Woody (Forum Supportum)
Woody (Forum Supportum) MegaDork
7/2/21 5:28 p.m.

Looks nice!

If you're going to dive into steering upgrades, do yourself a huge safety favor and swap to a '68 or newer (maybe 67, it's been a long time) steering shaft with a universal joint in it.

The stock single piece shaft is basically a spear pointed at the center of your chest if you bump into anything solid. 

Mr_Asa UberDork
7/2/21 5:36 p.m.

Could upgrade the I6.  It is more intensive and expensive than a V8, but its different.   I'm currently adapting twin 2-bbls to mine, and already have a T5 installed.

DarkMonohue Reader
7/4/21 11:54 a.m.

Neat project. Mild and reversible improvements that retain the spirit of the original are really appealing (I must be getting old). I don't know much about Ford sixes, so maybe there are better options, but the thought of a slightly warmed up (cam and compression) EFI 300 six and five-speed with reasonable suspension upgrades and good disc brakes might be worth looking into. 

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter)
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) PowerDork
7/4/21 11:58 a.m.

My first car had a non synchronized first gear. If it's moving more than 5 MPH, second is fine. 

  You'll figure it out. 

03Panther UltraDork
7/5/21 2:35 a.m.

Is the 86 rear narrow enough to fit in the 65? Got discussed in  another thread recently, but I never did hear a resolution. I was into the falcons and comets more, but essentially the same thing!

my first car (64 comet) had the non scyncro 3 behind a 6 (170), and I could double clutch it into first no problem. Good thing - 2nd gear was completely gone for a while! Fun ( broke ) times!

DarkMonohue Reader
7/5/21 11:03 a.m.

In reply to MuSTANK :

Interesting ideas. If going turbo, I would absolutely use the factory EFI manifold and maybe a MegaSquirt. Carbs are cool and all, but a single downdraft carb feeding a yard-long sidedraft engine via a puny log manifold will never come close to the performance and driveability of a long runner EFI manifold.

I do like the progressive Weber for smaller engines that need a carb. It was good on my old Toyota 2T-C, which is only 1600cc. People put them on big AMC/Jeep sixes all the time, but I think they do it because the kits exist, not because it's a good match - it really isn't. To get that big engine to idle, you have to open the throttle so far that the idle progression circuit is all used up, and you get a big stumble off idle. You might be able to get around it by drilling a hole in the primary butterfly, going larger and larger until you can adjust the idle speed screw down and get the butterfly back in position over the idle progression holes, but that's bending over backward to use a carburetor designed for an engine less than half the size of yours.

If a guy really wanted carbs for the old-school appeal, how about triple 2" SUs? That would go like stink, and once they're set up (which is not nearly the black magic some people think it is) they work beautifully. 


DarkMonohue Reader
7/7/21 12:05 p.m.

In reply to MuSTANK :

Copy that. The DGV can work, but again, just like with the jeep six or other big engines, I think it's popular because it's simple and widely available, not because it's a good solution.

Two DGVs would be better than one so far as calibration and fuel distribution go. And airflow, for that matter. It really is a very small carburetor designed for a very small engine.

Two carbs might be tricky with that cast-in log manifold. Maybe you could get somebody to braze on a couple of base plates for the carbs rather than trying to weld cast iron. That's well outside my wheelhouse.

I probably ought to stand back and just let you work for a while.

MadScientistMatt UltimaDork
7/7/21 1:19 p.m.

It's nice to see a Mustang staying with a six cylinder drivetrain - you don't see many that stay that way instead of getting swapped to a V8. I remember seeing a Mercury Comet at Dragway 42 in Ohio once with a six cylinder with three Webers and velocity stacks - definitely unique!

Does swapping to the factory EFI manifold require using a 300 cylinder head - and if so, does it bolt on? Just wondering.

twentyover Dork
7/8/21 10:56 a.m.

Local guy here in Washington- near Wenatchee- fabbed a set of SU adapters for the log, qty = 2, placed just aft of #2 and forward of #5. The port arrangement of the falconsix has 1 & 2, and 5 & 6 the same distance apart, with a larger gap between 3 & 4 and an even larger gap between 2 & 3 and 4 & 5. Bias the SU's so they are just aft of 2 and forward of 5 to try to get a more balanced flow. Of course, the pictures I have are on the dead computer.


Edit- So I figured out the google thing



My pulled from my butt suggestion-

Get a spare head, whack the log off (keep the exhaust ports intact.) Now sit down. Fab up a manifold (you can screw a plate to the perimeter of the chopped intake ports) and get two sets of 900-1300cc bike carbs. Using KZ900 carbs on my stupid little project, the spacing between the intakes 1 & 2 and 5 & 6 is almost exactly the same as the KZ carb bodies, and the gap between left and right bank carb bodies is about the difference between 2 & 3 and 4 & 5. ITB's on an inline six! What could be sweeter?

What? Oh yes, Nurse Ratchet, I'll take my meds now.....

jfryjfry SuperDork
8/22/21 7:15 p.m.

Stephen dorf

Woody (Forum Supportum)
Woody (Forum Supportum) MegaDork
8/22/21 7:24 p.m.

How tall is the 300 six? I'd love one in a Ford pickup, but will you be able to close the hood?

Mr_Asa PowerDork
8/22/21 8:09 p.m.
Woody (Forum Supportum) said:

How tall is the 300 six? I'd love one in a Ford pickup, but will you be able to close the hood?

Deck height of 10", roughly 32" long?  It'll fit in a '67-68 Mustang, and if you do a fair amount of massaging it'll fit in a first gen mustang.  Here's a '68 https://fordsix.com/threads/300-update.78189/
I know I've got the dimensions somewhere, I'll dig them up

A 250ci six is a better fit and looks almost stock till you start messing with it.

Check the freeze plugs on the one in there, early models had 5 main bearings Vs the later ones having 7 mains.  5 freeze plugs is the 7 main, I think.

Mr_Asa PowerDork
8/22/21 8:17 p.m.

jfryjfry SuperDork
9/28/21 6:16 p.m.

I'm not familiar at all with those mustangs but you have probably realize already that the brake lights are intimately tied in with the turn signal switch. At least I assume they are as they were on my 70s bronco.  


MadScientistMatt UltimaDork
9/29/21 7:19 a.m.
jfryjfry said:

I'm not familiar at all with those mustangs but you have probably realize already that the brake lights are intimately tied in with the turn signal switch. At least I assume they are as they were on my 70s bronco.  


Pretty much all 1960s cars would be set up that way unless they had separate brake and turn signal lights, which would have been very rare.

Dusterbd13-michael MegaDork
9/29/21 7:22 a.m.

I had a devil of a time when i rewired a 65 mustang. That turn signal switch has about 15 variants it seems. 

I finally found a pinout for the switch i had that was close enough to work with and was able to make my own diagram to match the switch mine exactly. 

Good luck. It took me a bunch of hours. 

wawazat Dork
9/29/21 7:49 a.m.

As a fellow owner of a '60s era Ford (69 Cougar) I would suggest poking around on the Vintage Mustang Forum for help.  

You might also want to talk to this guy


He is highly regarded on Mustang and Cougar forums for wiring harness repair/rebuild services.  

autocomman New Reader
9/29/21 9:41 a.m.

Brake lights run through the turn signals.  Probably an original switch and when they are that old they are very problematic. . your gonna have to replace the switch.  Don't do just the cam, ever.  They never go back together right.  When you replace the switch just make a note of what color on the switch is connected to said color on the harness.  If you get a decent switch it should be the same.  When you out the new switch in be sure no wires under the switch get pinched when seating it in the column.  But your issue will definitely be the switch.  It won't hurt either to check/just replace the bulbs in the rear as well.  Sweet project!

jharry3 Dork
9/29/21 9:58 a.m.

The 170/200/250 family is what you want to stay with. I think from '66 on the 200 & 250 had 7 main bearings.  There was a 4 speed option with the 6 but that was very rare.  The intake manifold is cast into the head  with tiny passages so it needs major surgery to get any flow.   

The 240/300 is a larger, heavier, taller engine.  You may as well go with  a 289/302 which will bolt right in.

I converted a '66 with 6 cylinder to a V-8 years ago.  Just procured a wrecked Mustang and swapped the brakes and rear end.  Added a 4-speed Toploader and built up 289. 

With the drum brakes it didn't stop all that well until I added metallic brake shoes.   Also put in 600 lbs springs in the front plus larger sway bars.  The Mustang rear suspension is horrible.  Wheel hop was rampant  even with stiffer shocks so I had to add old school traction bars to keep everything planted.  Without some kind of limited slip the wheel spin is hard to overcome.  If I wasn't careful I would get wheel spin at 60mph in 3 rd gear with the open diff.

It was a cool car in the day but my 2009 WRX did everything faster, better, and a whole lot quieter.  

bmw88rider UltraDork
9/29/21 4:38 p.m.

Oh. I had a very similar car to that as a first car. Stupidly simple. Stood up to an idiot teen well. Mine was Ice Blue Metalic. 

Our Preferred Partners