm thinking without the servo you could maybe get the extra wiggle room? It might be a bit harder to turn in a parking lot, but certainly not as hard as a manual steering box car would have been. Would adjusting the rack mount help?

2- What are the dimensions of the lower crossmember? Can you thin that out to drop the engine another 1/2" or so? If that causes another interference, what hits?

3- Stamped steel pan, or cast aluminum? Steel pan can be modified easier.

4- You said the compression is too low to run naturally aspirated, what is it? Pistons domed/flat top or dished? What is the chamber volume of the heads?

5- All this started because of the high volume oil pump? Why this pump? I mean obviously you want good oiling, but there are lots of pumps on the market, if you switch pumps does that open up more pan options? *** edited- I can't stop thinking about this... I keep coming back to the pump/pan... What part number is the pump? pans? There's got to be a workaround between these two parts. If we can figure this out, then the rest works. Pics of these if you have them. Got to be a way to fix this...

Post us some pics of the pan/block/clearance issues, of the intake, oil pump, rack install so we can all stare at it a bit. I know that's going to feel like picking at a scab but please think about it.

You've been kind enough to share this build from day one, let us give back by helping find a solution to all this. I bet we can figure it out with enough eyes on it.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
__________________
The gas pedal fits best right up against the firewall, so I figure it should be there as much as possile

Last edited by racer_dave; 04-04-2014 at 09:03 AM.
racer_dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 11:35 AM   #942
NoReins
3rd Gear Member

 
NoReins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1968 Ford Mustang Fastback
Location: Ohio
Posts: 724
Default

I can answer some of your questions now but the others later and I can post pictures later. Basically at this point we want to find the easiest solution. We already know we have to pull the engine out regardless so we've been mentally prepping for that. Probably have to pull the nose and of course the hood.

Moving the rack down won't work because it's already so close to the boot on the lower control arm. I'm talking 1/4 inch. Pictures will show later. I don't want to go manual rack - this set up is supposed to work! There is a possibility of drilling out the holes on the cross member to move to rack a little bit BACK which would free up a smidge for the clearance of the pan. But again, if this has "been done a thousand times" then it should either A. Work without mofidying or B. Fix the design so the rack doesn't sit HIGHER than the crossmember causing the pan to literally lay on the rack. Cannot drop the engine without modifying the pan AND modifying the mounts that Rusty has already modified. Again, we need the most simple solution. Hindsight it would have been better to have modified the pan not knowing we'd have clearance issues on top. We purchased the Canton oil pan because with the s/c we wanted to use the HV oil pump that the engine was designed for (the Ford Motorsports pan that we did initial mock up with would NOT clear the pump). Rod and Custom Pan numbers are 15-690 and it's fabricated steel.

Engine compression is 8.9:1 with forged pro pistons. Heads are Edelbrock Performer.

We've been through 3 oil pans. I'm tired of buying oil pans. I'm tired of buying everything 3 times. I'm tired of all the lies, and being misled.
__________________

Last edited by NoReins; 04-04-2014 at 11:38 AM.
NoReins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2014, 02:41 PM   #943
racer_dave
2nd Gear Member

 
racer_dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Vehicle: 1967 Mustang Fastback
Location: Michigan
Posts: 329
Default

OK, went back and looked at pics from the thread, and also found the thread on the VMF that had some more pics.

It looks like the only issue with the Canton pan is where the front bulge comes down, and that is hitting the rack? If it was me, I'd look into modifying that pan to give more clearance at the rack. It will depend on where the pump is in relation to the pan, but even if you only gain 1/2" it might be enough.

So that's the way I'd go. It's cheap and it lets you get the motor back down where it needs to be.

I know this was all 'supposed' to work and it's beyond frustrating, but all you can do now is adapt.
__________________
The gas pedal fits best right up against the firewall, so I figure it should be there as much as possile

Last edited by racer_dave; 04-04-2014 at 04:19 PM.
racer_dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 09:45 PM   #944
chillininnh
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 03246
Posts: 477
Send a message via Yahoo to chillininnh
Default

I feel your pain. I bought many things on my build (headers, rack&pinion kits, seats etc.) 2 and 3 times. It sucks. Hang in there and move methodically, you'll get there.
__________________


69 Mach 1 418W/TKO600/RMP Front Coil-Over/TCP Manual R&P/FR Tilt Column/GW Subs/GW Lowering Leafs/GW Del-A-Lum/Factory Power Front Brakes/3.70 9" Auburn Diff/Painless Wiring/ProCar Elite Lumbar
Project Pics
http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h127/chillininnh/
chillininnh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 09:14 AM   #945
Snipe656
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Vehicle: 1967 Ford Mustang GT
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Default

With different heads you could probably end up with some decent compression for an NA setup. Guess it just all boils down to preferences, 8.9:1 is not really all that low of a compression ratio after all when considering that was about the stock compression ratio for pushrod V8s when Ford still was putting them into cars before the mod motor switch overs. I do not know anything about the particular heads you have but I once took a motor making similar compression and got it to above 10:1 via some major milling of the heads to drop the chamber sizes. But that route was taken in order to race in a specific class for a specific race. We even had to mill down the intake so things would fit right, I will dare say we went too far down with the heads. Had we not been trying for that specific need then I'd opted to going to a different brand head that would already be smaller and designed for that.
Snipe656 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 09:23 AM   #946
racer_dave
2nd Gear Member

 
racer_dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Vehicle: 1967 Mustang Fastback
Location: Michigan
Posts: 329
Default

I looked up the edlebrock heads and the CHP website and tried to figure out how they got to the 8.9. I could get to 8.7 using one of the pistons listed on their site, a .202 head gasket thickness and 90cc heads. If that's the case, then if they swap to the 60cc heads they gain a lot of compression. Might need to run a thicker head gasket if they don't want to use octane boost all the time. Otherwise, mill the 90cc heads a touch. You don't want to go above 10:1 if you're wanting to run pump gas.

As for the space issues, I don't think they'll find the inch they need in any one place, but a 1/4" here and a 1/4" there adds up in the end. I have to do that with the racecar all the time. I can't find 10lbs to get rid of, but I can find 1lb 5 times and 1/2lb 10 times and get the same result. I'm sure they'll get it, but it's difficult when it's so frustrating for stuff that is supposed to work.
__________________
The gas pedal fits best right up against the firewall, so I figure it should be there as much as possile
racer_dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 03:02 PM   #947
NoReins
3rd Gear Member

 
NoReins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1968 Ford Mustang Fastback
Location: Ohio
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racer_dave View Post
It looks like the only issue with the Canton pan is where the front bulge comes down, and that is hitting the rack? If it was me, I'd look into modifying that pan to give more clearance at the rack. It will depend on where the pump is in relation to the pan, but even if you only gain 1/2" it might be enough.
We did give this some thought, problem being we did not want to hack up a work of art ($$!). We were also worried about the pan clearance with the HV oil pump. It seems like the way to go right now is to swap the pump and run the Ford Motorsports pan- what's another oil pan anyhow! I appreciate your throughts and willingness to help Dave!

Thank you for the support chillininnh! I know we will get there eventually, you just have to step back from these projects after awhile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe656 View Post
With different heads you could probably end up with some decent compression for an NA setup. Guess it just all boils down to preferences, 8.9:1 is not really all that low of a compression ratio after all when considering that was about the stock compression ratio for pushrod V8s when Ford still was putting them into cars before the mod motor switch overs.
Someone else told us this as well. However, they also said there was a huge power loss by doing so. I suppose they had to run this ratio to comply with emissions? I am not that much of an engine guru (can you tell, lol). We are going to talk to a local engine builder and see what he can make of the parts we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by racer_dave View Post
I looked up the edlebrock heads and the CHP website and tried to figure out how they got to the 8.9. I could get to 8.7 using one of the pistons listed on their site, a .202 head gasket thickness and 90cc heads. If that's the case, then if they swap to the 60cc heads they gain a lot of compression. Might need to run a thicker head gasket if they don't want to use octane boost all the time. Otherwise, mill the 90cc heads a touch. You don't want to go above 10:1 if you're wanting to run pump gas.

As for the space issues, I don't think they'll find the inch they need in any one place, but a 1/4" here and a 1/4" there adds up in the end. I have to do that with the racecar all the time. I can't find 10lbs to get rid of, but I can find 1lb 5 times and 1/2lb 10 times and get the same result. I'm sure they'll get it, but it's difficult when it's so frustrating for stuff that is supposed to work.
Dave you are beyond me with the head milling and such. We are trying to learn the in's and out's of engine building, but I guess it is like anything else on these cars, learn as you go.

Thank you guys again for your thoughts, help and encouragement! We will get things straightened out I know. Luckily we have plenty of (more exciting) parts of Eleanor to work on in the meantime.

__________________
NoReins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 08:12 AM   #948
Snipe656
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Vehicle: 1967 Ford Mustang GT
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoReins View Post
Someone else told us this as well. However, they also said there was a huge power loss by doing so. I suppose they had to run this ratio to comply with emissions? I am not that much of an engine guru (can you tell, lol). We are going to talk to a local engine builder and see what he can make of the parts we have.
Or it could been for fuel quality issues. I have found if I step much above 9.5:1 compression that I would sometimes get some "pinging" after filling up at certain gas stations. Although it be all in how it is tuned. I ran a 302 engine with 10.25:1 compression and a Vortech making 10-12 lbs of boost for awhile in a daily driver. But to do that I backed out a ton of timing and thinking back was probably drowning the engine with fuel.

For your motor I'd say pull one cylinder head off and cc the chamber on it. Might be able to get a local engine builder to cc it for free or dirt cheap. It is a real simple process to do and gives you an idea of what you have since always a chance something was done to them when the engine was built. Would be nice to know the cc of your pistons too but can't honestly say I ever tried to do that with the shortblock assembled though guess it is possible to get a decently rough idea. From there you can figure out the compression and see if it is what you were told. It also should help you with those numbers to be able to figure out some "affordable" methods to adjust the compression to a number you'd like to be at.

Of course a whole other option is just sell the engine you have and find one more suited for an NA goal, if that is the route you definitely are going to take. Seems nice "used" engines come up for sale quite often as people switch their projects around or run out of funds to finish their projects.
__________________
-- Admiral Aaron
Snipe656 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 03:13 PM   #949
fastbackford351
Foghorn Leghorn
 
fastbackford351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1967 Fastback & 2002 GT Convertible
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,924
Default

Dang, that's looking good.
__________________
Government Warning:

Governments are extremely dangerous.
Death, imprisonment, theft of property
and loss of freedom will result from
giving them too much power.
fastbackford351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 05:29 AM   #950
NoReins
3rd Gear Member

 
NoReins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1968 Ford Mustang Fastback
Location: Ohio
Posts: 724
Default

I'll get back to the engine chat later but here are a few pictures I took last weekend. It was finally sunny and warm enough so we pushed her out to see what she looked like in the sun.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
NoReins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 05:29 AM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
1968, 200, 68, 71, classic, down, fastback, fold, ford, i6, lines, mustang, mustangs, non, project, sale, vacuum, woman

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup