ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1969 Mustang => Topic started by: troyword on September 07, 2016, 11:34:37 AM
-
Hi,
This is my first post. But I have been an owner of a 69 mustang for about 18 years. I am refreshing an older restoration on my 69 Mach 1 428 r-code car C-6 with factory air. In the process of adding a heat shield and s-tube I discovered that I have the incorrect shaker for my car. It looks to me based on internet research that it is a 1970 351w shaker. I have attached some photos. Since I am going to need to sell this and find the correct version. I want to make sure I am accurately describing what I have. Thanks in advance! Troy
-
Here is some info from the CJ site.
Shaker
https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-air-cleaner-69R
Snorkel
https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-snorkel
S Tube
https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-s-tube
-
Great! Thanks for the links Vcode. Looks like there is a Scott Drake Concours Repro base available and Semo makes the correct snorkel. So off to Ebay with my 351w vintage Base and Snorkel. Thanks! Troy
-
Make sure you get the proper 428 1st or 2nd iteration base for your car depending on its build date
I have the second one with the valve in the base that the orange rubber hose plugs into
-
I have the first 9ZE. Brian
-
1970 351W shaker base should have a plastic elbow in the front for the oil filler breather hose, 69 has the metal elbow.
-
Thanks for all the reply's!
Brian Conway- Thanks for the pictures! My build date is May 69 so I guess i need the C9ZZ-9600-F.
Wills70- Yep, plastic elbow on mine.
Anybody have any idea what I should ask for this base and snorkel on eBay? I am assuming my Scoop and mid plate should work on the C9ZZ-9600-F. Thanks!
-
As far as asking a price, I'd start a minimum $1500. It is rarer than a CJ one. Good luck!
-
My build date is May 69 so I guess i need the C9ZZ-9600-F.
You need the second iteration of 1969 428 shaker bowls like I have.
I'm looking for the first type bowl for my car.
Damn, I'd sell you mine, but I'd have to obtain the first type beforehand so I could do it at the same price whatever that turned out to be.
I think the 428 midplate doesn't have the 2V/4V holes either, but I haven't looked into shakers for a few years so I just don't remember.
-
Thanks for all the reply's!
Brian Conway- Thanks for the pictures! My build date is May 69 so I guess i need the C9ZZ-9600-F.
Wills70- Yep, plastic elbow on mine.
Anybody have any idea what I should ask for this base and snorkel on eBay? I am assuming my Scoop and mid plate should work on the C9ZZ-9600-F. Thanks!
Troy,
My car is a May 69 with the later version shaker.
If you need any pictures or more info let me know.
Dale.
-
Hi,
Thanks for all the reply! What a great forum this is!
7Lscjracer- I was going to go with the Scott Drake C9ZZ-9600-F Concours Repro just to get the car complete until I found a vintage one. But it looks like to me their design is in fact a C9ZZ-9600-E as it doesn't have the
thermal vent. I'm going to contact Scoot Drake to confirm. Might just grab one anyway and resell once I find an original C9ZZ-9600-F.
Vcode- Hi Dale! My main question would be where and how does the thermal vent tube connect?
-
Hi,
Thanks for all the reply! What a great forum this is!
7Lscjracer- I was going to go with the Scott Drake C9ZZ-9600-F Concours Repro just to get the car complete until I found a vintage one. But it looks like to me their design is in fact a C9ZZ-9600-E as it doesn't have the
thermal vent. I'm going to contact Scoot Drake to confirm. Might just grab one anyway and resell once I find an original C9ZZ-9600-F.
Vcode- Hi Dale! My main question would be where and how does the thermal vent tube connect?
It connects to the hot air tube that goes from the carb to the exhaust manifold.
The later version tube has a nipple on it where you connect the hose.
Here's a picture I found on Jack's site.
http://www.deadnutson.com/albums/album_image/4236615/2985820.htm
Dale.
-
So my quest for a correct shaker continues! I ordered the Scott Drake C9ZZ-9600-F(which is actually a 9600-E) and the Semo Snorkel. I knew that when my car was restored about 17 years ago the original heads and intake manifold were replaced by Aluminum Edlebrock versions since the original heads needed a substantial amount of machine work to restore plus the huge weight savings bonus. So it has become apparent why they used the 70 351W Shaker, as the correct version doesn't line up with the hood opening. The intake manifold carb position is further back towards the firewall. My question to you amazing experts here is can I restore and replace my original Intake manifold on this engine without replacing the heads as well? It will need to be bead blasted or chemically cleaned and repainted. But it is in otherwise pretty good shape. It is correct date code-wise based on my research. But I would rather not completely tear apart this engine if it is not necessary. I have attached a photo of the intake. Thanks in advance! Troy
-
Troy it seems your interest is more in making the shaker work rather than restoring to OE condition ? I had a similar situation with my motor's intake, OFFY, and the shaker set up. On my car drilling new holes in the mid plate for the air cleaner base mounting studs was what the previous owner did. Moved the mid plate forward about 3/8" just enough to get the scoop into the hood opening. Brian
-
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the reply! Have had the car for about 18 years and it always bugged me that the Shaker wasn't correct based on the other 69's I saw at Car shows. The car works fine with the current set up. But I think I would like to covert it to a "correct" but not necessarily Concours condition. The car has a Total Control Products steering system and Torque Thrust D wheels. So that puts it in the resto-mod category anyway. But I would really like the engine to be as correct as possible without a total rebuild. So if the original intake won't work with the aluminum heads I may just have to live with it. All the best! Troy
-
So the new Scott Drake bowl with the original 351 2V/4V midplate doesn't provide enough adjustment to get the scoop in the right position?
You should check your hood with a template just to be sure it's cut where Ford would have done it too.
-
I just tried it with my original mid plate. It doesn't have the dual 2V/4V mounting holes. I'm 90% sure I have the original hood, but of course anything is possible. It seems to be an issue with the aftermarket Edelbrock intake manifold. The carb position is different.
-
I just tried it with my original mid plate. It doesn't have the dual 2V/4V mounting holes. I'm 90% sure I have the original hood, but of course anything is possible. It seems to be an issue with the aftermarket Edelbrock intake manifold. The carb position is different.
Aftermarket intakes often cause issues in these cases. Reason allot of shakers got cut up or scoops simply attached to some homemade air cleaner in the past ::)
-
I just tried it with my original mid plate. It doesn't have the dual 2V/4V mounting holes.
Ok then you don't have a 351 midplate.
Hard to say if it would provide the adjustment you need anyway though.
-
The Edelbrock RPM Performer intake moves the carb pad 3/4" closer to the firewall. Are you running the stock C9AF-? Holley or something else ? Brian
-
It is a Holly 4160 750 CFM.
-
So I have done further investigative work. The intake is an Edelbrock 2105 and the heads are performer RPM 6006 versions. I would like to replace the intake for one with correct carb spacing. It looks like I have three choices, put the original C8OE-9425-C back on(which would need a refurb), find a vintage C7AE-9425-F Police interceptor, or find a Blue Thunder Aftermarket Version(which seems to be out of stock everywhere). Any options I have missed or suggestions from those of you with much more knowledge than me? Are there any issues with any of these intakes with the Edelbrock heads? Thanks again for all the help thus far from everyone! Troy
-
The cast iron intake will rob those aluminum heads of their potential.
The PI aluminum intake would be better but how much is it going to lift your shaker bowl?
You may find the hood mashing down on the gasket.
You should be able to get the AT Francis blue thunder for $400 used, so it's cheaper than the Ford PI.
Be sure to port match your intake to the heads.
Have a look at Edelbrock's installation instructions, they detail what intakes do and do not fit re port sizes.
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/misc/tech-center/install/6000/6007.pdf
-
Thanks 7Lscjracer! Yes I think I will try the Blue Thunder route. They just seem hard to find, not sure if they are temporarily out of production. Troy
-
Did you try their new website?
http://www.bluethunderauto.net/
Give them a call, and there's also their dealer list to wade thru too.
-
Thanks for the link to their new website! I reached out to them and several dealers on the list. None of the dealers had one in stock or seemed to know anything about when they might get any more. Zero response from Blue Thunder Auto. So I guess I will hope something will come up on Ebay. In the mean time I have mounted the correct snorkel from Semo on the 1970 base. It seems to fit reasonably well with the heat riser and s-tube. My only other option is putting the original IM back on, but I am worried about power loss and opening up a can of worms with fitment issues.
-
I found the Blue Thunder organization totally out of touch with the world I live in. Nobody knows where or when the parts are made, when they will be available, or how much they cost. Totally screwed up outfit. My opinion. I got my BT intake off ebay and the seller was 20 miles from my house. Got lucky. Using a BT or your OE intake will entail the same fit issues. My opinion. The BT performance in slightly better the your OE intake so power loss is not a problem. Jay Brown wrote the book on intakes and is my source for that statement. A couple of other sites may be more helpful with your current dilemma; FE Forum, 69stang.com or, my favorite, The CJ Registry. These sites have OE cars with the types of engine mods you are asking about.
-
So I got this email today:
Hello. I expect to be shipping Intakes by the middle of January. It has been awhile on the production cycle, but they are out of casting and inspection and will be machining in the next few days.
Pricing will be MR 4V without Heat Riser @ $565.00, and MR with Heat Riser @ $625.00. CJ port 4V without Heat Riser @ $595.00 and CJ port with Heat Riser @ $650.00
MR and CJ Intakes are exactly the same except for port dimension. MR will work on both Short and Tall ports, while CJ will work only on CJ/LR port height correctly. Both Intakes will work with a Shaker or Ram Air.
48 state shipping via FedEx Ground is set at $38.00 per Manifold.
There WILL be more demand for Intakes than are currently being produced. If you want an Intake, there will be a $25.00 deposit required before an Intake is reserved for you. You can use Paypal to pay this. Just use my email address as Payee, or, you can call me at 951-763-9765 and give a card over the phone. Checks or Money Orders, please mail to: DSC Motorsport, PO Box 390493, Anza, CA 92539.
You can also pay for the entire order if you like, but in either case, you WILL receive the Intake of your choice, if you respond in a timely manner to this email(before my order is all presold to others).
Thanks for your patience while these were produced.
Dennis
Looks like they are about to have some new stock. I am going to grab one of these so I can finally get the correct Shaker set up on my car. I assume for my engine I should get the CJ port with Heat Riser. Is that correct? Thanks! Troy
-
Sorry if this is not the best place, but I did quite a bit of searching for help in shaker hood parts identification and this is as close as I can find.
I'm looking for help identifying the air cleaner base in the attached picture.
If you look at the upper left hand corner picture, a top view of the base, there is quite a flange all the way around. From looking at Mustang equivalents, this looks to be something other than a Mustang.
I'll keep looking, but if you know or can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. John
-
Sorry if this is not the best place, but I did quite a bit of searching for help in shaker hood parts identification and this is as close as I can find.
I'm looking for help identifying the air cleaner base in the attached picture.
If you look at the upper left hand corner picture, a top view of the base, there is quite a flange all the way around. From looking at Mustang equivalents, this looks to be something other than a Mustang.
A possible place to start
http://fordramair.com/new/products/ram_air_units.htm (http://fordramair.com/new/products/ram_air_units.htm)
-
Thanks Jeff. Based on pictures there, it appears that the one that I posted pictures of is for a 351. There is not enough for me to determine if Windsor or Cleveland, so I'll need more pictures or dimensions from known examples to narrow it down further.
-
Thanks Jeff. Based on pictures there, it appears that the one that I posted pictures of is for a 351. There is not enough for me to determine if Windsor or Cleveland, so I'll need more pictures or dimensions from known examples to narrow it down further.
Some info here: http://www.boss302.com/shaker.htm
-
Thanks Jeff. Based on pictures there, it appears that the one that I posted pictures of is for a 351. There is not enough for me to determine if Windsor or Cleveland, so I'll need more pictures or dimensions from known examples to narrow it down further.
Yes the odd (not something I've seen on Mustang ones I've owned) thick spacer or riser I believe will be one of the big determiner of its origin. Given the height of the top of the carb the smaller motor makes sense - ie Windsor
If not for the studs I would look towards the ram air air cleaners for other applications but those limit the application.
Not likely but could always be something someone made - which would make identification impossible - but as said that is not likely