Jump to content

Info needed with my 71 Mach1


Recommended Posts

I will go and buy that book. Thanks for the info. I think I have the M code engine. I have the original distributor and it has single point not duel point. From what I see both engines have there good points about them. Over the holidays I will dig much deeper. Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe the Q codes started showing up in May '71, and most (all) were probably in California. I believe M codes continued to be sold until the end of the model year. One "Mustang" web site says that the M codes changed to CJs in May '71 and the CJs were also called M codes, they don't even know that there is/was a Q code. So, I can see why the confusion keeps going. Maybe someone with the Marti book can look up the production numbers of the engines. I looked online, but the only break-out I could find is by body style.

 

 

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

--Albert Einstein

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go and buy that book. Thanks for the info. I think I have the M code engine. I have the original distributor and it has single point not duel point. From what I see both engines have there good points about them. Over the holidays I will dig much deeper. Thanks again

 It's a very interesting book.

 

 As Don say in his reply, lots of confusion.

On the 72 Q code I owned it only had a single point distributor, but then again and I only found this out for sure 3 or 4 years back, the block was a Boss, so anything could and probably was changed by the PO. Personally, I thought it was only R code motors that got dual point Dizzy's ( R code 71 Boss 351C and 72 HO) I did find a dual point Windsor distributor at a swap meet earlier this year, so yes they could have been on 72 CJ's, anything is possible where Ford are concerned.

Geoff.

Geoff.

 I learn something new every day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Q codes started showing up in May '71, and most (all) were probably in California. I believe M codes continued to be sold until the end of the model year. One "Mustang" web site says that the M codes changed to CJs in May '71 and the CJs were also called M codes, they don't even know that there is/was a Q code. So, I can see why the confusion keeps going. Maybe someone with the Marti book can look up the production numbers of the engines. I looked online, but the only break-out I could find is by body style.

We must of read the same articles. It makes sense ford would use up all its existing parts first then switch over to the new parts. Hence the confusion. The May change was supposed to be for the tighter emissions standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Q codes started showing up in May '71, and most (all) were probably in California. I believe M codes continued to be sold until the end of the model year. One "Mustang" web site says that the M codes changed to CJs in May '71 and the CJs were also called M codes, they don't even know that there is/was a Q code. So, I can see why the confusion keeps going. Maybe someone with the Marti book can look up the production numbers of the engines. I looked online, but the only break-out I could find is by body style.

 

I seem to recall something like 144 Q codes were made in 71. I believe our resident Ford guru Secluff has posted on this previously.

73 conv. 460, D0VE large valve heads, Performer RPM manifold, Voodoo 227/233 cam, Holley 950 HP carb, C6 trans, 3.25 trak-loc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go and buy that book. Thanks for the info. I think I have the M code engine. I have the original distributor and it has single point not duel point. From what I see both engines have there good points about them. Over the holidays I will dig much deeper. Thanks again

 It's a very interesting book.

 

 As Don say in his reply, lots of confusion.

On the 72 Q code I owned it only had a single point distributor, but then again and I only found this out for sure 3 or 4 years back, the block was a Boss, so anything could and probably was changed by the PO. Personally, I thought it was only R code motors that got dual point Dizzy's ( R code 71 Boss 351C and 72 HO) I did find a dual point Windsor distributor at a swap meet earlier this year, so yes they could have been on 72 CJ's, anything is possible where Ford are concerned.

Geoff.

 

To top this, my '73 Q-code came with a double-dizzy from the factory. But instead of the overall thought it came with no 4-bolt mains on the original q-code block. Why? I don't know... It is an April 1973 car.

Tim

 

Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly :angel:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go and buy that book. Thanks for the info. I think I have the M code engine. I have the original distributor and it has single point not duel point. From what I see both engines have there good points about them. Over the holidays I will dig much deeper. Thanks again

 It's a very interesting book.

 

 As Don say in his reply, lots of confusion.

On the 72 Q code I owned it only had a single point distributor, but then again and I only found this out for sure 3 or 4 years back, the block was a Boss, so anything could and probably was changed by the PO. Personally, I thought it was only R code motors that got dual point Dizzy's ( R code 71 Boss 351C and 72 HO) I did find a dual point Windsor distributor at a swap meet earlier this year, so yes they could have been on 72 CJ's, anything is possible where Ford are concerned.

Geoff.

 

To top this, my '73 Q-code came with a double-dizzy from the factory. But instead of the overall thought it came with no 4-bolt mains on the original q-code block. Why? I don't know... It is an April 1973 car.

 Tim, I learn something new every day, especially on the dual point dizzy for 72-73 CJ's. As for 4 bolt mains, I have a 'theory' on that. We all know that the block casting were designed to take either 2 or 4 bolt mains, so my 'theory' is Ford had produced far more 4 bolt caps than needed due to the demise of the Muscle car era. So instead of scrapping them, they simply switch in 1 more operation to drill and tap the blocks for 4 bolt. They also would have used up whatever 2 bolt caps they had on hand, hence, the one you had. Simply put, it was the 'bean counters' at work. OR, perhaps Ford engineers really did find that 4 bolts were better than 2 bolt on any 351C. I sure would like to have them on my M code. Who knows what they were really thinking! 

Geoff.

Geoff.

 I learn something new every day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff, 

 

I think your idea applies how it really was  ::thumb:: 

 

There is no consistency of the thing with the caps. There were both 2-bolt and 4-bolt on the same kind of blocks, here is a good example of this in this thread: 

 

[/url]

https://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-vin-engine-casting-no-casting-day-confusion-pls-comment

Tim

 

Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly :angel:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff, 

 

I think your idea applies how it really was  ::thumb:: 

 

There is no consistency of the thing with the caps. There were both 2-bolt and 4-bolt on the same kind of blocks, here is a good example of this in this thread: 

 

[/url]

https://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-vin-engine-casting-no-casting-day-confusion-pls-comment

 Tim, thanks. 

 It's bizarre for sure, no consistency at all. I suppose the only other thought is that one could order either 2 or 4 bolt mains, but if not specified, you got 2 bolt. I don't know, just fishing for possible answers I guess.

Geoff.

Geoff.

 I learn something new every day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go and buy that book. Thanks for the info. I think I have the M code engine. I have the original distributor and it has single point not duel point. From what I see both engines have there good points about them. Over the holidays I will dig much deeper. Thanks again

 It's a very interesting book.

 

 As Don say in his reply, lots of confusion.

On the 72 Q code I owned it only had a single point distributor, but then again and I only found this out for sure 3 or 4 years back, the block was a Boss, so anything could and probably was changed by the PO. Personally, I thought it was only R code motors that got dual point Dizzy's ( R code 71 Boss 351C and 72 HO) I did find a dual point Windsor distributor at a swap meet earlier this year, so yes they could have been on 72 CJ's, anything is possible where Ford are concerned.

Geoff.

 

To top this, my '73 Q-code came with a double-dizzy from the factory. But instead of the overall thought it came with no 4-bolt mains on the original q-code block. Why? I don't know... It is an April 1973 car.

I have never seen a Q code that did not have dual point distributor. I complained about the performance of mine when new and dealer installed a dual point centrifugal advance dist. The vacuum can is still there to index the cap but the arm on the diaphragm is cut off. The center shaft had to change and cam is different also. On the two bolt being in there if the VIN# is stamped in the block I would say original but if not replacement.

 My 73 Mach 1 came with the wrong rear end in it broke 3 times before they figured it out. They use what they have to keep the line going. The called and wanted to switch mine to automatic and I would not let them.

  • Like 1

When a man is in the woods and talks and no women are there is he still wrong??:P

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, one of the best things I've bought in the past few years is an inspection scope. I have a Ryobi Phone Works scope that uses Bluetooth or WiFi or unicorn antennas or something to connect to my phone. It works okay, but tend to lose connection.

However, Ryobi does make one for their Tek4 line and it has it's own screen.

 

Ryobi Tek4 Digital inspection scope

 

There are other manufacturers, but these two I have actually used.

 

The whole point of this is that if you check the size and length of the lens, they will often fit inside a sparkplug hole...I have used mine to inspect the bores of engines without having to remove the heads. Like, you know, if you wanted to see if you have closed or open chamber heads...or get a look at the vin number stamped on the back of the block...or see some casting dates somewhere you can't get your fingers, much less an eyeball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...