Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
My July 21st. 66 427/390 unrestored car has an 80# gauge.
My July 21st. 66 427/390 unrestored car has an 80# gauge.
-
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
My July 21st. 66 427/390 unrestored car has an 80# gauge.Comment
-
Dec 65 80# *NM*
Comment
-
Dec 65 80# *NM*
Comment
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
My original, documented, 66 427/390 conv. is #23812, built Friday, June10th, 1966. It has it's original 80lb. oil pressure guage. Hope this helps the 66 information research effort.Comment
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
My original, documented, 66 427/390 conv. is #23812, built Friday, June10th, 1966. It has it's original 80lb. oil pressure guage. Hope this helps the 66 information research effort.Comment
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
Rick,
The previous post of Wednesday, 19 January requesting info on the use of the 80# guage in 66 390 HP cars was interesting. There were build dates ranging from November 65 to july of 66 and only one out of all reported a 60# ga. Most were unrestored original cars so I would have to think that the 80# would be considered by far the majority. I have another 20 or 25 cars with the 80# ga recorded from years ago. I don't have any with the 60# ga.
The July 1966 printing of the parts book, however, tells a different story. It calls for the 60# unit in all but solid lifter engines for 65 and 66. This isn't the first time the parts book or AIM doesn't agree with what ACTUALLY happened in production.
MichaelComment
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
Rick,
The previous post of Wednesday, 19 January requesting info on the use of the 80# guage in 66 390 HP cars was interesting. There were build dates ranging from November 65 to july of 66 and only one out of all reported a 60# ga. Most were unrestored original cars so I would have to think that the 80# would be considered by far the majority. I have another 20 or 25 cars with the 80# ga recorded from years ago. I don't have any with the 60# ga.
The July 1966 printing of the parts book, however, tells a different story. It calls for the 60# unit in all but solid lifter engines for 65 and 66. This isn't the first time the parts book or AIM doesn't agree with what ACTUALLY happened in production.
MichaelComment
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
Michael,
Over the last 10 years or so I have looked at MANY 66 427/390 cars at the various NCRS events. Almost all had the 80lb.guage and of the few that did not, those cars were what you'd call "complete body off" restorations. So there was no link to an "original" guage. It would helpful to know on what basis the 60lb.guage got into the 66 Judging Guide. Perhaps Ray Morrison or one of the other senior 66 Team leaders could shed some light on this issue.Comment
-
Re: 66 W/390 HP Oil Press Ga.
Michael,
Over the last 10 years or so I have looked at MANY 66 427/390 cars at the various NCRS events. Almost all had the 80lb.guage and of the few that did not, those cars were what you'd call "complete body off" restorations. So there was no link to an "original" guage. It would helpful to know on what basis the 60lb.guage got into the 66 Judging Guide. Perhaps Ray Morrison or one of the other senior 66 Team leaders could shed some light on this issue.Comment
-
My July 66 still has the original 80psi.
Don't believe everything you readin the JG.The car with the 60psi guage probably got it as the owner configured it to agree with the JG.Comment
-
My July 66 still has the original 80psi.
Don't believe everything you readin the JG.The car with the 60psi guage probably got it as the owner configured it to agree with the JG.Comment
-
Here's The Next Step...
Rick,
I think most will agree that the 80# unit would be correct. I would now contact the 66 team leader with this information. It may be helpful to forward the entire original discussion with the results of the survey to him/her. (I have the entire string in my email if needed)
Since the JG mentions the fact that the 80# has been recognized as possibly being correct, I don't think any of the judges have been deducting points for it so it's not an emergency (unlike the 63 water pump issue) that the JG be changed immediately.
I don't know Ray Morrison personally but I understand he's open minded and willing to get involved with these issues.
MichaelComment
-
Here's The Next Step...
Rick,
I think most will agree that the 80# unit would be correct. I would now contact the 66 team leader with this information. It may be helpful to forward the entire original discussion with the results of the survey to him/her. (I have the entire string in my email if needed)
Since the JG mentions the fact that the 80# has been recognized as possibly being correct, I don't think any of the judges have been deducting points for it so it's not an emergency (unlike the 63 water pump issue) that the JG be changed immediately.
I don't know Ray Morrison personally but I understand he's open minded and willing to get involved with these issues.
MichaelComment
Comment