Brads Tiger
Hi Martin,
well i'm getting fed up looking at the thing, so next is a repeat of the other side & if i don't make progress by New Year it's going to a body shop.
I've found the place thats going to do the paint & they have a welder full time. The owner is well into classic cars so it will be ok there.
Meanwhile in deepest Doncaster something is happening with the engine sooon i hope.
well i'm getting fed up looking at the thing, so next is a repeat of the other side & if i don't make progress by New Year it's going to a body shop.
I've found the place thats going to do the paint & they have a welder full time. The owner is well into classic cars so it will be ok there.
Meanwhile in deepest Doncaster something is happening with the engine sooon i hope.
1966 Sunbeam Tiger Mk1
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:25 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Firing Order
Hi Brad
Thanks for keeping the restoration tales coming - images are inspirational, even if the end result this end is still not too much in the way of progress (Martin's right; body work just plain wears you down...)
Are you going to stay with a period firing order in the cam department as well with your 5 bolt? Nothing sweeter than that (seemingly almost obsolete F.O.) 289 sound...
Cheers, Tom
Thanks for keeping the restoration tales coming - images are inspirational, even if the end result this end is still not too much in the way of progress (Martin's right; body work just plain wears you down...)
Are you going to stay with a period firing order in the cam department as well with your 5 bolt? Nothing sweeter than that (seemingly almost obsolete F.O.) 289 sound...
Cheers, Tom
Good point Tom i'd almost forgotten about that, i'll add it to the list for the engine builder.
Spent yesterday scrapping off 50 year old underseal from the other side of the chassis, nice job...
Arranged for an ex fabricator mate to come around for a few days in a month or so time, so hopefully make some good progress then.
Spent yesterday scrapping off 50 year old underseal from the other side of the chassis, nice job...
Arranged for an ex fabricator mate to come around for a few days in a month or so time, so hopefully make some good progress then.
1966 Sunbeam Tiger Mk1
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:25 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Cam Firing Order
Hi Martin
No diff there b/w 260/289 (and later: see below) - it's just that (probably for mainly economic/commercial reasons) most cam manufacturers now have a preference for 351W FO on the majority of their profiles. This is particularly so if you head down the HYD roller path. That said, I believe Crower are doing "retro-fit" rollers with the earlier FO but I haven't seen a published FO confirming that.
The FO was changed per notes below:
**** courtesy Wiki ****
Around 1985~1986, Ford changed the 302 to the 351W firing order, so it's important when changing camshafts to know the right firing order for the engine.
The FO for the 302 HO was actually changed a bit earlier. Around 1982 would be more accurate. Another thing you need to consider is that the firing order only changed on HO engines! Non-HO 302s/5.0s continued with the 'old' FO.
The 'new' FO relocated stresses on the crankshaft to spread the load out and effectively make the crank stronger. One could argueably put a 351w or HO cam in a 'regular' SBF and effectively make the engine stronger with only a cam swap.
Anyway, the 351w FO is only used on specific 302s built during the years in question. Not all.
***** End Wiki ******
I can't vouch for crankshaft stresses, but - personal opinion alert!! - I do prefer the sound of the earlier FO. More snap crackle and pop!
Early FO: 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8
351W FO: 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8
Last Disclaimer: I run the late FO as I am using a HYD Roller and at time of build early FO was only available via custom billets. If you really want the early snap crackle but with the late FO, you could always do a Tony T and bypass the mufflers (I'm guessing that's what he does - bitchin' sound!)
Cheers, Tom
No diff there b/w 260/289 (and later: see below) - it's just that (probably for mainly economic/commercial reasons) most cam manufacturers now have a preference for 351W FO on the majority of their profiles. This is particularly so if you head down the HYD roller path. That said, I believe Crower are doing "retro-fit" rollers with the earlier FO but I haven't seen a published FO confirming that.
The FO was changed per notes below:
**** courtesy Wiki ****
Around 1985~1986, Ford changed the 302 to the 351W firing order, so it's important when changing camshafts to know the right firing order for the engine.
The FO for the 302 HO was actually changed a bit earlier. Around 1982 would be more accurate. Another thing you need to consider is that the firing order only changed on HO engines! Non-HO 302s/5.0s continued with the 'old' FO.
The 'new' FO relocated stresses on the crankshaft to spread the load out and effectively make the crank stronger. One could argueably put a 351w or HO cam in a 'regular' SBF and effectively make the engine stronger with only a cam swap.
Anyway, the 351w FO is only used on specific 302s built during the years in question. Not all.
***** End Wiki ******
I can't vouch for crankshaft stresses, but - personal opinion alert!! - I do prefer the sound of the earlier FO. More snap crackle and pop!
Early FO: 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8
351W FO: 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8
Last Disclaimer: I run the late FO as I am using a HYD Roller and at time of build early FO was only available via custom billets. If you really want the early snap crackle but with the late FO, you could always do a Tony T and bypass the mufflers (I'm guessing that's what he does - bitchin' sound!)
Cheers, Tom
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:25 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Be wary of generous welds!
Hi Brad - I found a similar approach on mine when cleaning the subframe (see first page of my somewhat dormant post <<Another Tiger down below>>).Brad1380 wrote:Now i know why there was over an inch of weld on the base of the panhard mount.
I'm going to have to chop that bit out, then add an extra plate i think. I've an off cut of 3" box which should do for the new bracket.
Do I recall that you were proposing some fancy re-engineering regarding the rear axle support? There's a fair amount of debate (now that's unusual for Tigers...) about the effectiveness of the standard mounting/location of the Panhard. I know a number of people (me included) have relocated the bar so that it's more horizontal, but for some reason I thought you had something more radical planned?
Cheers
Tom
http://i614.photobucket.com/albums/tt22 ... rndpbo.jpg
Hi Brad. I made this panhard rod for my car, It came about because you can't use poly bushes at an angle as on original rod. You must keep the gusset short so the forces are horizontal and not as same as old rod. hope that makes sense
Tim
Hi Brad. I made this panhard rod for my car, It came about because you can't use poly bushes at an angle as on original rod. You must keep the gusset short so the forces are horizontal and not as same as old rod. hope that makes sense
Tim