ConcoursMustang Forums

1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1969 Mustang => Topic started by: YELLOWBOSS2 on January 21, 2011, 07:57:34 PM

Title: Another 69 428 SCJ question
Post by: YELLOWBOSS2 on January 21, 2011, 07:57:34 PM

This car is a late 69 428 SCJ. It is a R code, it has it's original engine with the original oil cooler, original jumper wire for the horns and a 9" rear end with a close ratio std transmission. The question comes from the axle ratio.  The door tag has a A code for the axle which is a open 3.50. Is it possable for a SCJ to have this axle ratio?

Thanks

Dave

Title: Re: Another 69 428 SCJ question
Post by: svo2scj on January 22, 2011, 02:29:42 AM

Well you know that isn't correct for a SCJ - and oil coolers and horn can be added even back then !

Being a LATE car I would guess that you will find out more about it - either through a Deluxe Marti or on disasembly of motor (finding NO other SCJ internals).

Now if there are other items like, special DSO or you know the car was to be used specifically by Mag/Ford there could be a reason.

But with 20K NON SCJ built compared to 2000 or so odds are it isn't correct.
Do you have an build sheet?

Mark

Title: Re: Another 69 428 SCJ question
Post by: YELLOWBOSS2 on January 23, 2011, 12:57:34 PM

Mark,  You are right I think I know the answer.  The motor in this car is a SCJ motor. It has the correct rods, Harmonic balancer and all the other good stuff that is in a SCJ motor. If this car had a motor transplant years ago they swapped EVERYTHING from a SCJ car because it's all there. The Marti report lists the axle as A code 3.50.  I was just wondering if it was possible that Ford built this car this way. Some people seem to think so.

Thanks
Dave

Title: Re: Another 69 428 SCJ question
Post by: svo2scj on January 23, 2011, 02:01:52 PM

I was just going of "probability" .  Being SO LATE I figured the the only way would have been if it was for high speed testing/tire car.    Again if you found evidence of pace car use at a track or DSO oddity keep looking.

Mark
P.S.  But please don't post a photo of a VIN if it is 165905 !!   I don't think my heart can take finding my original motor after 9 years of building a SCJ for it !!

Title: Re: Another 69 428 SCJ question
Post by: J_Speegle on January 23, 2011, 03:06:18 PM

Quote from: YELLOWBOSS2 on January 23, 2011, 12:57:34 PM

.................. Some people seem to think so.

Get a look at the shipping invoice and or a Marti report and the discussion would be an easy one. I'm beating (though could be pleasantly surprise) that its just things that were added years ago. Have seen at least 6 other 69's done that way. Not sure what the idea of a "late car" would add to the discussion since the parts could just be used in the following year - not like they were trying to use the parts up IMHO

Title: Re: Another 69 428 SCJ question
Post by: SCJSTU on January 29, 2011, 08:33:14 PM

if you have a Marti showing you its a factory 3.50 rear you will have a hard time convincing folks its  a factory scj car......