# Point Gap and Dwell - 1968 Ford Mustang **URL:** \ **Category:** Maintenance/Repairs\ **Tags:** mustang\ **Created:** [July 26, 2011, 12:29pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587 "2011-07-26T12:29:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![boyd4715](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee59a6/32.png) [@boyd4715](https://community.cartalk.com/u/boyd4715)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/21 "2011-08-10T03:06:01Z")
@ok4450 - when you talk about getting different condenser, what values are you looking at to make the choice between one for city, one for highway? ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/22 "2011-08-10T06:39:49Z")
Generally speaking, if most of the driving is low RPM/city driving you change to a higher rated condenser and vice-versa for a car that is driven predominantly on the highway at higher RPMs for extended periods. Just to pick a number assume the stock farad rating on a condenser is .23 and the car is driven almost entirely in the city with stop and go driving, etc. Changing to a .28 affects the kick voltage of the coil, metal transference on the contact point surfaces, etc. and this would be a better option. If the car is driven mostly on the highway then changing down to a .20 or something like that would be preferable. There’s no set formula for this so you kind of have to wing it a bit. When it comes to condensers car makers use a condenser that works well in general all-around use but is not excellent in all areas. Just like tires, somes tires do many things acceptably well but do not excel in every area. If you’ve ever noticed contact points with a tiny crater on one side and a small hill on the other the reason for that would be the condenser rating against the type of use although point gap can play a part to some degree. You can also make contact points last a long longer by cutting the voltage down to the ignition coil. Ideally, you want 12 volts while cranking the engine (from the starter solenoid circuit) and once running have it cut down to 6 volts with the use of a resistor. (in series with the hot lead to the ignition coil) The old VW Beetles used an ignition coil with an internal resistor and Chryslers also used a resistor that was externally mounted on the firewall. No matter the method, the result was 6 volts at the coil. Hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![Rod-Knox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Rod-Knox](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Rod-Knox)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 12:11pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/23 "2011-08-10T12:11:34Z")
Shouldn’t the dwell on a V8 be approx 30\*. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/24 "2011-08-10T13:38:26Z")
Rod Knox - you’re right, accoding to this table of specs it’s 27 or 29, depending on transmission: [http://www.fordification.com/bumpwiki/index.php?title=1968\_Ford\_Tune-up\_Specifications](http://www.fordification.com/bumpwiki/index.php?title=1968_Ford_Tune-up_Specifications) @boyd4715 - where did you get your 38 degree dwell spec? That’s for a 6, not a v8. Maybe problem solved! ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/25 "2011-08-10T15:42:29Z")
Dwell recommendations areis also based on the distributor cam lobes being in perfect condition. Seriously consider what happens with dwell angle and point gap when the peaks of the distributor cam lobes start wearing. ---
**Author:** ![boyd4715](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee59a6/32.png) [@boyd4715](https://community.cartalk.com/u/boyd4715)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 11:45am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/26 "2011-08-16T11:45:15Z")
@texases and @Rod Knox, this mustang has a 6 cycl. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 1:03pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/27 "2011-08-16T13:03:21Z")
OK, I don’t know where I got thinking it was a V8. Sounds like time for a new/rebuilt distributor. @boyd4715 - which 6? The 200? My “64 1/2” had the 170 with a 4-speed. Saved me from getting speeding tickets! ---
**Author:** ![boyd4715](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee59a6/32.png) [@boyd4715](https://community.cartalk.com/u/boyd4715)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/28 "2011-08-25T02:34:23Z")
We have the 200 with a 3 speed. We looked at moving up to a 8cycl but there is just way to much work to make that happen (change out the breaks, front springs, move the engine mounts, drive shaft and possible the rear end) ---
**Author:** ![Caddyman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/caddyman/32/23_2.png) [@Caddyman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Caddyman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/29 "2011-08-25T03:00:56Z")
Dwell angle on a 6 is much less critical than on a V8…You can set the points with a feeler gauge and pretty much forget the dwell angle. Trying to convert a 6 cylinder Mustang to a V8 is loves labor lost…Except for the body shell, they were completely different cars… ---
**Author:** ![Rod-Knox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Rod-Knox](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Rod-Knox)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/30 "2011-08-25T15:18:04Z")
The Australian Fords used a cross flow head on that engine. With that and proper carburation your I-6 might equal or surpass the performance of the 289. ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/31 "2011-08-25T15:59:09Z")
Last night while talking to my oldest son who lives in Utah he told me about going to the drags out there last weekend and a guy showed up with an old 80s era, drab VW Rabbit that looked like a worn out beater. The guy ripped off a low 13 second pass. That’s about 20 seconds faster than a stock Rabbit with an auto transmission. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Caddyman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/caddyman/32/23_2.png) [@Caddyman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Caddyman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587/32 "2011-08-25T18:39:11Z")
What limits the performance of the Ford 200 inch six is the fact that the intake manifold is part of the head casting… There were guys who machined off the manifold and replaced it with a multiple side-draft set-up with good results…But very expensive… [Previous page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/point-gap-and-dwell-1968-ford-mustang/66587.md?page=1)