I agree, 4 bolt wheels = 6 cyl. Sounds like somebody did an engine swap.
This was a long time ago but the engine code on the apron was correct and 3 other Ford guys were scratching their heads over this combo also.
Maybe itās one of those oddball errors that slipped out the factory door, like the upside down stamps that are so valuableā¦
I stopped arguing about what came from the factory a long time ago,especially on Fords-Kevin
If the VIN plate carried the 390 engine code, then it got moved over to the 6 cyl. car tooā¦I believe on the V8 cars, the unibody structure was beefed up tooā¦They were two different carsā¦
I owned both a '65 V8 GT Fastback, 289 4V, 4-speed and a 1967 GT-390 3-speed Fastback. Both purchased newā¦ By far, the '65 289 was the better car. At the strip, the 289 produced faster times than the 390. That 390 carried 62% of itās weight on itās front wheels making it an evil handling pig compared to the 289ā¦The 390 could produce astounding smoke shows and with itās 3.00 to 1 axle could cruise comfortably at 85-90 mph. Both cars had the GT package which included disc brakes, a huge improvement over the standard drumsā¦
After years of working doing auto body work I can tell you its possible for any thing to have come out of a auto factory. I bet you did not know you order a car with out paint. Happen more than you think. I once own a 68 Chevy truck that was order as a 2 wheel dr with a 327 it came to the dealer as a 4 wheel dr with a 307. I had all of the paper work. I restored a Willys Jeepster that had a Ford rear axel and Chevy front end. It came that way. It also has a flat head Ford V8 in it from the factory. The guy had all of the paper work to prove it. Also remember the dealer made cars.
Keith, are these recirculating ball steering boxes adjustable?
TSMB - I think so, one loosens the locknut and turns the adjuster to decrease play (left side of picture):
Hereās more than you ever wanted to know about it, the adjustment is FAR from simple:
http://www.stangerssite.com/adjustment.html
Yes, and I have done it without going to all the trouble in the article above. What seems to work is to loosen the nut, stick a slotted screwdriver into the slot on the end of the threaded rod, and then with your thumb and index finger on the shaft of the scrrewdriver (common 4" flat blade with round shaft) gently tighten the nut until you feel bottom. Donāt try your hardest, just gently till you feel it hitting the bottom. Then hold the screwdriver firmly in that position so that the threaded rod does not turn as you tighten the nut.
If its right, you should have about 1 inch of free play in the steering wheel, about 1/2" each side. I would not mess with it if the free play is less than 2" total, 1" each side.
1 Like
The āslopā is not the same from lock to lock so you can get into trouble and cause the steering to bind if you donāt jack both front wheels off the ground and have someone turn the steering wheel from lock to lock while you are performing the adjustmentā¦You will feel the steering begin to ācatchā when/if you go too far down on the adjusterā¦You donāt want any ācatchesā, binding, in the steering at any pointā¦
1 Like
Whatās the status of the '68 Mustang ?
It is 4 years older.
2 Likes
A 6 cylinder Mustang (early Mustang) is a completely different car than a V-8 Mustangā¦if you want more performance, BUY a V8 Mustang ready to goā¦Much, much cheaper than trying to rebuild yours to V8 specsā¦
I would hope after 4 years this person would have made a decision.
1 Like
Just as I read your post I saw 2 threads below that were last posted to in 2008. The heading was SUGGESTED TOPICS. The unindoctrinated are often lead down the rabbit hole to Car Talkās Twilight Zone.
1 Like
I would have to recommend sticking with the inline 6 cylinder given the extensive modifications of a V8 conversion. You mention rebuilding the original 200 cu in or installing a bigger 6. I would recommend rebuilding and installing a 1969/1970 250 cu in. 155 brake horsepower and very impressive 240 lb ft of torque would be a quite noticeable improvement with no further modifications required. I have owned a 1971 Mustang 250 cu in 145 hp automatic which was purchased in 1979 for $1,200 as a reliable commuter car. Over 87,000 miles in 2.5 years with no repairs and averaging 20+ mpg was quite a bargain. In 1981 I purchased a 1973 Mustang 250 cu in 90 hp rear wheel (Net) hp 3 speed ātop loaderā in excellent condition for $600! Lacking the parasitic power drain of the automatic transmission it seemed to have more power than the 1971 and was much more fun to drive.
A High School buddy had a 1966 Mustang fastback 6 cylinder. It really was a base model Falcon with sexy sheet metal.
You are 100% correct the nose heavy 1967/1968 390 cu in Mustangs were well known as āevil handling pigsā!
I also obsess on a few unimportant things. Old topics on this forum are not one of them as members can still learn from them. I also do not criticize everything that is posted.
1 Like
I believe that Volvo makes very blunt comments
Sometimes, that is what is needed
He cuts to the chase
Just what I like
