Category Archives: #ProjectSportsRoof

#ProjectSportsRoof – Brake Shoes – The Measurements.

By | | , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

If you stopped by to see a video on measuring for brake shoes, you’ll have to read instead.  I was pretty frustrated at the time and my selection of verbiage would have been Rate R. Sometime a story is best told through pic only.

I’m not inventing something new, merely showing where I went sideways and what I should have done.

For the record, most you know, I went with what the all the parts books said were the proper size, 10 in x 2 in.   Again, I took a quick measurement and it looked to be 10 in.

Here is what I should have done.

Measure the back plate.

yeah….11 inches not 10!

Inside Diameter

I captured my mistake on camera – just wee bit off not 2″ but 1.75″.

These are the measurement I should have taken.

So the story dragged on with the ordering of shoes for a Ford Galaxy – they were huge  and finally finding the 11 in x 1.75 in from a 1973 Bronco.   That was it!! They were the right size….even brought the old shoe with me and matched them at the store. 

Insert huge sigh

I installed them…almost.  Here’s why that didn’t work.

Old shoe is on the top and it’s tapered.

Here is a closer look.

That little bit of taper was key to getting the brake shoe under the shoe retainer washer.

The width of the new brake shoe was too side and forced the washer (times referred to a shoe guide plate) too far out on the pin and left no room for both springs and the auto adjuster.

So my solution failed.  What’s next?  Maybe a different direction for #ProjectSportsRoof?

Thanks for checking back!!

Tim

#SR73

 

 

 

#ProjectSportsRoof – Brake Shoe Consternation!

By | | , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

Oh well this is crazy…of course it would have been easier if I followed the old adage, measure twice – post once.  I’ll get to that in a minute.

Every one of the parts house and everyone in one of the online forums and Facebook groups (including mine Average Guy’s Car Restorations and Projects) said the rear brake shoes for #ProjectSportsRoof were 10 inch by 2 inch.  Maybe  because that’s what the parts books said it should be so I went with that.  I did a quick measurement of the shoes (not the drums). 

Ordered the 10×2 and went to install them I noticed they seemed too small. I ordered a set from NPD and attempted to put them on, too small.  Called them up and went over it with them.  Together we thought they were just miss packaged.  They comp’ed them and sent me another set.  Check it out:

Those were (of course) the same as the last set.  By chance I thought let me order a set from SummitRacing.  Those too were too small.

Here a quick video:

 


 

Clearly there’s been a swap of some kind. Now if I had taken the measurements and done so thoroughly, I could have saved some frustration.  Taking the shoes back and forth the local parts stores (more then one and more then one time) I found little help.   I will say that CarQuest – which is way across town from my place, were the best at helping me track down the shoe size.   The guys on 3 Facebook groups all were helpful…but I made a mistake there.  I had mocked up the drums you see in the video just to show them the size difference.  Well that led to a lot of post freaking out about the lack of auto adjuster parts – which aren’t necessary, if you don’t mind making the adjustments yourself, when you feel the braking a bit off – NOT RECOMMEND however for general/common drivers and the spring wouldn’t fit…because the shoe were too small to hold them in place I popped any spring that I could get on easily.  As always you’ve a few condescending “experts” that missed the point of the pics/videos but that’s gonna happen on the web.

So the hunt began.  I’ll fill you in on that in the next post and show you the measurements I “SHOULD” have taken.

Thanks for checking in!!

Tim

#ProjectSportsRoof – New Rear Shocks and Spiders get an Eviction Notice.

By | | , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

Welcome back to Average Guys Car Restoration.

Rear shocks required a bit of  “extra” work to install and sadly a few of natures creatures, need to find a new home.  Take a look:

Now I doubt that I’ve impressed upon the spiders to permanently relocate, perhaps with a it of training I can get them to at least clean up the undercarriage a bit.

#ProjectSports Roof now has all new shocks.   There is still so much to do…coming up next brakes and upholstery.

Thanks for stopping by!!

 

Tim

#ProjectSportsRoof – Vapor Lock – New Carb – CLOSURE

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

I’ve finally put the fuel issues to bed with fuel line insulated, crushed line repaired, fuel pump upgraded and now a new carb.  Through the process I’ve eliminated vapor lock – video proof showed the issue was with the carb float.  Final analysis is that the float was cracked, filled with fuel and failed to control the level of fuel in the bowl.

Now the new carb is 1406 Edelbrock which is a downgrade from 800 CFM to 600 CFM (1413 Edelbrock).   The #ProjectSportsRoof is running well.  However, I don’t think I’ll leave it with the the 600.    The 800 was in bad shape.  Maybe only 60 miles on it, but it sat for too long, with bad fuel and just cleaning it up didn’t work.   Some say the 800 is too much for the 351C but I noticed a difference between the two carb so the 800 it going back for a professional rebuild and it will end up back on the SportsRoof. 

Here is the removal of the 800 and the installation of the 600.

 


There is still a lot coming up on Average Guys Car Restoration. Bill had some hinge work on #ProjectBeepBeep and there a lot more on #ProjectSportsRoof.

Thanks for checking.

Tim

 

#ProjectSportsRoof On Camera Update 06-04-20

By | | , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

Here is a quick update on my 73 Mustang (#ProjectSportsRoof, #SR73):

 


 

Lots coming up so check back!

Tim

#ProjectSportsRoof Fuel Issue – Carb Float Adjustment

By | | , , , , , , ,
6 Comments

Well we’ve landed here temporarily with the vapor lock – not series of posts.   Clearly we aren’t having a vapor lock issue and had I set up a camera much earlier I would have seen the issue pretty quickly.  

With fuel spewing out of the carb, which isn’t ideal, we can narrow it down to a carb issue, not a fuel line getting to hot and not a fuel pump issue (but I’m glad I upgraded from the old one).

Here is the video of the float adjustment:

 


 

So my options at this point is to have carb rebuild or down size to 600CFM Edelbrock.

What would you do?   Drop a not and let me know.

Thanks for checking in #ProjectSportsRoof.

Tim

#ProjectSportsRoof – Fuel System Diagram

By | | , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

As I sorted out the fuel issues with my ’73 Mustang (#ProjectSportsRoof) (#SR73)  I was asked about the fuel system and what I used for reference.

I have all the manuals and specs with diagrams  but the best I’ve found is from a a sales catalog.   National Parts Depot has it laid out and labeled.  You’ll have to excuse their SKU numbers but it’s a great resource.

Check it out:   – OH I will have an update on the fuel issue coming up next, along with shocks and some other work being done on #SR73.

 

Hope this helps.

Thanks

Tim

#ProjectSportsRoof – Shock Tower Braces Part I

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

So much work going on with my ’73 Mustang (#ProjectSportsRoof, #SR73), new carb, brakes, shocks it would seem that there should be time for the smaller projects.  But currently due to the pandemic supplies locally are focused on newer cars and the things that don’t sell quickly aren’t being stocked at the local auto parts stores.  Most major parts have to be ordered and shipping times are Sooooooooooooooo    Slooooooow, that there is time for these side project.

What better way to spend that time then to get the Mustangs shock tower braces ready for installation.  Waiting until all or most of the engine work is done before actually installing them, because I don’t want work around them or keeping removing them to gain access to upper parts  to the engine.  But they need painting.  I opted not to use the chrome plated option and go with steel and paint them myself.

Why bother adding Shock Tower Braces?  Dude….for unibody chassis, like the early Mustang had (only sub-frames) they provide extra stiffness between the shocks.  Helps keeps things from twisting when doing some “spirited” driving or on the track.

Here is the prep of the braces for my Mustang:

 


Part II will be coming soon and you’ll show awful the first shots of paint turned out.

Also brakes and and upholstery coming for the big Stang.

Thanks for checking in.

Tim

 

1973 Mustang SportsRoof 63D vs. Mach I 63R Body Style

By | | , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

As I shelter in place during the 2020 CoVid19 historic event (why didn’t they call  it CovVid2020?  that would have been cool…actually I really don’t care. m) I pondered many things.  One of the most important ponderings (not a word) was the difference in body styles of the 1973 Mustangs like #ProjectSportRoof (#SR73).

According the all the numbers and confirmed by my Marti Reports  (plug – the folks at Marti Auto Works are have access to soooo much Ford (and other brands) information.  I always get their full set of reports and invoices/window stickers/data plates etc for my cars.  That includes for my 1970 Mustang Coupe, my 2004 Ford SportTrac (pickup) and my 1973 SportsRoof – if you’ve never heard of them #1 Where you’ve been? and # 2 – Here ya go – https://www.martiauto.com.) #ProjectSportsRoof is a SportsRoof, not a Mach I.    It’s body code is a 63D.  As far as numbers goes that’s a good thing if you want/like unique.  With only just over 10k produced (10,820 to be exact)  my #SR73  is the lowest production body style for the last year of the Big Stangs. And we all know that – low production equals rare and rare equals more desire and more desire equals more value. (It doesn’t really – at least not always and not in this case…yet…check with me in about 100 years.)  Just to give you the rest of the data, Mach I’s (body style 63R) numbers are over 35k – the 2nd highest.  First highest is 2dr hard top (body style 65D) at 51,480, followed by Grande (body style 65F) at just over 25k, and by then the Convertible, body style 76D at 11,953. 

The fact that there are different designations for the body styles (back to my pondering) what is the difference?  I’m looking for the answers for at least the my 63D vs. 63R.  Maybe even the  between Grande (65F) and the 2dr hardtop (65D). 

I think it would be “nice to know info”.  For example all the welds on the SportsRoof were done by blind, one armed welders, using a mirror. (that’s not true…I don’t think!)  I’d like to know that.   There’s one response suggesting that they have a “…unique body code due to the added standard features.”  Which is not specific enough.   My SportsRoof came with Mach 1 interior package and slotted aluminum wheels those could be add by checking a box when ordering. 

So I’ll keep send out quires and see if I can get anything more refined. 

But the fact that my body designation is unique is cool.  I have a habit of selecting unique cars.  My 1970 Mustang was one of only about 11k produced that year, last of the medium sized Stangs.  My 1984 Corvette was first year unique, for body style, engine, Z51 suspension and lowest drag coefficient windshield up to that point (yes…really). 

If you think you know or have a guess drop me a note and I’ll update this post, or write a new one with and update. 

Thanks for checking.  Drop me a note!! 

Tim

#ProjectSportsRoof   #SR73

#ProjectSportsRoof – 1973 SportsRoof #SR73

 

EPIC MOMENT – #PROJECTSPORTSROOF MEETS #PROJECTBEEPBEEP IN THE SAME AIR SPACE

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 Comments

The title should say it all!!

Bill stopped by and we tweaked the timing and carb on #ProjectSportsRoof.

For the first time the stars of this blog are in the same Air Space!

Check it out!


It was a good day. The tweak smoothed out the new carb and I don’t think I ever saw Bill this happy working on BeebBeep. It must be he’s really a Ford guy at heart (Oh his daily driver – A MUSTANG!!).

 

Thanks for checking in!

Tim