GT 350 or 300????

66 6F HCS wrote:
> > wrote
> As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the
> 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 =
> 351.9 ci.
>
> Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of the common
> nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be exact, I would
> say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just confuse most
> people.

Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically
important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI
functions, so thank you for pointing this out.

Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for
identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means
the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course
is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic
mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.

Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0.
But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is
incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think,
"300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.

This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from
putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump
for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a
water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco
can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.

It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge.

Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point
excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996,
I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms
of technical acumen in this group.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

Why don't you Google? You can find plenty

180 Out
TS 2

Wound Up wrote:
> 66 6F HCS wrote:
> > > wrote
> > As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were
the
> > 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x
8 =
> > 351.9 ci.
> >
> > Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of
the common
> > nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be exact,
I would
> > say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just
confuse most
> > people.
>
> Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically
> important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI
> functions, so thank you for pointing this out.
>
> Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement,
for
> identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived,
means
> the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of
course
> is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic
> mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.
>
> Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0.
> But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is
> incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think,

> "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.
>
> This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from
> putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water
pump
> for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me
a
> water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down
Bronco
> can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.
>
> It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual
knowledge.
>
> Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point
> excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early
1996,
> I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in
terms
> of technical acumen in this group.
>
> --
> Wound Up
> ThunderSnake #65

66 6F HCS wrote:

> > wrote
> As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the
> 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 =
> 351.9 ci.
>
> Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of the
> common nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be
> exact, I would say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that
> would just confuse most people.


Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically
important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI
functions, so thank you for pointing this out.

Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for
identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means
the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course
is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic
mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.

Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But,
it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is
incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think,
"300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.

This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from
putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump
for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a
water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco
can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.

It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge.

Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point
excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996,
I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms
of technical acumen in this group.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

66 6F HCS wrote:
> > wrote
> As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the
> 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 =
> 351.9 ci.
>
> Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of the
common
> nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be exact, I
would
> say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just
confuse most
> people.

Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically
important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI
functions, so thank you for pointing this out.

Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for
identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means
the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course
is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic
mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.

Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0.
But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is
incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think,
"300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.

This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from
putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump
for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a
water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco
can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.

It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge.

Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point
excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996,
I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms
of technical acumen in this group.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

"Wound Up" > wrote
> So, you've actually got a 66 HCS, eh? I'm intrigued...

Yes, from what I've been able to figure out, this car is most probably the
prototype for the High Country Specials. It was built in Dearborn, not San
Jose as all other HCS's. All markings, badging, and paint are original which
could ONLY be on an HCS, and both the HCS registry and the Special Paint
registry have acknowledged it's extreme rarity (the only one). The problem
with it being a '66 is that There's no way to confirm absolutely why this
car exists or how it happened, since Kevin Marti's info doesn't go back that
far.

Incidentally, this car is currently for sale.
--
Scott W.
'66 Mustang HCS 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57

66 6F HCS wrote:
> "Wound Up" > wrote
>
>>So, you've actually got a 66 HCS, eh? I'm intrigued...
>
>
> Yes, from what I've been able to figure out, this car is most probably the
> prototype for the High Country Specials. It was built in Dearborn, not San
> Jose as all other HCS's. All markings, badging, and paint are original which
> could ONLY be on an HCS, and both the HCS registry and the Special Paint
> registry have acknowledged it's extreme rarity (the only one).

Ho-ly Shnikies!! I guess that's where the "6F" comes from...

The problem
> with it being a '66 is that There's no way to confirm absolutely why this
> car exists or how it happened, since Kevin Marti's info doesn't go back that
> far.

That's very interesting. I'm sure you've done your research, but is
there any other source, any way to get internal Ford documentation
(maybe archived, on microfilm) to verify this, or have you tried that?
That's truly a unique car. I'm MORE intrigued.

> Incidentally, this car is currently for sale.

In this market, I'm sure it will bring a bundle. What are you asking?

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

"Wound Up" > wrote

> Ho-ly Shnikies!! I guess that's where the "6F" comes from...

You got it! Either nobody else got it, or they just haven't said anything.

> I'm sure you've done your research, but is there any other source, any way
> to get internal Ford documentation (maybe archived, on microfilm) to
> verify this, or have you tried that?

Yeah, the car has already been in the "Rare Finds" section in Mustang and
Fords, asking for any info from former Ford employees or anybody who might
know something be forwarded to either me or Jerry Heasley. No luck. I've
done what I could on my end and in discussion with the local Shelby club
president, and Registries. There are a few plausibly explanations, but There
is no evidence to back up any of them. I'd ask the original owner, but he's
dead.

>
>> Incidentally, this car is currently for sale.
>
> In this market, I'm sure it will bring a bundle. What are you asking?

It's almost a basket case, not trashed, but needs lotsa work. I've had alot
repaired, all the rust except for a floorboard. I have tons of parts, but it
needs a motor. It's all there though (sans motor) and nothing's hidden.
$3500 obo.
I have recent pics if anybody wants'em.
--
Scott W.
'66 Mustang HCS 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57