1978 Mustang II

[impstocker]

Hello, i have a question when you said the "pads were reversed" on the rear. I just did a 9 inch rear for a friends 64 Falcon. It was a junkyard rear that I started with without brakes. I believed I assembled the brakes right using a diagram, but one side the drum is tight. Seeing this is my first Ford experience i seem to run into these problems (on third set of front spindles-right now) Could my pads be "reversed" They seem to be the same side to side> I do.t want to hijack this thread, but i could use some help.
Will Lamprecht I/SA 65 Impala inprogress.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by impstocker

Hello, i have a question when you said the "pads were reversed" on the rear. I just did a 9 inch rear for a friends 64 Falcon. It was a junkyard rear that I started with without brakes. I believed I assembled the brakes right using a diagram, but one side the drum is tight. Seeing this is my first Ford experience i seem to run into these problems (on third set of front spindles-right now) Could my pads be "reversed" They seem to be the same side to side> I do.t want to hijack this thread, but i could use some help.
Will Lamprecht I/SA 65 Impala inprogress.

Will , Robt. was talking about rear "shoes" not pads. And no , switching a primary shoe with a secondary won't, in itself prevent the drum from slipping on.
New drums, news shoes....you're gonna start out on the tight side. I suspect the shoes weren't centered..that's all.

[B/S 428]

hi-I was wondering about the correct carb size for this combo-I looked on the NHRA website and it does not list venture size? tried researching the part number listed and found it is a 1.21 not a 1.08? thanks-Brian

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by B/S 428

hi-I was wondering about the correct carb size for this combo-I looked on the NHRA website and it does not list venture size? tried researching the part number listed and found it is a 1.21 not a 1.08? thanks-Brian

99 % of the 302 2v's have to use the 1.08 carb.
Apparently there is one that can use the 1.21,, but I'm gonna stay out of that situation.

[Tom keedle]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

99 % of the 302 2v's have to use the 1.08 carb.
Apparently there is one that can use the 1.21,, but I'm gonna stay out of that situation.

and I, uh, have one sitting here, waiting for a new home...

[B/S 428]

so the 1978 302 mustang came with a 1.08 carb and never came with a 1.21 carb? but somehow it was approved by NHRA for stock? and....and some people knew it and didn't say anything to NHRA...meanwhile records are being set and class wallys are being won and we are all ok with this...really? someone tell me this is not so..brian

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by B/S 428

so the 1978 302 mustang came with a 1.08 carb and never came with a 1.21 carb? but somehow it was approved by NHRA for stock? and....and some people knew it and didn't say anything to NHRA...meanwhile records are being set and class wallys are being won and we are all ok with this...really? someone tell me this is not so..brian

Not so

[B/S 428]

okay-so is the NHRA approved carb for this combo is the 1.21 or 1.08?

[Dave Noll]

[/size]

Originally Posted by mark yacavone

99 % of the 302 2v's have to use the 1.08 carb.
Apparently there is one that can use the 1.21,, but i'm gonna stay out of that situation.

AH HA Rated too high.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Dave Noll

[/size]

AH HA Rated too high.

Not!