Jump to content


Super Mods
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by cobra3073

  1. You might be on to something there, Don. I was driving my '73 Mach 1 daily until I purchased my '89 5.0. I was so impressed with the power, tractability and great gas mileage of the LX that I pretty much parked the Mach 1. BT
  2. What Barry (Rocketfoot) did not say is that "HE" is the one who is paying for all the services associated with running and/or maintaining the site and has done a TREMENDOUS job. I think that most would agree that this is one of (if not the BEST) sites on the "Net" but it does takes a certain amount of treasure to maintain it. The subscription for VIP Membership or a Site Supporters donation help to defray some of those costs. BT
  3. GREAT responses, Folks! I received essentially the same inputs on the '69 Mustang forum. Since the undercarriage is EXCEPTIONALLY clean and already painted, I have decided to just hit it with a coat of clear and press on with the project. Good point about my living in Memphis "Midlife" as we do not usually receive snow here and I will only be driving the car about 2000 miles a year (I have three other Mustang "Toys"):). Plus, the car will ALWAYS be garaged when not in use. THANKS again for the inputs! BT
  4. Yes, it currently has "just" paint. One recommendation on the '69 Forum was to utilize a 3k clear. BT
  5. As some of you may recall, I also have a 1969 (former H-Code {351 2V}) Mach 1 that I am restomodding with a 428CJ and cast iron tailshaft C6. I have already added staggered shocks and a 31 spline rear with 3.91 traction lok:). Today, we installed the Global West Sub-frame Connectors and the question came up as to whether or not we should use undercoating. The car is EXTREMELY clean underneath with ABSOLUTELY no rust issues. I will also be using the ACC MASS carpets which we believe will do a lot to address the outside noise issue. I have posted a thread up on the '69 Mustang forum soliciting opinions as to thoughts on undercoating and would also like to get y'all's take. So, what are the opinions? Thanks! BT
  6. When I returned from Vietnam (the first time) in 1968, I purchased my first car, a 1963 Ford Fairlane. I drove that car for about 6 months until I purchased a 1969 Ford Torino with a 428CJ motor. Unfortunately, I received orders almost immediately to go back overseas to an assignment where I could not take the car. I gave the car to my brother who took over payments. In 1972, I heard the Mustang was being discontinued with the 1973 model year and that model year (actually 71 - 73) reminded of the look of my old '69 Torino. I was still overseas but now assigned to an installation (and had the rank) to order a new car and have it shipped overseas. I went to the local Base Exchange and ordered the "Q" coded Mach 1 which I have owned continuously since early 1973. That car remains the "HEART" of my current stable which includes a 1969 Mach 1, a 1973 Grande, a 1989 LX, a 2003 Mercury Marauder, and a 2013 Lincoln MKT. BT
  7. Stranger things have happened (use of "wrong" radiator) in the production of these cars. I agree with Chuck's inference that if the build date matches, the use of the D1AE stamp might just be an anomaly, especially if the original owner is sure the radiator has never been out of the car. The fins per inch, as you apparently knows, coincides with the number that is supposed to be on a 4 speed 429CJ. http://429mustangcougarinfo.50megs.com/cooling_system.htm It is a "head scratcher" though. BT
  8. I agree with Luke:D! These cars deserve a "LIMA" motor...torque rules:)!! BT
  9. Understand:)! I am a bit "different" as I build my cars for me (to enjoy) and have no intention of selling or passing ANY them on to the next guy. That is the beauty of a site like this one as we have room for and support whatever approach someone takes with their Mustangs. Good luck on your quest and build:)! BT
  10. Sounds like you are going for a "Restoration" rather than a restomod? I have a 1969 428CJ motor in my '73 Mach 1 that I am replacing with a 545 as it is more "period correct." I picked up a '69 "body" that was originally an "H" code and am going to put the 428CJ in that car. along with a cast iron tailshaft C6. Mine is going to be more of a restomod as I am going with Dakota Digital gauges, Vintage Air, 17 X 8 wheels, ect. I have already upgraded the rearend with staggered shocks, 31 spline rear (3.91 traction lok), bigger sway bars, and subframe connectors. Have also added the fold down seat. Will also be adding the shaker hood. Trying to improve on Ford's original approach:). It is a money pit but it gets me through the day:)! BT
  11. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-Ford-428-Short-Block-C6ME-Thunderbird-Marauder-Shelby-7-Litre-67-68-428CJ-/121577981283?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c4e9cc563&vxp=mtr BT
  12. Overall, I believe this has been a GREAT thread as it has brought forward a couple of very good points. First of all, it has allowed us to bring to the attention of the editor for "Mustang Monthly" some of our (1971 - 1973 Mustang owners) dissatisfaction with what is seen by some as a lack of quality coverage of our cars. It has also allowed the editor the opportunity to respond to those criticisms. Secondly, it has shown that even among ourselves we often have "different" perceptions as to what has caused the "bias" against our cars over the years...Good stuff overall (in my opinion) but probably more appropriate for discussion in the non-public forum. With that said, I am leaving this thread open but caution everyone to try to keep to the original focus of the thread, i.e., our feelings as to how "Mustang Monthly" is addressing what we would like to see in the magazine. The editor is now a member of this site and I would think he (or members of his staff) will periodically check in with us. Again, GREAT thread so lets not get "off track." Thanks:)! BT
  13. No, not using a spacer. I don't know if Tommy is using a spacer with his. I seem to recall he is also using the Performer RPM intake in his application. BT
  14. There is a @ 1 1/2" between the air cleaner and the hood. The specifics on both my '73s is in my "garage." Here is the link to the information on the 472 that is in the 1973 Grande: http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-1973-grande BT
  15. Yes Doc, it is REALLY something to me when I think back on how long it has been and how far we have come as a Site. Not only are you to be congratulated for your 5000 posts but also for the quality of those posts and your ALWAYS level-headed approach to encountered issues. You are very special, my Friend:)! BT
  16. It works with my Grande which has a 472 (429 + 460 crank + .060). This is with the Performer RPM and an Edelbrock 750. BT
  17. THANKS for the quick response, Rob! ...and as sicndhed noted, please don't be a stranger:). BT
  18. The attached link explains the Marti Reports and how to go about obtaining the different ones. http://www.martiauto.com/reports2.cfm BT
  19. I am sure you will be able to obtain answers to any specific questions you might have. We are also good at giving advice:). Please post up with any specific questions. BT
  20. GREAT thread in my opinion:)! I have invited Mr. Kinnan or someone from the editorial staff at "Mustang Monthly" to address some of the opinions that have been brought forward here. Who knows, this might be an opportunity to REALLY get our points across and dispels some of the "myths." BT
  21. OUTSTANDING intro, Shawn! Thanks for sharing:). BT
  22. Mike, that is one of my FAVORITE movies:)! I must admit that I had not noticed all of the "references", other than the one to the "Vanishing Point" car. Man, you are "on it!" Sharp eye, indeed!! BT
  23. Me too, Chuck:)! Hence, the reason for my having the 2003 Marauder in my "stable." BT
  24. According to my references, the following applies: 351 2V (Manual Transmission) = 45 Amp-Hour Rated Battery as standard 351 2V (Automatic) = 55 Amp-Hour Rated as standard 351 4V = 55 Amp-Hour Rated as standard The 70 Amp-Hour Rated battery was optional on all three applications. BT
  25. THANKS Mike for accepting the "invite" and for being such a GREAT supporter of the Site:)! BT
  • Create New...