Flash's 66 mustang

[Flash]

Thanks for the additional info @cletus

I was anticipating exactly what you describe in terms of a factory pedal modification and from what I have read it seems like Ford built this into the Mustang brake pedals from 1967 onwards. All of the info that I have managed to track down thus far suggests that for the 65 and 66 Mustangs the brake pedal was exactly the same for both manual brake and power assisted models.

I find this really hard to believe.

I'm going to make contact with Rob from Sydney Mustang tomorrow morning to see what he says as he has restored and modified hundreds of earlier Mustangs over the years.

Excuse the crappy quality screen grab below.

[anglia4]

Could that gold part be installed up the other way?

So it is on the lower pivot but the rod aligns close to the original location?

Or does it then clash with the original pin?

[anglia4]

Lots of these pictures of similar kits show that part up the other way.

[Flash]

Hey @anglia4yes, my bad. I slapped the coupler on upside down for my photo. Thanks for setting me straight. 

I did some more research last night on this adjustable pushrod setup. It is a Scott Drake part - much like many of the aftermarket Mustang parts are-  and in reading through their description of the part they state that it is to be fitted to cars with manual disc brakes only. Quoting from their product specification : "Does not work with power disc brakes" 

At US$ 50.00 it isn't cheap so whoever fitted it wasted their money.

 

 

[cletus]

Looks real good now!  

[piazzanoob]

The new ride height looks much better.

Also on the fuel sender they earth through the tank and can cause all sorts of level issues. so all this old stuff i solder a wire or terminal onto the sender and bolt an earth wire onto the chassis somewhere.

also good idea while your there is to test the accuracy of the gauge and sender. and bend the sender to suit as much of the repro senders can be junk 

great progress  

[fuel]

that date on the arm is probably American format - month/day/year so June 2004 rather than 2006.

[Flash]

8 hours ago, fuel said:

that date on the arm is probably American format - month/day/year so June 2004 rather than 2006.

Thanks for that @fuel

[SOHC]

Finding that stud in the carburetor before it entered the engine was good, I have an air filter that the nut on the end of the shaft could fall off so I brazed it to the filter base

[Flash]

Yep, it certainly could have ended in tears. That's always the worry with buying an old car. You never know what shortcuts one of the previous owners may have taken. Brazing the nut is a bloody good idea, so thanks for that @SOHC

[datlow]

Maybe this style radiator would be the go

 

[Flash]

Yep, agreed. From what I have read the side tank layout was driven by the need to reduce bonnet height in modern cars that have much sleeker looking front profiles.

The newer generation Fox body Mustangs run a similar setup but with the inlet and outlets on opposite tanks like this :

[Flash]

There are a few challenges when fitting a wider fox body radiator to a 66 Mustang. The first thing that needs to happen is the relocation of the battery to the boot.

Next up you need to cut more out of the front radiator panel to increase the opening.

The next challenge is to reroute your a/c lines as they now clash with the bigger radiator.

I've also read that if you want to retain factory radiator hoses you can use the fox body ones, but you need to use the fox body a/c, alternator and power steering pump brackets as well as a water pump. The alternative is to seek out alternative radiator hoses that will fit around everything.

[cletus]

https://flowkoolerwaterpumps.com/blogs/cooling-resources/doesnt-coolant-need-more-time-in-the-radiator-to-cool

 

I've recently been through all the same stuff as you, tried several different thermostats and none at all, and have tried both ends of the spectrum as far as restricted flow and max flow. I thought the above article was interesting 

 

For what it's worth, in my situation, the best combo was the maximum flow option, but id be the first to admit it's not ideal and the cooling system is borderline at best 

[Flash]

Thanks heaps for the link to that article @cletus. Makes for interesting reading. Funnily enough earlier in the week I was looking at an alternate style Robert Shaw balanced sleeve thermostat that is sold by Flowkooler.

Anyway, getting back to the article, it certainly looks like it debunks the GT350 guy's theory about keeping the coolant in the radiator longer.

I was interested to hear that you have had the best success with the maximum flow option.

After boldly saying that I was going to try the 195 F thermostat in my last update I've subsequently chickened out and installed the new 180 F thermostat that I have in stock. I'll give this one a try for a while and will report back on my findings. The other thing that I have done is hardwired my thermo fan to an ignition positive so that it will now run continuously. Here in sunny Queensland we tend to run a/c in the cars almost all year round, so I figured the fan is likely to be on most of the time anyway.

I'm still planning to replace my cheapy 3 row radiator with a 2 row Shelby alternative. The two row comes with 1 and a 1/4 inch vanes and is reported to be about 30% more efficient than my current cheapy. It also has a baffle built into the top tank which aids coolant flow across the whole core.

I think it's going to take a few rounds of trial and error before I am happier.

[chris r]

This popped up in my youtoob feed this morning. Just to add more variables and confusion to the mix 

 

[Flash]

Hey @chris r thanks heaps for posting this. Pretty interesting info on there and as you say another slant on the issue. Almost everyone you come across makes a compelling argument for their theory, so it's really hard for total newbs like me to figure out the best direction to take. It's a bit of a lottery to be frank.

Yesterday I was hoping to take a test drive with my new 180 degree thermostat fitted, but I picked up a leak from the thermostat neck so had to address that. I'll add the coolant this morning and give it a whirl.

[kws]

Just picking up on something you mentioned; can't running a thermo fan constantly cause issues with cooling when moving as it disrupts airflow through the core?

[Flash]

1 hour ago, kws said:

Just picking up on something you mentioned; can't running a thermo fan constantly cause issues with cooling when moving as it disrupts airflow through the core?

Good point @kws. Something I haven't through of. I reckon I should do a bit of research on that. Thanks for posting.

[dmulally]

18 hours ago, kws said:

Just picking up on something you mentioned; can't running a thermo fan constantly cause issues with cooling when moving as it disrupts airflow through the core?

Wouldn't it be the same as starting the car and immediately driving down the freeway with the airflow? The thermostat should block it from flowing until up to temp anyway. 

I have my thermo fan on a switch for my chev but unless on a winter morning and I remember I leave it on. I'm not sure banana benders get winters however. Putting on the shroud I found made the biggest difference for my overheating dramas and in the end was the engine itself.