Wow! You guys really bain bizzy here while I bain bizzy getting ready for and going to and fro Phoenix!!! 2000+ miles on the Goose! Didn't burn a drop of oil and my only complaints are the speedo is fast, and the ac fan in the cabin sucks.....!

Some points.....

289's: I think the latest car with a 289HiPo that I know of was 524 or so. Car that sold out of Nor Cal with the GT40 wheels on it...last year. These were expensive engines...why would DeTomaso continue to buy them? 302's were bone stock Mustang/Cougar stick trans engines. Minor changes done to them, like flipping the carb around! This does nothing detrimental to the engine....it's a dual plane intake....engine doesn't care... Most all originals that I have seen have the carb backwards. Holley conversions can go either way.

The car Jack mentioned is not 510, but 508, 4th-5th car built. I have seen the internals of this engine and it is ALL hipo 289 down to the dual point dist.....can't recall the date codes, but they are 67 IIRC, but windows are all early 68 dates, so this is NOT a 67.....contrary to previous owner claims. How could it have been sold in 67 if the windows were still sand!!!??

302's: 68 engines with air injection had the spark plug wire extensions screwed onto the original tabs on the valve covers. One picture somewhere above, can't quite make out the arrangement of how they were attached, but you can see the extension bracket, but these were only used in 68 that I am aware of and with the air injection. This would mean that DeT was buying engines from Ford parts dept and not from production line as someone suggested. Ford didn't sell stuff from the production line...that stuff was planned for and built for....the line. This is well known in the Ford circles..... DeT also bought industrial motors (from Euro sources!?)...painted baby poo brown/orange. These had HD water pumps with a larger center shaft....which is probably why your water pump pulley center hole is so large! Some replacement pumps will come with a bushing to take up the difference in size! Some engines had a stock Ford lower pulley, but the water pump pulley was never used on a Ford, and is why we have special water pump pulleys. To the best of my knowledge. (I scoured the books trying to find a stock water pump pulley as a replacement with no luck. Nothing in the Ford MPC matches the belt widths of the crank pulley in the way that DeT used them.....)

If 1064 had a 68 engine...which it seems like it does, the engine tag would give it away. If you can supply me with engine codes, I can decipher per the Ford parts books....should be a number 245,246 (hipo 289) or for 302's: 283 or 284 plus date codes etc. The 283/284 number is something that is listed in the books by applications. Tells you cubic inches, carb, and car line it is intended for. On a Mustang, the build sheet would have this number stamped on the paper, so the line guys knew which engine to grab.

I kept the tag for 760's engine, and first line reads 302 (displacement) C (rev?) 68 (for 1968) 1-not sure.... bottom line is 8 C or March of 68, is when it was produced, and 283-J which is the engine code and another revision number I believe. This is listed as a 1968 4V engine. If you have tags...and the numbers differ, sure would love to hear about it!!!

Spark plug wires should have been Autolite which came with the engine. 1064 also has great shots of the wire holder, to keep the wires off of the jackshaft! Problem with aftermarket manifolds is that they dropped the tab that these were mounted to, or it is under the jackshaft and interferes, so most do not have it unless they have the stock cast iron manifold! I could not put this onto my new Edelbrock intake....was pissed about that....! Watch your wires!

Would loved to have heard how DeT ordered the engines, ie minus the exhaust manifolds??? With or without clutch disc....pressure plate.....

Love the pictures of the relocated timing pointer and oil temp. Would be interesting to hear if any others have the same timing pointer or was this pointer added on by a frustrated owner!? Timing marks would have to be transferred...

Intakes: NOTHING wrong with the cast iron intake and the 1" carb spacer. Swapping to aluminum saves weight, and gains only small amount of HP. Breathing problems were more cam and exhaust port related.....getting air out.....not in.

Where it gets hazy, is after the 1100's which would have been late 69 making them, at least by US standards, 1970 models. My car, #878 has some windows dated July of 69 and others not too far off....so my car was not shipped before July. Window dates will help you decipher your car's "born on date"...or at least a "no sooner than" date! Which motors did these cars come with??? 69 302 with no air injection? 69 engines of 302 displacement were not 4V engines, unless they were a Boss, to my knowledge & the Ford master parts catalog. Some 69 Mustangs got 289's due to production prob's at the Windsor engine plant. Cougars got 351W's as smallest engine in 69.

We certainly should never have had 1970 engines in the cars, as the water pump orientation changed and would seriously mess with the large water hose routing!!! Don't ask how I know this...

If you have an original engine, date codes will help you, if you do not have the small aluminum engine tag, to figure your engine's birth month.

But, there are seemingly plenty of cars that were produced with no smog pump......indicating that the production line changed the "source" of engines from one type to another.....OR DeTomaso had Ford pull some strings to put 302 4V intakes on 69 engines...??? So, those of you with later model cars with dates from block, intake, heads, distributor, carb, and flywheel, could help decipher this issue! All of these numbers should be within about a month of each other... Smog pumps will also have dates on them, but they were not made at the casting foundry...so could differ by a wider margin. Harmonic balancers will also have a 2-3 digit date code stamped into them on the outer ring. These can vary from the castings by a couple of months. Water pumps also have dates, but these are probably LONG gone....!

Unless my bell-housing was replaced....I can find no evidence of ever supporting an air pump on the outside, and the alternator on the inside mount. No scars around the holes.....but I'd bet a dollar that someone wanged the bell-housing on something and replaced it...removed the smog pump..... oR NOT! The wiring for my alternator is extra short, with factory connections on the spades...so it was not shortened in this country..... So perhaps my car came with no smog pump already..... May never know....second owner may not recall and first owner, the dealer that sold the car is presumed passed on....at least the dealership is gone!

Water valves: NICE pictures of 1064 units! This car is a well preserved although under driven gem! Until the last of the cars finished, in Germany, I do not know of any that had heater valves connected to the front cabin! Turning the heat on or off was a fire drill! Still waiting for someone to pipe up and provide pictures....backed up by another owner's pic's! My valves (Fiat and others) were rotted to hell, caused by no ground wire to the chassis.... so I didn't install the 8 miles of extra hose, and just put ball valves up under my dash. Small PITA to get to....but you only need to crack one a little and leave it...then modulate with the other..on just a little or off. VERY easy to cook yourself out of the cabin even in the winter!

Shocks: DeCarbon was the original manufacturer of the Goose shocks, at least the rears. The rears I have are painted green, with yellow springs. Fronts were converted to Koni at some point but retained the stock silver springs.


OK, this is long...and I can't recall if I nailed everything that I wanted to mention. LOTS of GREAT pic's here guys!!!! Love it!!!

OH, Doug, I think the two lines you mentioned at the steering rack may have been for the retractable headlamps of a two headlamp car....as I do not have them present on my quad lamp car.

We really need to fix that crazy parking brake mess.....Rube Goldberg flunked this one....

Ciao!
Steve
It would be interesting to compare engine build tags on the 'goose.

I'm thinking that DT may have bought the 302's all at the same time, from the same engine run.

They probably had their own account ID # in the Ford Parts system.

The problem I have with that is how would they have known how many engines to purchase if these cars were built only on special order well into the '71 model year, and would the '68 302 4V still have been serviced then?

I'm pretty sure that the engine as an assembly would have included the exhaust manifolds, flywheel, clutch and bell.

Not sure about the air cleaner.

The yellow top coil would have been installed on the engine too along with the spark plug wires and spark plugs.

An engine assembly from Ford is ready to drop in and run.

All 68 302 4v manual trans engines had air injection installed.

The automatics did not. Maybe DT ordered engines as closely as possible to what they wanted and if that was an automatic trans car, just change out the flex plate to a manual flywheel and clutch?
Re. the tubes Doug mentioned going to the steering rack, I was assuming he was refering to the 2 long bent pipes that are 'integral' to the chassis on later cars - welded in many places, at least - delivering hot water to/from the heater core. (The angle of one of Lee's photos does makes it look like they go into the steering rack). Steve's comments got me looking at early chassis photos and sure enough these pipes appear on later cars only. The change probably coincided with other major chassis updates (e.g., elimination of the circular opening seen on the front of the early spines) but I need to research this more before speculating!
My car, 8MA670, has two white plastic tubes that are 2 1/2 inches in diameter that run from the front at the end of the frame rails back to the end of the frame rails in back. Nothing is in them or ever was. I think they were put there to connect the front air intakes under the headlamps, 2 1/2 inch round outlet also, to them with hose. The outlet in the back could then have hose connected to them to direct air to the rear brakes.
Just a theory.
Any one else have any ideas?

Dick Ruzzin

DICK RUZZIN
Lee,

You are posting pic's from two different cars right??? 1046 and 1076? The latter being your car under works right now?

The mirror pic that you posted from black car... My car has the same mirror on the LH side. Originally came with two but prev owner decided on one, mounted on side of door vs top of fenders where they were useless. Popular rumor has it that the cars came without mirrors...dealers added them at will.

Denis- the valve cover oil filler cap that you have on your extra set of valve covers is a 74 or so version. 68 version would be a 2" tall version with a 90 degree fitting on the top I believe. No pictures that I can find of the original.....but shouldn't have a PCV valve in it. Look at stock Mustang version for 68 in the catalogs...you'll see what I mean.

Skid plate: owner of 6K mile Goose from PA that went to Europe a while back told me that when he went to trade in his 275 Ferarri, that he couldn't have the Goose until a skid plate was installed......and they were waiting for them to arrive, or some such BS. This skid plate pictured appears to be similar to another that I have seen in pics. Unfortunately, I had such a woody looking at this magnificent car, that I forgot completely to get down on the ground and take a picture of it.... This was basically the only other Goose that I had yet to see in person, and I went from my "box of parts" car to this museum piece....so was a bit overwhelmed. Same thing with the factory car when I visited....

I went back and looked at the two bent tubes for the heaters...mine seem different as does a little of the sheet metal work in that area. This car has less open spaces....it might seem.

My car had been missing the small square cover that you see in the center of the trunk area, that closes off the center spine to hot air hitting the shifter etc. DO NOT leave this cover off or you will regret it.....we're talking smoking hot shifter and ashtray......

Doug, that dual quad SBF setup just gave me another woody.....I'm so easy! Where did you get the spacers for the air cleaner? ...and does it fit under the hood? Is this a different version than the TA cars (Cougars) were going to use (in 67), ie high riser vs a low dual plane? Stop it...you're making me drool all over my keyboard now....

I'm going to start a parking brake thread...I like the large metal pulley! The parts books says that this pulley is a Fiat part...850 or 500...can't be sure, but mine have been replaced or are made of plastic....and I HATE the fact that the cable runs down the chassis unguarded.....! Stupid...

Ciao!
Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Mangusta:

Doug, that dual quad SBF setup just gave me another woody.....I'm so easy! Where did you get the spacers for the air cleaner? ...and does it fit under the hood? Is this a different version than the TA cars (Cougars) were going to use (in 67), ie high riser vs a low dual plane? Stop it...you're making me drool all over my keyboard now....

Ciao!
Steve


Spacers are by Edelbrock. Yes the air cleaner fits under the hood.

That is the Blue Thunder repro of the original Ford high rise manifold.

The '67 Trans-Am Coupes used the C6OA lettered 2x4. There were only 2 '68 302TP's both run by Shelby.

If you look at them vs. this one, those runners are rounded and flow more. It was made for the GT40 heads, C6FE, C7FE casting numbers.

According to Randy Gillis, flow testing showed that mine, the rectangular runners couldn't flow what the "as cast" GT40 heads did.

He also said that flow tested showed that no matter who ported the standard heads (like my 302 4v's) they couldn't be made to flow what the as cast GT40 heads did.

So Ford redesigned the manifold with round runners that flow matched the heads.

For me, this manifold with (if you noticed) the '85 "Motorcraft (Holleys)", converted to Holley side hung bowls, work NICE!

I think the secret is the 427 Ford linkage that makes the carbs progressive.

The fact that the main jets are #59's says something right there?

This set up gives you around 25 mpg simply because the linkage has you running on the primary/primary until about 3,200rpm's.

Now this is also a 347 stroker built into the original J code heads, balancer, block and distributor. Same as a 'goose.

The heads were race ported and the manifold was matched to it, 1.94 intakes and 1.60 exhausts and the thing just boogies! Big Grin

This would be such a nice set up in a 'goose, except maybe for all of the bent chassis components it would cause? Roll Eyes

This is the 67 289 Trans Am manifold. See the rounded runners? Now look at mine with the rectangular runners.

Attachments

Photos (1)
This is it.

According to Randy, the set up makes about the same HP as the single 1 x 4 Holley on the Cobra high rise but having driven both, this set up makes more torque because of the progressiveness of the linkage.

In T/A, the 2 x4 's were also the set up of preference vs. the single 4 Holley so that tells ME allot right there.

Period advertising states a 50hp gain over a single 4v. That doesn't seem to be supported by current thinking SO I can't prove it's 50, but sumpin' goin' on there? Yup! Wink

You have to drive this thing to understand. You can't unless you do.

This one's reproduced (Blue Thunder) and the C6OA isn't. Chances are unless you are using the old matching GT40 heads, there won't be much of a difference? That was my thinking anyway?

When the secondaries open, there is this WHOMP RACKET that they create.

Attachments

Photos (1)
OK, here is a little more engine marking info from a couple of cars...

0760 manifold stamped as 302/96
0652......................302/41...the Kylie car
0994 & 0996...fitted with a Torker so no ##'s

Here is a pic of the spark plug wire hanger that Roger B. of the UK made for me, modeled after what was on 0760. Just flat stock, I put the heat shrink in it...didn't shrink it...

This is a proper 68 "C8ZE" intake that would be correct on the 302 cars. Early 289's probably have a "C6OE" or perhaps even "C5OE" depending....

Steve

Attachments

Photos (1)
quote:
Originally posted by LeeA:
I thought the skid plate was home-made, but I've seen other pictures of one like this so maybe it was common. Workmanship was quite high...


Interesting. You may be onto something about the skid plate. here is a pic from my stash. For many years, I have been "right click>save" every picture from ebay or the internet. This is from a rustbucket on ebay many years ago.

Attachments

Photos (1)
quote:
Originally posted by JMM3:
quote:
Originally posted by LeeA:
I thought the skid plate was home-made, but I've seen other pictures of one like this so maybe it was common. Workmanship was quite high...


Interesting. You may be onto something about the skid plate.


I seem to recall stories about the Mangusta having ground clearance issues with the bell housing. Maybe it was being mentioned in some of the early magazine road tests?

A skid plate seems like cheap insurance considering what you could break (the ZF) without one?

Steve, where are the stampings on the manifolds you are mentioning?
Those stampings appear to be on that giant boss at the back of the intake, with the three holes on it, where the jackshaft bracket anchors. I think the thermactor air valves sat there on some cars.....but it is an odd chunk-o-cast iron there....

Ground clearance...I think it all had to do with springs and shocks. My car had the originals and as a result, my bellhousing is about 1/2" shorter than stock....! Missing material! Ain't there no more! Done ground off! Could have been replaced once.....by now.....

Once I put on higher rate springs, and actual shocks with seals in them...WOW! Car went from feeling like a VW bug with 6 people in the back, to feeling like a real car! No more ground clearance issues....but watch out for speed bumps....they can be hazardous if you aren't ready for them!!! Stupid speed bumps....

The stock shocks were gas originally...now not gas...not hardly a shock! There was nothing to prevent the car from squatting down when you moved thru a depression in the roadway. First time on the way to Vegas, not even 15 miles from home, I hit a bridge transition joint and scraped my block plate! Actually bent it back to where it was before I straightened it....! Rest of the trip was "pucker factor on high(!)" when ever a bridge joint came up....

Found some new shocks as soon as I got back from that trip!

But yes, I have heard of guys wiping out their bellhousing AND the front of the ZF case!!! OUCH! However with new shocks, and a reasonable right height set (no roller skate tires here guys..!), one should be fine just about anywhere today!

Of course, the cars in the magazine articles could have been dragging their skid plates too!!!
it is my guess that original Mangusta motors were stamped like this one. At this time I only have a few examples, not quite enough to establish a pattern or garantee that they were all done.

Attachments

Photos (1)
Steve, my conclusion is that the correct mirror for the Mangusta was 'none,' the most convincing picture is this picture of the transporter of Wyss's "DeTomaso Automobiles.' In the whole chapter on the Goose, the only mirrors on a Goose were along with the head scoop added to one-off roadster--the other pics in the factory showed no mirrors...

I've had this book for almost 30 years, and still remember reading about that Chevy-powered goose sent to GM and some guy kind named Dick Ruzzin who ended up with the car...amazing story to be told, I think (not just about the purchase but the keeping all this time..)--Lee

Attachments

Photos (1)
Found these pics of 289 GT40 heads that match the C6OA intake manifold. That combination was what was delivered on the '67 T/A Mustang coupes. 27 of those were made.

These mated to Webers on the GT40 Shelby team cars. I think there were only three of those and they wound up on at least one of the Daytonna Coupes?

The heads were serial numbered to the engine since those were all built as comp engines in Shelby's race shop. It's thought that there were only 50 sets made.

Needless to say they are very difficult to find now and if you do, very expensive. I saw only one set for sale and that was for $3500 firm.

I think this set was ported by Valley Head Service and was sold to an independent racer running a street 65 GT350 in competition in the SE district as just heads. I have his name here somewhere but it isn't important to this post to post it here.

They are very "similar" to 69-70 351w heads. I'm sure they have unique features like no other but this is the best I can do.

For sure you can't port the exhausts on a 351w to this size? The intakes are similar though.

These aren't mine. Pictures came from Randy Gillis.

I did have a set of C6FE aluminum BB heads. Those got traded away.

Thought everyone would be interested in seeing these?

Attachments

Photos (1)
another shot...

Don't know the size of the valves but the exhausts look larger then my 1.60's. There is a listing that says the exhausts are 1.625 and the intakes 1.875.

Intakes don't look like they could be 1.94's but 1.94's definitely and 2.02 sometimes could be fit into a J head?

Some production heads you can fit 2.02's in, others you can't. It all depends on how accurately centered the valve guides are.

You can see in this shot that the valves almost touch. That means if the valve guide centers are off .010, they won't fit.

Most race head builders will tell you this before you start.

You can see how little space is left between the intake and the exhaust valves here. You have to measure that with a feeler gauge. Might be something like .020 for safety? I forget the dimension?

For production reasons there wasn't that much importance for holding the centers to blue print specifications.

The guides in my J heads were off enough that the largest intake valve that would fit with the 1.60 exhaust was the 1.94. Still very noticeable over the stock 1.78 and even the 1.875 in the 351w head.

The J head is a very good CORE to rework for bigger valves and ports. Some have bad mouthed it pretty severely but personally I consider those people very uneducated on the subject.

They are merely spreading misinformation.

Incidentally the 1.875 was referred to as the GT40 intake valve for a long time?

These GT40 heads were probably held to those blue print specs?

With 2.02's you get shrouding from the combustion chamber walls so their value starts to get questionable anyway?

If you look at the intake valve, look at the edge of the combustion chamber. It has been machined back to reduce the shrouding of the valve when it is open.

This would make one heck of a combination in a 'goose right Steve? I think you would need better headers though?

1-3/4" primaries if not more?

What I find ironic is that Ford re-introduced the name, GT40, to the '90s run of 5.0 heads.

People actually think they are these or that they are even in the same ball park? I suppose that is just marketing?

Sorry to have taken this thread off of topic. Hope the trip was worth it? Roll Eyes

Attachments

Photos (1)
The 351W heads are stricken with the same puny exhaust ports of all of the small block heads of the day. The good thing is, that they had the same exhaust ports of the day! They responded very well to a die grinder!

My goose supposedly came to the third owner with a 351W in it....as #2 had blown up the 302 somehow.... he couldn't recall the exact details, but he remembered that it had a 351W when he sold it. Can't find #3 yet, but #4 got it with the ill-fitting Boss.....

From the looks, of the C8FE heads, I would think that the 351W castings could be taken very close to that size shown. The ports in my other 69-351W are very near that size....matching a set of old Cragar headers I have somewhere! Switched to shorties and had to "round" out the ports a bit more....! LOTS of meat in the 351W heads... ...stop when you hit water!!! Smiler Not much to hit grinding around the sides and top, just stay out of the water jacket on that bottom area of the lower curve into the valve pocket area. "Smooth and blend..." Don't necessarily make it bigger everywhere.....

If you can find a set of the original aftermarket headers that Hall sold back when, they have the larger tubes in them. The originals were very necked down and restrictive....not to mention made of tin foil it would seem. The standard 302 heads would respond very well to gasket matching to the new headers. Seems the original headers were made to match the Ford ports as cast! There were some odd openings in those headers that I looked at!
The J heads are nice and thick on the exhaust ports.

The casting number on the GT40 heads is C6FE. I know it looks like an 8, but there is no such thing.



I am sorry to say that I only document my projects recently since I got the Sony SLR. I don't have pictures of my heads to show you.

What I did was match the exhaust ports to Mr.Gasket exhaust header gaskets and blend back into the port. The pockets above the valves are enlarged, the exhaust bump is taken out and the valve guides are cut down and blended back.

I did cc them before and after and without my notes in front of me want to say that they were 80cc's stock and 115 finished.

Both intake and exhaust are a very significant improvement over the original castings.

I'd like to say that they look like these GT40 exhausts but that might be wishful thinking?

I did cc both the intakes and exhausts. Those numbers are in my notes. The intakes wound up at 210cc's.



The J intake ports need a little gasket matching at the edge.

Both pockets need work in the bowls. Similar to what the racers do to the Boss heads. The volume of the J heads is too small at that point.

The Windsor heads, all of them, are like the SB Chevy heads in the sense that race flow on them is in the area of 250 on the intakes and 120 on the exhausts. Getting near that created a lot of iron dust from the die grinder on my workbench.



To go larger on any small block heads, you are wasting your time unless you add cubic inches.

I think the 302TP's are a good example of that?

When the engine was still a 302, I ran a set of worked '69 351w heads. They were shaved .020.

Very disappointing. Saw a hp loss across the rpm range.



331's work really really well at high rpm. Boss 302 heads like the combination.

347's do very very well too, but are not really 8000 rpm engines. Not for very long anyway? What you build all depends on how you want to drive it?


I haven't seen Mangusta headers listed by anyone in a long time. Chances are it would be the Byers Bros who would make them for you. I'm pretty sure they have the jigs for them?

I'm told that Wilkinson, Hall and PrecisonProformance are all down the street from each other.

I'd start with Precision first for headers, even if I had to wait for them to build them for me. They, I believe, are the source to all of the other vendors headers?

If you install 1.60 exhausts, you need 1-3/4" od tubes.
quote:
Originally posted by Mangusta:
OK, here is a little more engine marking info from a couple of cars...

0760 manifold stamped as 302/96
0652 manifold stamped as 302/41...the Kylie car

Steve


As a point of interest, maybe for another thread, 0600 has motor number 23

Attachments

Photos (1)
This thread has been great and has helped guide me (and probably others) in Goose restoration- many thanks to all

Another area I have questions about- the underside...

how much undercoating was on the cars originally? A little, lots, none? Anybody have a photo or two of an undercarriage that is pretty original?

Also, was the oil pan standard late '60s Ford?
It's a plain Jane SB oil pan. The J code pan is the same as the 289.

The Boss 302 pan will fit as will the Boss 302 windage tray. That isn't a bad idea if you want it to look stock BUT if you go to the Aviaid home page and look through the Ford oil pans you will note that they have an oil pan that they specially built for the Cobra Daytona Coupe.

This is a pan very similar to what you would build for a Pantera or a Mangusta for increased oil capacity BUT it is only 6.5" deep instead of the standard, normal 7.5" deep.

They did this because the Shelby team lowered the Coupes engine 1" in the Cobra chassis. That made the stock depth oil pan too low for ground clearance so they compensated with a shallower oil pan.

Considering the Mangusta's issue with low ground clearance, if you were going to do an oil pan, or more correctly if I was, I'd put that oil pan in the car.

As far as undercoating goes, both the Pantera and the Mangusta had very thick coatings of it from the factory.`

This picture of the undercoating was posted earlier in the thread. It looks thick to me?

Attachments

Photos (1)
FWIW the "other" aftermarket oil pans have a wider bottom that will not fit within the Mangusta rails. Steve has collaborated with Aviaid and they have an aftermarket design oil pan for a Mangusta (http://aviaid.com/shopsite_sc/shopping_cart/productsearch.cgi?storeid=*0e43a4691f70120f62)

******NOTE: I want to defer people from using my Aviaid pan....as I designed it BEFORE I figured out that my engine had been raised about 3/4" to fit the Boss302 exhaust ports better....

I REDID A NEW 6qt fully baffled Pan (Aviaid wouldn't build it), which you can get from ARMONDO Racing pans in TX. It is 6" deep,or so, has built in windage tray, two drains, oil temp sender boss and is full length with relief for starter! Steve
I now return you to the original post.....

Just remember if you have a pan that is shorter then the bell housing, then a road hazard may impact the bell housing instead of being deflected by the pan first.


FWIW ; I have seen much thicker undecoating on some Panteras than on Mangustas
I think that the space between the bell and the pan now creates a notch.

A longer pan with a skidplate and a bridge to the bell seems most logical to me.

It may just be that the space/notch works out to be where the lowest travel of the chassis occurs.

I'd vote for the skidplate/bridge and maybe the lower pan.

I never suggested substituting an Aviaid pan from another car as a solution. I was merely pointing out some of the solutions others have taken and some could work on the 'ggose.

The external dimensions of the Boss 302 pan are the same as the 302 oil pan and it has additional internal baffling. It would be an easy installation and look stock.

I am not a victim of the "not invented here" syndrome. I readily admit that I "adopt" the best ideas of others to the application. Big Grin

As far as the undercoating on the Panteras goes, some have much more than others do. To me the intent of the concept on both cars is the same.

The word in Italian that describes it best is abodanza. At least that's how it's pronounced. It simply means a lot, or an abundant amount. Just like the toppings on Mama Celeste's pizza!

Hey, I can't spell in English either. Roll Eyes
PD,
The original headers I picked up appear to have been finished in rust...... well finished.....probably was originally some sort of high temp silver....

I had my new ones coated by the place in Fresno, Capps? Used the higher temp grey, which is darker than the normal silver. (See my "oops" post where I was replacing my engine for some shots.

I also had a 6" deep full length pan (6 qt) made up (not by Aviaid) when I put my engine back down to stock height. Aviaid built me a 7" deep pan (9-10qt)...but that was before I discovered my engine mounts were raised an inch to gain clearance to install the Boss 302!!! UGH! If anyone can run a 7" deep full length, fully baffled pan, I'll make them a great deal!

Steve
Is there an issue running a 7" full length pan in the Mangusta? Some seem to think there would be, especially with a 6" pan?

The mention of the 6" Daytonna Coupe pan was only recently discovered by me on the Aviaid web page.

Is the Cobra pan full length or 3/4? Hum? I have to look.

It may have been mentioned in the discussions of the details of the original Coupes by Kopec but if it was, it had no significance to me until I read this thread.

The low clearance issue I remember from the original road test articles of the car. One of the magazines must have bottomed out on it when they tested the car and the others picked up on it.

I seem to remember reading something about the car having a skid plate.

I don't remember there being an issue with the starter and an extended pan but I never had anything like a race Cobra that would have used one. Just T pans in Mustangs.

Personally I don't think a Boss 302 is the way to go either with that car.

I think a stroker kit is light years better in the original block and if anything maybe period "correct" 69 351w heads on the original block?

Better headers would seem to be in order too?
PD,

There isn't an issue with the 7" pan unless you like hitting everything on the road.... Stock pan is 7" deep and most original pans I have seen are mashed! One guy reported after straightening out is pan, that he ended up loosening up the drain plug several times by just touching it to the road or stuff....

What also happens is a full length pan "traps" the starter in the car. My new pan has a notch for the starter to drop out of... Not a big deal as the pans drop out so easy...just a minor PITA! Learning through revisions....!!

You are correct, the Boss 302 is not a good choice. If it fit the chassis, no problem....but it really doesn't. A Cleveland would fit better due to the higher position of the heads and exhaust outlets!

The stroker idea is much better suited to the car and yes, better headers go without saying!

I am super happy with my new 331 combo!!!!

Steve
PD,

Aviaid wouldn't make me one......with no technical explanation. SO I had someone else do the pan for me. 6" deep, full length, with starter notch, front and rear drains, and an oil temp bung. Holds 6qts to the bottom of the windage baffle. Works like a champ! I'm not really racing, so should never really push it to the limits!!!

Steve
DP,

I think the Daytona pan would fit, however, getting your oil filter down past the bulge at the bottom would be a bugger!!! It is tight with a straight pan!

The "other" pan #55366, that they show for a Mangusta is a 6.5" deep pan, and is not the custom one that they built for me. They shortened the pan length to 15" and decreased the depth by 1/2" so it would be better than my pan by the 1/2" and probably still hold 6qts.


Ciao!
Steve
OK, I see the Cobra pan has side tanks that won't fit the Mangusta.

They are showing the 366 Mangusta pan as 7.5 deep.

Do you have a picture of the pan you had built?

I went with dual remote oil filters on my Pantera, Aviaid "Pantera" pan.

I suppose the first time I need to get into the bottom of the engine I'll go with the removable cross member via the "sawsall" express route?

The filters are now on the passenger side hanging off of the large chassis rail. Much easier and cleaner to deal with there than the stock location. The plumbing ties into an oil cooler mounted to the front rear splash shield there too.

The oiling accessories on both of these cars are an expensive non-essential to strictly a street driven car. People didn't think much about oiling back then. This is a relatively recent phenomena.

LOTS of "Aeroquip" on this car.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×