But first he needs to clean/ fix the carb…
Back in '67 there was virtually no emission controls. Things started to be added to the '68 models and by the early 70’s there were air pumps, tubes, and vacuum lines galore in most engines. But in a '67 289 V8 you pulled and plugged the vacuum line to set the timing once you had the dwell of the points set properly. Then you adjusted the idle.
As I recall I’d test the vacuum advance by putting the vacuum line back on the distributor and giving the gas a light tap with the timing light still hooked up. The timing would jump quickly in response and it was advancing the timing. All this was done on a '67 Mustang (purchased new) with a 289 V8 2 bbl carb. 3 spd stick.
Maybe I am confused here. Does the engine bog down or does it stall and die when the throttle is quickly opened? And if the throttle is opened slowly can the engine rev to 2,000+ rpm?
When you goosed the engine, that was the centrifugal advance moving the timing…usually about 20-25 degrees…When you hooked up the vacuum line, it would jump another 20-25 degrees. 40-50 degrees total advance was fairly standard…Holding the RPM at around 2200, you could observe the total advance with a timing light. If you goosed the engine at that point, the timing would fall back as vacuum was lost…
Using a Sun distributor machine, tuners could play for hours getting a distributor dialed in “just right”…Many high-performance engines used “dual point” distributors which allowed increased dwell time and better performance at high RPM…They were tricky to set up correctly…
Uncle Turbo, I did the same thing to many cars of that era. With the line off and plugged, most cars called for 4 to 8 degrees of advance at idle. With the line hooked up, at idle with a manifold vacuum of about 20", the timing mark would move another 7-8 degrees advance. When you first opened the throttle, the timing always dropped back a few degrees before advancing. It only dropped for about a second as the engine would rev up so quickly. At around 2500 rpm, the total advance would be around 20 to 24 degrees.
UncleTurbo, if this was a California car, in 1967 it would have an air pump and a PCV system for smog controls. In California the timing for a 1967 Mustang standard 289, automatic would be 0 degrees TDC. I had one of these from when it was new until it was stolen 17 years later.
As stated previously, “The exhaust manifolds pipes are falling off” No backpressure dude! you may have bunt the valves by now.
That poor 289, with a bore almost twice the stroke, boy could those little engines sing! Wasted effort in a Ranch but lots of fun in a Mustang !
There seems to be no easily searched source for definitive answers to this vacuum advance question and it seems it might again run into the ditch. But vacuum advance was an OE device on many automobiles for many decades and as originally equipped it operated from ported vacuum, raising the timing several degrees and making the engine more responsive. As best I recall, total timing on all engines was about 30* with 10* from vacuum and 20* from centrifugal. Heavy duty engines and constant duty engines were centrifugal only. With base timing set, then attaching the vacuum advance to the manifold, timing would jump and increase the idle speed but it could easily be turned down. If driven with that arrangement a large displacement engine might operate acceptably and reasonably economically since at cruise the vacuum would be maxed out and timing would be more or less equal to where it would be if connected to the advance port. But it would suffer from a loss of response, especially with an automatic transmission and tall rear end gearing. I am just speaking from several decades of busted knuckles turning wrenches and I owned a distributor tester. In fact I sold Sun Equipment a couple of years. If a 1867 Ford V-8 has the timing set on a properly functioning distributor at about 8* advance and the vacuum hose attached to the port on the carburetor at the front passenger side of the throttle plate base and driven a few miles and then attach the vacuum hose to full manifold vacuum I feel sure that the driver will feel the ported vacuum is preferable. Maybe rgincel will give that a try and post back.
That 4x3 borexstroke made for a gutless wonder in anything heavy Caddyman. If you wanted to keep the tach up it was lively but the Mustangs glory was in its gear ratio and light weight. The Firebird OHC 6 with a good 4 speed could do the Mustangs in.
4.00 X 2.80 = 289…A 289 HP engined Mustang or Fairlane could blow any Pontiac ever made off the road. The 225hp 4V Mustangs ruled E and F stock at the drags, turning low to mid 15’s The B and C stock HiPo powered cars ran in the 14’s
Low piston speed achieved with the very short stroke allowed RPM levels Pontiacs could only dream about. The OHC 6 cammer 'Bird and Tempest WERE nice cars, but it was still a Chevy Six…
Maybe the stats say different but a Mustang never beat me in an 1/8th mile.
Alan Y is correct, in 1967 California cars were getting smog emissions gizmos. The rest of the country was behind CA. My Mustang was bought in new from Mullane Ford in Bergenfield NJ.
If the '67 Ranchero in the original post is a California car, I have no clue what the timing would be on a CA car. California cars had different requirements for many years. Somewhere in the mid '90’s emission controls got good enough, and enough other states (ie. NY and others) followed CA requirements that cars were sold 50 state certified.
On rev’ing a '67 289. I had a stick and I put a cheap tach on the steering column because I found I could easily “float” the hydralic valves. The valves seemed to be the limiting factor. Race motors with fancy heads and mechanical valves could get a bunch more rpm and performance from the motor.
I didn’t make any mods to mine, even kept the 2 bbl carb. On regular gas it had plenty of torque, and when I wanted to be aggressive I’d just keep the rev’s between 3,500 and 6K and had plenty of fun with that. I got about 25 mpg on highway trips as it was turning just about 2K rpm at 65 mph. Rust and 2 babies (twins) eventually meant the Mustang had to go somewhere around 1977. 10 years in upstate NY and Michigan winter driving had taken a toll on the body. The motor was still wonderful, and I had to replace the transmission as several bearings and gears were worn and getting very loud. With the second transmission is was back to running sweet when I sold it. I’d take it back in an instant.
All this means, to the OP the Ranchero is pretty cool, and somewhat rare. If you can get it running correctly you have a nice ride. Good Luck.
Ford seemed to engineer floating valves as a governor on their engines. I owned several 60s Fords, Mustangs, Fairlanes Galaxies and Falcons and enjoyed them all. But every 289 and 302 seemed gutless… Most Mustangs were 2 bbl automatics and were not seriously powered. The GTs with solid lifters and 4 speeds were light and quick but somewhat over rated. And most who owned them never mastered shifting them. They over revved 1st, over revved 2nd and missed third. But it would be nice to have one of my old Fords today.
If you could not afford the 271hp high-performance engine, which was a $1200 option, (against a $3000 car) the next choice was the 225hp version, 4V, premium fuel. Tuners would adjust the valves so they just began to tick, the lifters fully extended, so they could not pump up and “float the valves”. This let you take the engine to 5500 rpm. Using the dual-point distributor and the cast iron headers from the HiPo engine helped too…
Getting back to the OP’s problem,…
To me this has all the signs of a bad accelerator pump. We never did hear back from the OP as to whether he’d followed Keith’s advice and checked for spray when manuallly activating the throttle. I think we need to take this step-by-step, and would hope the OP would get back into the conversation.
I had a '64 Fairlane with a 289, and all these unrelated dicussions are interesting, but I’m afraid they chased the OP away.
Hello,
Yep there was a load of information and a bit overwhelming.
To quell some of the discussion ideas:
I did a complete carb rebuild…“not just the gaskets” it was cleaned to perfection.
Replaced all the necessary parts etc.
Had good spray, bowl was clean, float was correct etc… all new plugs points…gaped correctly…etc.
It turned out to be a slight timing issue, I adjusted it and it runs like a top.
No vacuum leaks etc.
After the problem was solved, I have since installed a H.E.I Distributor & new wires/tires/pipes and tranny work.
Double sea foamed (tank and crank)
New fuel pump and lines.
2 oil changes later…
Runs strong like bull now.
Thanks for all the input.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
First and foremost - YOU MUST FIX THE LOOSE MANIFOLD - With the manifold problem solved, it is time to see if there is damage to the valves. Quick check: Get a piece of paper about 6" square (2) start the car and let it idle (3) look at the inside of the tailpipe - is it gray or light black or is it real black and sooty? - Grey or light black is ok, however black and sooty is an indication your running rich or pumping oil. You didn’t mention anything about oil usage, but if your using oil, it could indicate a valve job is in your future.-While you down there checking the color inside the exhaust pipe, Listen, does it kinda purr along or is it irregular - like it blows and then it sucks. Now, hold the paper by an edge so it hangs down fairly level and put it, as close as you can, ln front of the exhaust opening. OBSERVE. Does the paper just get flipped out by the exhaust or does it get sucked in and out. If it gets sucked in and out the chances are good you will need a valve job. To make sure, take the car to a shop and ask for a compression test on all the cylinders. If there is more than 15 - 20 pounds difference between a cylinder(s), time for a valve job. If the compression test is good, Like the man said, check the timing. Still looking good, get a new carb or let a shop rebuild yours completely. Meaning new valves and seats as well as the usual stuff.