 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / May 2005I re-re-re-re-worked my website. new pics too!
I resized some stuff and changed up some of the older pics with new ones. Hopefully it's more friendly for those with slower connections. Lemme know what you guys think. Added a section with a pic of me if anybody's curious, plus a lineup of a few Ford Legends.  SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Why use the FMX? The reason is I have one in the '69 Mach 1 I just bought and I'm not sure I'll keep that or build up a C-4 for my 351W. Also, isn't the grill moulding a pain in the butt to install? :)~ SignatureMark -- "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank what?". " Val Kilmer in Real Genius. >I resized some stuff and changed up some of the older pics with new ones. >Hopefully it's more friendly for those with slower connections. Lemme know >what you guys think. Added a section with a pic of me if anybody's curious, >plus a lineup of a few Ford Legends. > Why use the FMX? The reason is I have one in the '69 Mach 1 I just bought > and I'm not sure I'll keep that or build up a C-4 for my 351W. Also, isn't > the grill moulding a pain in the butt to install? :)~ The FMX came with the car. It really gets a bad rep for a tranny. It's almost as strong as the C6 and much stronger than the C4, the problem is that it's so damn heavy because of the cast iron case. From what I've learned after talking to a few tranny builders, it's not worth building a super duty C4 unless you're gonna race. The FMX does the job quite well even behind my 400hp 450tq 351W stroker. Not a peep or complaint from it yet. The next tranny I get will be an AOD with AOD-E upgrades and a wide ratio gearset out of a 4R70W. "Ooooh Yeahhh!!"-Glenn Quagmire (The Family Guy) The trim around the grill is actually really easy to install, you just have to take your time, as with anything you'd want done right. There's one bolt on each side that is a PITA to get on the bright trim. the top bolt out of the 3 on the headlight housing. The angle sucks and it's really hard to get to, but patience and perseverance will get that one on. The wide flat satin pieces are very simple. What sucks is that the bottom satin piece is different between '69 and '70. The chrome lip is attached to the satin on '70 and on a '69 it's a separate piece altogether, and they aren't interchangeable. AARGH!! SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ I bought all new trim peices made by corvex and they bite, imho. Is there a shift improver kit for the FMX? SignatureMark -- "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank what?". " Val Kilmer in Real Genius. >> Why use the FMX? The reason is I have one in the '69 Mach 1 I just bought >> and I'm not sure I'll keep that or build up a C-4 for my 351W. Also, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to the satin on '70 and on a '69 it's a separate piece altogether, and > they aren't interchangeable. AARGH!! >I bought all new trim peices made by corvex and they bite, imho. Is there a >shift improver kit for the FMX? I used all my original stuff for the nose. Yeah, there's a TransGo kit, but trying to find someone who carries it is a bitch. I'd track it down on the internet. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Scott, Unfortunately, all my nose chrome was missing. Fortunately it still had a perfect grille. SignatureMark -- "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank what?". " Val Kilmer in Real Genius. >>I bought all new trim peices made by corvex and they bite, imho. Is there >>a shift improver kit for the FMX? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, there's a TransGo kit, but trying to find someone who carries it is > a bitch. I'd track it down on the internet. Where is the lineup of Ford Legends? On that subject, I'm going to the vintage races at Sears Point (Infineon) on June 5. They usually have a good turnout of historic Trans Am cars. Of course I'll be armed with the digicam and extra batteries. Anything in particular you'd like me to snap that I could email to you? Interior shots, engine shots? Snide comment on a two-page story in the latest Car Craft. It's about the '68 tunnel port 302, as reported by dyed in the wool Chevy guy Johnny Hunkins. The table of contents even says something about "think we can trust Hunkins with a Ford story?" When Hunkins writes that the tunnel port was Ford's Trans Am engine from '68-'70, I'd have to say no. It seems like even a Chevy guy should have heard of the Boss 302. At least he was kind enough not to mention what a failure the tunnel port was (except that he probably didn't know). 180 Out > Where is the lineup of Ford Legends? Sorry, more correctly, a line of legendary Fords. The pic on the "me" page showing the 427 Cobra, 351C Pantera and my '69 Boss 302 clone all lined up together. http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/comparo.htm > Anything in particular you'd like me to snap that I could > email to you? Interior shots, engine shots? Engine shots, Side exit exhaust on any Bosses and side shots showing ride heights would be extra cool. > When Hunkins writes that the > tunnel port was Ford's Trans Am engine from '68-'70, I'd have to say > no. Yeah, what a moron. You would think that they would have checked his info first. It's not like he's writing his opinion, this is historical info which can be confirmed or denied. > It seems like even a Chevy guy should have heard of the Boss 302. Seeing as it beat the crap out of them in '70. They were 3rd that year behind AMC, eesh! > At least he was kind enough not to mention what a failure the tunnel > port was (except that he probably didn't know). True that, however the problem with the Tunnel Port was it kept breaking. In theory it shoulda kicked some major a.s! SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Scott W. wrote: > 180 wrote: > > When Hunkins writes that the > > tunnel port was Ford's Trans Am engine from '68-'70, > > I'd have to say no. > Yeah, what a moron. You would think that they would > have checked his info first. It's not like he's writing his > opinion, this is historical info which can be confirmed or denied. I've got to cop to my own moronicism (?) that it was Jeff Smith, not Johnny Hunkins, who wrote this bit in Car Craft. Hunkins is the editor of Popular Hot Rodding, and in fact his latest editorial was about how much he looooves his '05 Mustang GT. Jeff Smith used to be the editor of Car Craft. When he was editor, his editorial page photo show him verily cuddling a small block Chevy on an engine stand. I'm not a brand loyalist to any make, but that photo always bugged me and seemed out of place in a supposedly brand-neutral mag as Car Craft. I'll get you some snaps of the Bosses at the races on June 5. They did some demon tweaks on those cars. One of my faves is, because the SSCA would not allow the "Shelby drop" mod, the Bud Moore Mustang team had Ford fabricate an upper control arm pivot that was over one inch wide. The mounting bolts went into the stock holes in the shock towers, but the axis of the pivot was one inch lower, giving the same camber improvements as the drop. Unfortunately the less well-connected Mustang teams just did the drop the Shelby way, with new bolt holes, the SCCA got wise, and banned the Bud Moore pivots. 180 Out |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.