anyone have vintage engine compartment photos to share?

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?

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?

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!!! 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

Wow!!! What a cool piece of paperwork!!! I want to know what the trade in car was....worth $2100 and change in 1969!!!

....I wonder if Qvalle has more of these copies.....!!!!

Steve

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?

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.

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.

How were the original steel tube headers finished?

Did they at least have header paint on them?

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

Would a 6" pan be a bad idea then?

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

They do show the "Daytona" pan on their web catalog.

Wouldn't that work on a Mangusta?

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.

I am getting ready have brackets for the air tubes fabricated. Photos of these are almost as scarce as hen's teeth, I got tired of looking at every photo on qv500

Are they matte silver in color?
two on passenger side, one on drivers side?
Anyone know the correct width?