Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Shop\-talk\]\s+1965\s+Mustang\s+Brakes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Shop\-talk\]\s+1965\s+Mustang\s+Brakes\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: Bob Spidell <bspidell@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:52:52 +0000 (UTC); Our 1965 Mustang conv. (289/2bbl) with 4-wheel drums and power assist has crummy braking. We've narrowed the problem down to (probably) hard, semi-metallic brake shoes. OEM liner material works bette; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00252.html (7,878 bytes)
2. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: Scott Hall <scott.hall.personal@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:14:10 -0400; crummy braking. We've narrowed the problem down to (probably) hard, semi-metallic brake shoes. OEM liner material works better, but it's hard to find anything that isn't some sort of kevlar/carbon, e; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00253.html (8,868 bytes)
3. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: Bob Spidell <bspidell@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:26:39 +0000 (UTC); Yep. It's an all-stock original (bought new by Alice Faye, if anyone remembers We spent an hour last night looking for the original air filter wingnut that got dropped, because you can't find a repla; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00254.html (9,435 bytes)
4. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: Wayne <wmc_st@xxiii.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 13:03:27 -0400; Resto-Mod!!! Score some discs and one of the new bad a** engines, transmission, 15" or 16" wheels, and, umm... a few thou later (that part kinda sucks) your brake job is all done! Ok, crappy answer.; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00255.html (8,802 bytes)
5. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: John Miller <jem@milleredp.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:30:05 -0700; Not hardly; the pushrod GM LS-family motors are in general more compact, more powerful, cheaper to build, and comparable on BSFC to their OHC Ford counterparts. The 10in Mustang/Falcon/etc. drum bra; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00256.html (9,011 bytes)
6. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: <bjshov8@tx.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:35:52 -0400; Well pushrods have no direct bearing on the power that an engine makes. The VALVES are what contribute to the operation of the engine, and when and how far they open. HOW they open is secondary. Whet; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00261.html (9,484 bytes)
7. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: Michael Porter <mdporter@dfn.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:17:59 -0600; Umm, just to keep things in perspective, five liters displacement is 305 c.i. That's a marginally larger displacement (about 5.5% larger) than the original 289 c.i. engine plunked into the original 1; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00263.html (8,168 bytes)
8. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: <bjshov8@tx.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:17:00 -0400; The original GT350 was the 271hp version of the 289, modified to produce 306hp. Of course back in those days Chevrolet was making their 327 in versions up to 370hp. Nobody had computers back then but; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00267.html (10,223 bytes)
9. Re: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: Shannah Miller <shannahquilts@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:41:20 -0700; Did you already try Mustang Ranch in Santa Clara, Bob? It's been years since I worked on Mustangs, but I think that with all of the improvements in brake linings, it's going to be hard to find someth; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00268.html (7,943 bytes)
10. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: bspidell at comcast.net (Bob Spidell); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:52:52 +0000 (UTC); Our 1965 Mustang conv. (289/2bbl) with 4-wheel drums and power assist has crummy braking. We've narrowed the problem down to (probably) hard, semi-metallic brake shoes. OEM liner material works bette; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00549.html (8,364 bytes)
11. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: scott.hall.personal at gmail.com (Scott Hall); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:14:10 -0400; crummy braking. We've narrowed the problem down to (probably) hard, semi-metallic brake shoes. OEM liner material works better, but it's hard to find anything that isn't some sort of kevlar/carbon, e; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00550.html (9,838 bytes)
12. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: bspidell at comcast.net (Bob Spidell); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:26:39 +0000 (UTC); Yep. It's an all-stock original (bought new by Alice Faye, if anyone remembers her). We spent an hour last night looking for the original air filter wingnut that got dropped, because you can't find a; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00551.html (10,434 bytes)
13. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: wmc_st at xxiii.com (Wayne); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 13:03:27 -0400; Resto-Mod!!! Score some discs and one of the new bad a** engines, transmission, 15" or 16" wheels, and, umm... a few thou later (that part kinda sucks) your brake job is all done! Ok, crappy answer.; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00552.html (10,241 bytes)
14. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: jem at milleredp.com (John Miller); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:30:05 -0700; Not hardly; the pushrod GM LS-family motors are in general more compact, more powerful, cheaper to build, and comparable on BSFC to their OHC Ford counterparts. The 10in Mustang/Falcon/etc. drum bra; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00553.html (10,595 bytes)
15. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: bjshov8 at tx.rr.com (bjshov8 at tx.rr.com); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:35:52 -0400; Well pushrods have no direct bearing on the power that an engine makes. The VALVES are what contribute to the operation of the engine, and when and how far they open. HOW they open is secondary. Whet; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00558.html (10,665 bytes)
16. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: mdporter at dfn.com (Michael Porter); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:17:59 -0600; Umm, just to keep things in perspective, five liters displacement is 305 c.i. That's a marginally larger displacement (about 5.5% larger) than the original 289 c.i. engine plunked into the original 1; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00560.html (9,550 bytes)
17. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: bjshov8 at tx.rr.com (bjshov8 at tx.rr.com); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:17:00 -0400; The original GT350 was the 271hp version of the 289, modified to produce 306hp. Of course back in those days Chevrolet was making their 327 in versions up to 370hp. Nobody had computers back then but; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00564.html (10,706 bytes)
18. [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes (score: 1): Author: shannahquilts at gmail.com (Shannah Miller); Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:41:20 -0700; Did you already try Mustang Ranch in Santa Clara, Bob? It's been years since I worked on Mustangs, but I think that with all of the improvements in brake linings, it's going to be hard to find someth; /html/shop-talk/2011-06/msg00565.html (8,488 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]