Jump to content


VIP Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by trillizo_y_uno

  1. 3 hours ago, Stanglover said:

    Now, if that was a Grabber Lime Mach 1, I'm be in awe. That would be my dream car, just like the very first one I ever saw back in 1972 in Birmingham, England and the reason I fell in love with Mach 1's. Save it if you can even though it's a fastback 302.

    I think the fact that this car is NOT a Mach 1 makes it pretty unique and cool.  Based on the YouTube videos, it's probably not worth saving.  But if Trevynd had the means, it would be an awesome car to restore back to original.  Just sucks it wouldn't be worth a fraction of the cost it would take to restore it.

    • Like 1
  2. Yeah, it's in really nice shape.  I purchased it used several years back, but never ended up installing it.  I went with a different manifold.

    I'm not certain on shipping costs, but I can't imagine it would be more than $50.  I think $250 shipped would be a fair price.

  3. Both of my manifolds had leaks where gasket material had blown out.  I thought about swapping over to headers.  But as others have mentioned, I didn't want to deal with the prospect having to constantly retorque the header bolts.  Instead, I decided to keep the manifolds.  I had a machine shop resurface manifolds so they would mate up true to the heads.  No regrets.



  4. 6 minutes ago, 73inNH said:


    Thanks for the info!

    My questions are more "theory" I guess . . . not necessarily tied to my setup.

    Modern cars have knock sensors and advance timing (I think) until knock/ping is detected. Running higher octane allows the computer to advance the timing further. Again . . . I think. :)

    If that's correct, I was wondering if we should automatically advance initial timing higher than base when 93 octane will be used. Or maybe I'm overthinking things.

    To answer your questions, I have a Pertronix disty, Pertronix II module and Pertronix II Coil. Using ported vacuum advance.

    HA, I think you have this backwards again.  Knock sensors are there to detect detonation and retard timing if detected.  For example, if your car calls for premium fuel and you put in 87 octane fuel, it may cause the car to detonate.  The knock sensor would detect this and retard timing as a result.

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, 73inNH said:

    1973 351C 4V Q Code

    I'm hoping for some clarification as to how octane relates to timing.

    My understanding is (feel free to pick apart!):

    1. Base timing on my car is 16* BTDC at 87 octane.

    2. Higher octane gas (I run 93 octane) burns slower and longer, thus you can run more advance (20* BTDC?).

    Are those statements correct? And if so, is it the case that if you run higher octane you should run more advance? In other words, if I run 93 and the car is timed for 87, I should be advancing my timing (by some amount) to take advantage of the higher octane.

    Am I correct?


    I think you might be looking at it backwards.  It is true that higher octane allows more timing advance.  I don't necessarily agree you should advance the timing just because you move from 87 to 93 octane.  Ideally you figure out the timing your engine is happy at and try to get it to run without detonation with the fuel you have available.

    With Clevelands, they tend to like a lot of initial timing.  16 degrees BTDC is usually a good place to start.  However if your distributor is curved with a 15L advance slot, your all in timing will be 46 degrees, which is probably too much.  You are better off running a 10L advance slot, for 36 degrees of all in timing.  You also have to consider vacuum advance and the springs, which control the rate of mechanical advance.

  6. 34 minutes ago, 73inNH said:

    Perfect, I'll try some power washing and light scrubbing and see how it looks.

    Yah, the place is in Milford, NH. There isn't a showroom to walk around, just a large warehouse with tons of parts (used and new). Best to call ahead of time to find that if they have what you need.

    The owner's name is Craig. Really nice guy. I met him at the swap meet in Epping yesterday. If you haven't gone, you definitely should go. It's the last Sunday of every month. I think the last show of the year is November.


    I am literally non-existent on the scene, but I might have to check it out one of these days.  Most of my free time gets sucked up by my kids with sports, etc.

    • Like 1
  7. I'm going to have to check out NE Performance Mustang.  I'm not far away from there, but had no idea they existed.

    Regarding your question, I'd probably test a small area with paint stripper to make sure it won't damage the plastic.  You could probably also get the paint off with a pressure washer.  Either way, be careful.  The plastic finish is probably pretty brittle after all these years.

    As far as new paint, there are some plastic paints out there you can use.  But it might be better to use a dye.

  8. 16 minutes ago, TheRktmn said:

    The 1.5 ohm resistor is to protect the coil/points. During start the circuit has B+ (battery voltage). 

    Since the primary ignition circuit goes through the tach the tach is designed to have that resistor. Without it the tach will read high (and eventually die). If you have a tach reading consistently low you may have an external ballast resistor as well as the OEM 'pink' wire, or one of those MOPAR dual ballast ceramic external resistors that have 1.5 ohms on one side and 5.0 ohms on the other.


    I'm curious about the inevitable failure, since as I mentioned I've been running the factory tach with a bypassed resistor wire for years without issue.  We all agree the factory tach is nothing more than a glorified current meter.  The more current goes through it, the higher it reads.  Bypassing the resistor wire simply removes some resistance, thereby allowing more current to flow through it.  From my observations, the tach reads approximately 150-200 rpms higher with the resistor wire bypassed.

    So my question is, how is bypassing the resistor wire dangerous to the tach at all?  Stepping on the gas pedal, driving around, even adjusting the idle higher, would all have the same effect of subjecting the tach to a current increase.  My point is, all tachs will probably fail at some point.  But I don't believe the resistance wire bypass does anything to shorten its lifespan.

  9. 57 minutes ago, Vicus said:

    Factory tach needs feed via resistance wire. Unresisted 12V feed will damage it.


    I've been running the factory tach with a bypassed resistor wire for years without issue.  I think the assumption is that it will give up the ghost at some point, but it has yet to happen.

  10. 1 hour ago, tony-muscle said:


    I was thinking about this, so I am wondering if Pence's opinion still holds true for a 408 that in theory is breathing about 16% more air than a 351, or about 1,000 rpms?

    I would think so.  Remember, 4V ports are huge and should be more than capable of flowing whatever your 408 can throw at it.  My main point, there is something else going on here.  You aren't falling off a cliff at 5K RPMs because of valve shrouding.

  11. Hmmm, I'm no expert.  But as George Pence once said, "If you have an engine, equipped with 4V heads, that flattens out before 6000 rpm, it has a problem. Floating valves, collapsed tappets, valves sticking in their guides, carburetor secondaries that don't open, malfunctioning ignition, exhaust valves opening too late, somebody's pounded a potato up the tail pipe".  So looking at our dyno sheet, I don't think your issue has anything to do with valve shrouding.

  12. 1 hour ago, mjseakan said:

    I've been following this topic pretty closely because your problem sounds an awful a lot like mine: Bogging down when mashing down on the gas pedal.  I also have an Edelbrock Performer intake but with an Edelbrock 1406 carb. When I swapped out the intake and carb I plumbed the PCV valve into the carb like you did. Maybe this is my my issue too.

    So, would you happen to still have the specs on the elbow and grommet you purchased? I'd like to see if that helps me out too.




    My guess is you need to swap out for stiffer springs.  Your secondaries are opening up before the secondary jets pop up and provide the fuel you need.

    • Thanks 1
  13. My best guess is also a vacuum leak due to manifold install.  Start spraying brake/carb cleaner around the base of the manifold to see if you get any increase in idle.  Also try covering up the top of the carb with your hands or a rag, it should bog down or nearly stall out the engine.  It could also be a timing issue, but since you didn't have the issue prior and didn't mess with the timing, it's probably not a timing issue.

    Out of curiosity, where in NH are you?

  14. Tony, you had like the only 71-73 Mustang at HRPT!

    Side note, crazy how many fox bodies there seem to have been.  I guess it's kind of cool those are getting some love as classics now.  But to me those will always be a dime-a-dozen cars.

    • Like 1
  15. I had no issue installing the brackets as is, without utilizing a 2nd set.  The seat tracks have enough give where they will slightly bend in place when you torque down the bolts.

    It's worth repeating, but this was one of the best mods I have ever done to the Mach 1.  The extra 2 inches of leg room makes a huge difference.

  16. 9 hours ago, PNWMach1 said:

    Haha, I noticed that as well! Love that guy's channel! 

    The first video I saw was when he picked up the Independence Chevelle a couple years back.  I was instantly hooked.  Dude is a born entertainer.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...