blueovalz

They need to have warning cones or flags draped around this thing, as it looks extremely hazardous to the knee bone! Other than that, I would have to credit the maker with at least some creativity.

Awesome! My 13 year old daughter could tear up a 2lb steel ball, but this beats her out.

Been there, done that. TIME buddy, TIME. All good things come in time. Yeah, it's tough right now, but immerse yourself in some of the things you really like to do (Z for instance) and take this opportunity to go to some Z events, or what ever you like. Hang loose and don't take your situation too seriously or you'll hang yourself. A good gal will come along some time (who knows, she may be in the exact same situation, but on the other side of town for all you know). My biggest mistakes with women were when I was "looking". Good luck (just don't wear a bunch of orange and white).

The Ford conversion is less documented than the more ubiquitous Chevy swap. One reason is that a kit is available that simplifies the fabrication process for the Chevy motor. Other than that, the work involved is basically the same. This includes fabrication of motor mounts (which as stated above can be purchased from a fellow member I believe). A suitable transmission (another mount to fabricate), shortened driveshaft, driveshaft/propeller shaft adapter, and other misc things such as clutch engagement pieces, and deciding on an EFI or carbed induction system. These are the basics, and as anybody on this site will tell you, none of it is beyond even the most tenderfooted of gearhead. Ask specific questions, and you'll get some good answers. Just allow yourself plenty of time to fiqure out what you want to do, and how you're going to do it. Don't rush into it too quickly or you'll end up back tracking because of simple mistakes.

Longer shaft is the passenger side one.

The leak may be at the back of the MC (at the booster). This is a hard leak to find, but with the loss of an entire reservoir's worth of fluid, I would be surprised it has not shown up at that junction.

Here is what I would do. First cover the hood (and good paint) with 2" masking tape, with a minimum of overlap between runs. This will protect the paint from the resin of the fiberglass (cover a very large area). Next, determine the maximum thickness of the gap at any one spot on the scoop as placed onto the hood (for example if the bottom of the scoop is flat, but the hood is curved, you may have 1/4" in front and in back under the scoop that is not touching the hood when the scoop is physically resting on the hood. Next cut out enough mat so that it can be placed between the hood and the scoop and fill in any and all gaps. Next lay a couple of complete layers of mat that will be of an area of the entire scoop footprint (resin soaked) onto the hood (an outline from a Sharpie of where the scoop is going will orient you very well. Next, place resin soaked pieces that are appropriately cut out to fill in the gaps. Now place the scoop onto the wet resin (make sure you rough up the bottom of the scoop with, say, 36 grit sandpaper) firmly in place without distorting the shape of the hood. You will still be able to see the Sharpie outline originally drawn on the tape through the wet mat. Let it kick (but not fully because it will be much easier to pop it off the tape if caught just when the resin has just had a good time to gel, but not get glassy hard), then peel it off the tape (or the tape may come with it) and sand the edges to be flush with the scoops sides. Now the bottom of the scoop matches perfectly the contour of the hood where you want to place the scoop. And if you really want to do it right, before you start, drill holes in the hood for bolts, the when the scoop is in place over the holes, mark the bottom of the scoop, drill, tap, and insert heli-coils into the fiberglass so that the scoop can be bolted to the hood. It will now never crack, or separate (as on a bonded scoop). This method is how I did this scoop:

Even all my years of powerlifting and body building couldn't open a simple bag of candy my wife needed open on a road trip. Finally stuck an ink pen through the side, and the thing split top to bottom (once a stress tear developed a child could have opened it) with candy going down every possible opening in the console, shifter, and between the seats. Crazy like a fox???. Yeah, time for another bag.

One thing I'd like to add here is that for years (decades to be correct) I took my 289 to 7k repeatedly and sometimes to 8k with no special balancing. This was with a cam not designed for that range, and with cast pistons, and stock rod bolts. With that said, I had one piston ring land break (but the motor still ran fairly well), and I broke one crank (balancer was loose, so I don't know if it was a crack that caused the balancer or balancer caused the crack - chicken and egg scenario). Considering the small rods and bolts the factory uses, I felt this was outstanding. My current motor now uses good rod bolts, a balanced assembly, forged pistons, and a mild (by solid roller standards) cam. The grinder felt he was not padding the figure of 377hp with the current CR, cam, head, exhaust, and intake configuration at 7800 rpm. The torque band all the way up to 5K is just under breakaway torque for the 315 tires that I have, which for me, gives me the pleasure of not having to feather the throttle.

I can't put my finger on it, but I recall a study in which "non-synthetic/synthetic" blends were tested with differing proportions of the two. It was found that a small (percentage wise) amount of the supposedly "pure" synthetic oil mixed with a larger amount non-synthetic provided a blend whose characteristics were heavily weighted toward a pure synthetic oil. The result's curve then flattened out as the ratio of the two became closer to 1:1 with almost no difference in the blend characteristics from this ratio on toward the 100% synthetic blend.

What a sleeper!

The differences are so minor that you may not pick up on them. You have your typical rod length/stroke ratio differences, and the difference of 11 cubes. I had a 289 in a '66 Mustang as a kid. Using the same equipment on both motors (when I later went for years using a 302) I would not be able to tell you whether the 289 was actually quicker, or that it was a old man's nostalgic sentimental memory that made it quicker. Anyway, I just finished swapping out the 302 and going back to a 289. This time I balanced everything with my desires to return back to my roots of some high rpm twisting. All in all, I would guess that at the nth degree of comparison, the 302 may be better, but I have no empirical evidence to prove it.

Awesome. Aux, where did you get these from. I'd like to check it out.

Dang! Andy Rooney you ain't, but you're close.

That is a very broad question. The only difference between a 289, and the early 302 motors is stroke (crankshaft has .130" more stroke on the 302) and rods (longer 289 rods). Basically that's it until you get into the roller 302 motors with the lighter, but same stroke, cranks (they need 50oz balancing vs the early 302 & 289 motors which used 28oz balancing). The transmission bellhousing will need to match the flywheel. The 157 tooth flywheel will require the slightly tighter bellhousing (for starter alignment purposes) verses the 164 tooth flywheel. Until you need a more specific answer, that's all I can offer up.

Bob, I took a somewhat more complicated approach to filling the cell. I put a door into the hatch, over the cell. Under the door is a tube and cap to seal the cell. The link below will have a lot of photos of how I did this (fuel filler album). It is probably more complicated than you may want to do, but it may give you some ideas for the door at the license plate area.

Driveline vibrations at the current time are predominately tire problems. I have investigated the aluminum driveshaft, and am waiting for a good deal on one. As for your question about the "engine only" solid mounting, my view is that if you only use one plate (front), then this would do little to nothing to stiffen the front end (unless you use a wide bolt pattern out on each side to lessen any flexing around an otherwise small bolt pattern (or a single bolt attachment on each side). This then may help very little. But by using 2 plates (front and back) you have used the rigidity of the entire block to prevent the rails from twisting relative to each other. Then add solid transmission mounts and you then provide a "back bone" or spine running from midway of both axles to the front cross member, which then prevents any vertical flexing. Then to take it to the extreme, I added diagonal braces from the strut towers down to the block in conjunction with a crossbar from tower to tower, and then connected to braces from tower to firewall. Very Rigid! My thoughts on combining solid/rubber mounts is that they should never be combined. Either make them all solid or all rubber. Solidly mounting only part of a system, and then rubber mounting the rest of it allows the rubber mounted part to move, which can result in the fatiguing of the solid mounting regions (tear out, etc).

Bolt cutters may work fine, but you need to make sure that no teflon liner exists that would be crimped, causing problems with fittings.

Well, if I couldn't get paid to drive a Ferrari around a track, then being paid to do your project would be the next best thing. Vibration?.....this is a very subjective opinion, so keep that in mind. I personally do not have a problem with the engine vibration. What is more annoying to me is the driveline vibration, rather than the engine vibration. If the interior is properly assembled with no loose pieces, it will not be a big deal. With the interior parts inside your car that will be installed, I would either make sure they are securely fastened, or go ahead and use rubber mounts. The rigidity that was added to the chassis due to my choice of mounts is nice. Would I do it again with a street car? Probably yes. Sorry for the vague answer, but it's the best I can do. One good thing about having all this stuff solidly attached to the "butt" is the second you foul a plug, or a U-joint starts going south, or any abnormal condition develops, you know it immediately. And this alone has save me a ton of pain.

I love the Freudian slip here. Yes-sir-ee-bob, the Ford 289 was a real fine engine. Anyway, I say go for it. My 289 (not a 283 guys, sorry) has seen 8k one time since the rebuild, and lots of 7k+, and yeah, it's kinda high strung, but you got to love it when you stay in gear while the other guy is shifting already. Will it win a race, maybe not, but the RRRRR's are part of what this hobby is all about. "Tach it up, tach it up, buddy gonna shut you down".

The idea has merit, but you will need to have one side left-hand threads and the other side right-hand threads. Having it being a "stressed" member is of question to me. In some cases, a pre-stressed component can be of value, but I do not know if this would be necessary for this application. With the way that the unibody is designed in this area of the car, I can see where it would be quite easy to distort the hood/fender gap when you begin tightening this coupler. A lot of tension can be generated this way with very little resistance at the coupler.

All the Z brake MC bores were of 7/8" size. They will all interchange.

Nice to see some pics of your SBF install. Great looking project!

Tightly wrap tape around the braided line, then use a very fine toothed hacksaw (32 tpi or better). I did have luck with a cable (like electricians use) cutter too, but it was on the smaller brake line size tubing.

I had this very same problem for about 2 years. Then one day I popped one of the half-shafts out of the side (the car was up on jacks, but level), and oil poured out. It was not even a cup of oil, but after I reinstalled the shaft, I found that I never had problems with oil blowing out the top vent tube any more. I guess I had put too much oil into the case when I installed it. I am still perplexed as to why a slight overfill would cause oil to vent out though. The vent tube is baffled, so this still puzzles me.