All,
I have to chime in on the non-roadster item. Back in college, I made the
dumb mistake of selling my 67 1600 because of some nickle and dime stuff
that was driving me nuts. A bad brake line was the last straw. I sold it
and used the proceeds to buy a frankenstein 66 Mustang. At any rate, I
slowly refurbished the old ford with junkyard parts and traded parts. Being
a typical college student, I burned the candle at both ends and averaged
about 2 1/2 hours sleep at night during one crazy semister. At the end of
finals, I was leaving for home at about 11pm when I backed into a light
pole. Now that is not too much in and of itself except that it was in the
Mustang and I hit it with enough force to move the 3 foot diameter concrete
base about 1 1/2 inches in the asphalt. Yes folks, I was in a hurry!! At
any rate (no pun intended) I hit it VERY hard and the gas tank was never
even touched. I doubt that the Mustang is any less safe than a Roadster (we
have the tank in the exact same location.
IMHO
Sid Raper
Ex Ford pilot
>From: Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us
>Reply-To: Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us
>To: datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net, Mikie2U@aol.com
>Subject: Re: An Observation on Compression
>Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:45:49 -0700
>
>I don't think you divide that at all. My understanding is that it should be
>compression per cylinder. I've got readings of 165 to 175 on each of the
>cylinders in my '70 1600.
>
>Non-roadster item - a couple days ago there was a 60 Minutes blurb on
>sixties
>Mustangs being very dangerous in collisions. Seems that they have drop-in
>fuel
>tanks in the trunk, that will burst in a rear collision and shower
>passengers
>with gasoline. They (safety engineers and even Lee Iacocca) recommend
>getting
>rid of the car, or reinforcing the top of the tank with metal sheeting.
>Please
>check into this issue for your son's sake.
>
>Fred - So.SF
>
>______________________ Reply Separator ______________________________
> >Subject: An Observation on Compression
> >Author: Mikie2U@aol.com
> >Date: 8/20/99 12:58 PM
> >
> >I have a question/observation for the Roadster enthusiasts.
> >
> >I am going to try to rebuild the engine for the 1600 that siezed up last
> >winter and while I was doing some reading to help me prep for the project
>I
> >made an observation and I want to ask if my reasoning is sound.
> >
> >According to the specifications in the manual the compression pressure is
> >180.6 psi. If you divide that by 2 you come up with 90.3 psi. +/- a
> >little of that 90.3 should be considered a good compression reading,
> >shouldn't it? I base this assumption on 2 pistons being up while 2 are
> >down, therefore the 180.6 / 2.
> >
> >Or, do I have it all wrong?
> >
> >By the way, Chris, my son opted to buy a nice '67 Mustang this summer, so
>I
> >get to have the Roadster.
> >
> >Michael
> >'67 1600
> >Va Bch, VA
|