Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BrandonDindorf

Vehicle Info

  • My Car
    1973 Mustang Mach 1 351c 2V, FMX, 9 inch Locker.


  • Location
  • Region

Personal Information

  • Sex

BrandonDindorf's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Has anyone tried cutting the rivet areas off and running a weld bead down the center? You guys think that would clear the header?
  2. Just got my 351C 2V Ford Power Train Headers in. They fit like glove but won't mount up. In my '73 fast back they had a one year only calm system motor mount. I had to smash up my last one to make it over the clam. They hit on the driver side, rear, outer corner of the clam. I am not about to do that with a $1000 dollar ceramic coated headers. I have included pictures. Has ANYONE order a pair of these for a '73 and they fit?
  3. Picked up a power seat for my '73. Realized the switch knob is broken. Has anyone rebuild one or replaced it with another easily?
  4. Okay, a follow up would be: are you sure the bacteria can survive in such high proof environment? Bacteria can grow in beer, maybe even wine on occasion, but hard liquor? Generally that stuff is so strong bacteria cannot grow in it. Do you know what makes ethanol able to be survived at such a high (170) proof level? I know that lower levels could bacteria could possibly tolerate it and produce such acid, and combined with its solvent problems it could compound a negative experience. But can they really survive at that level? Maybe that would eliminate half the problem associated with it.
  5. So even when using a carb built for E-85 it will need to constantly be rebuilt? If this is a problem for all cars? Is acetic acid bad for internal components? Also, E-85 is like 170 proof... How can bacteria grow in that medium, but not standard drinking (hard liquor) alcohol?
  6. I don't personally believe it should be subsidized, the problem is it is. Also a small number of vintage cars buying it or vetoing it won't make it go away. The point of this was to actually discuss the fuel itself, and examine E-85's use and properties. If production costs dropped and gasoline prices increased significantly (and all subsidies magically removed) most non automotive people would not care about anything in this post and simply chose the cheapest option their car could run. That means E-85 or any kind of junk fuel that is acceptable. Also, most people who aren't considered "tuners" or "import enthusiast" will not give E-85 a chance. If it is already there and we can benefit from thinking outside the box, lets not just roast it for no reason.
  7. I am going to give you all some data on E-85 verses using Premium gasoline. This will be geared to being pro E-85, please READ THE ENTIRE POST before screaming NO at the top of your lungs. I am aware Ethanol has negative effects on hoses, gaskets, and has a possibility of corrosion on our original equipment. This will be viewed in terms of analysis, of ACTUAL fuel specifications, NOT how much it would cost to retrofit or continued maintenance. That being said: E-85 has about 73-83% of the BTU content of straight Gasoline. E-85 get around a 25% reduction mileage per gallon. E-85 has 100-105 octane rating compared to 91-94 for premium. Stoichiometry A/F Ratio: E-100 is 9:1, Gasoline is 14.6:1 E-85 should be approximately 9.84:1 (based on ratios) In Ames, IA as of 5/24/2017: E-85 has a cost of $1.799, Premium (93) has a cost of $2.899. Analysis: You can purchase approximately 1.61 gallons of E-85 for the same price as a gallon of (93) Premium. With a 25% mileage reduction- 1.61 gallons would actually equal 1.21 gallons for equal distance of travel for Premium. This means you would be able to move 21% further for the same money at the pump. With naturally aspirated engines at 14.6:1 burn ration E-85 to burn would only require 67% to burn an equivalent liquid volume. That means you can increase the fuel volume into the cylinder by around 33% at the same air ratio. With evaluating a BTU decrease of the lowest end of 73% compared to Premium. In the same cylinder during combustion you could actual produce a 6% increase of BTU's over Premium fuel. Now to examine safe compression ratios. Most agreed upon limits for TRUE E-85 would be around 16:1 compression without detonation (I realize this ignores all design differences and real world issues). Premium (93) would be around 12:1. Boosting applications: My 351C has a compression ratio of around 9.5:1 ignoring ALOT of variables. I would be able to supercharge or turbocharge my engine safely on Premium by 4 PSI. On E-85 I would be able to pump in 10 PSI of pressure. Generally for every 15 PSI of boost you add you about double your current engines potential. As an example is my engine produces around 435 naturally aspirated. Premium @ 4 (12.1) = 553.40 E-85 @ 10 (16:1) = 731.00. (Yes I know these are theoretical calculations) Summary: E-85 at current cost will boost mileage by 21% compared to Premium. E-85 will allow you to increase compression ratios by internal or boosting applications. You would receive a slight increase of BTU potential in the same static environment. :chin: I feel as a community we tend to look at something new and hack it off because how it was before was "better" or "just as good". Also I have noticed if you need to do anything out of "normal" maintenance every few decades its a problem. ***All of these benefits from getting some difference fuel lines (rubber and metal), carburetor (or EFI retune), and replacing a fuel take and sending unit periodically. With as low of gas mileage as we get a 21% boost would pay for itself.*** Love to hear some thoughts.
  8. That is not original at all. I would always crack the fenders to verify before I would ever buy one.
  9. I have a flip style "deluxe gas cap", on my mustang. I will NOT change this for a locking gas cap. I live in a college town and am worried an educated idiot may try to either steal fuel or cause damage. Has anyone ever seen a locking filler neck or an insert of any kind to do such a thing?
  10. I messaged you. I thought you had a C-6 with that hooked up. Love to see those pictures.
  11. Please Jump in and correct any misinformation. First off, I have already rebuilt my FMX and have no interest in changing over to another transmission to "make it easier" or "upgrade" to a C-6. From all the digging around I have done, it appears almost or no one has been able to successful mount a B&M or Hurst Ratchet shifter to the FMX with using the original shift lever. I know you can drop the valve body to add a Lokar shift cable. I am also aware it may be possible to drop the tranny and change the pressed on shift level to make it work. What I have seen online it seems to be because the shift points do not line up with the current cable travel. I am currently going to be working with a B&M Star Shifter. This shifter appears to be functional with the C-4 & C-6 family that already able to be bolted right in our cars. I assume that as long as I make the Star Shifter functional with one FMX transmission, it should be functional or swappable with all other cable shifters in this standard shift pattern and compatability. That being said, I think it is absolutely crazy to go through more than a simple bolt on attachment to make it work. So that leads me to my questions: if I created a bolt on device that would allow you to bolt up and C-4 or C-6 cable shifter to an FMX with no modification to the transmission; would any of you be interested in buying it? What is a reasonable price to pay, considering a ratchet shifter is already 300 bucks or so? If there is enough interest, I will start looking into R&D.
  12. This is excellent! I was wondering I see a bunch of reviews and comments saying it is missing the adapter for the carburetor... Did you bolt it up or need additional parts?
  13. I don't mean to high jack this thread, but I would LOVE pictures. I need to put this in my car.
  14. Ordered a set and just got them in. anonymous picture share sites
  • Create New...