Topic: Black Engine

[Rushoid]

No Mike, but there is actually a reason! Keep guessing................. 

Because red is the most popular color (colour  )?

I thought the problem with the black F motor was a valve guide problem. Incidentally, I own one of these and you guys are scaring me. Is my bike gonna come apart at high speed?

[tramp]

according to my clymer manual,the valve train is the weakest part and is prone to failure ,the stock retainers wear ,they reccomend to not modify the valvetrain. if you have a clymers manual it is in the back of the book under performance

[jotor]

Is my bike gonna come apart at high speed?

Well, it does look kinda red...

[scondon]

I thought the problem with the black F motor was a valve guide problem. Incidentally, I own one of these and you guys are scaring me. Is my bike gonna come apart at high speed?

    Valve and valve guide wear are the pitfalls of this motor. Loss of compression/power, burning oil are the symptoms and they would come on slowly.Valve gaps should be checked regularly since  the valve stems take a beating. I don't think you have to worry about catastrophic failure at speed.

   I read somewhere that Honda became aware of this problem towards the end of the '78 production year and offered to swap out the guides with stronger ones.

   The 77-78 750F has a few other differences that, I think, contribute to engine wear. The sprockets are geared to run higher rpm's at lower speed for better jump off the line. Emission control was becoming a big thing in the mid 70's and these bikes were jetted lean to comply. Leaner burn=hotter burn. Higher rpm's and oil breakdown due to heat contribute to wear.

   So you've got a sport bike that touts "quicker acceleration" and a higher 9500 redline. It runs hot and has a suspect valve train. Change the oil often, resist temptation to ride everywhere at 8000+ rpm, keep the fuel circuits in the carbs clean and make sure your plugs aren't white(too lean). I would think this would at least reduce the rate of wear and allow you to get a longer life out of the motor.

[Gordon]

No seriously guys, (geez, that sounds strange coming from me.......) more people die in red cars than any other color! 

1.  Red is one of, if not the most popular car colors.
2.  Red is the most popular car color among young male drivers.
3.  Red is the most popular color for small cars with big engines (poplular with young male drivers).   
4.  Red is one of the least visible colors to humans, especially in peripheral vision.

Greenish yellow is the most visible color, which is why you see so many new fire trucks painted this color, as well as new road warning signs that used to be that darker orange/yellow.

This concludes our lesson on the visible spectrum.

[malcolmgb]

Your signature says it is a 1971 we are now in 2006, surely that means it is a reliable machine 
You are on this forum which shows you care for your bike.
I believe in 'If it ain't broke don't fix it'

[Terry in Australia]

You guessed it guys, statistically, more people die in red cars than any other color, because they make more red cars, than any other color. Nothing to do with young males in particular Gordy, this particular statistic was just for people dying in red cars.

Re: the F2/F3 engines, my first F2 that I bought in 1998 had absolutely no problems head-wise, it was a beautiful "one owner" bike that had been well cared for over it's 50,000+ miles, My current F2 had a multitude of owners and had been thrashed within an inch of it's life and the head is pretty bad.

I've another F2 head that dropped a valve (quite common) and looking at it too, I'd suggest that it wasn't well cared for, the remains of the oil around the casting is black, which suggests that there wasn't much in the way of maintenance happening.

Sean Condon sent me an F2 head a couple of years ago, and it looks pretty good, actually, and I'll probably put it on my engine when I pull it apart again soon. Cheers, Terry.

[MRieck]

Honda really dropped the ball on the F2/3. They were carrying SOHC until the DOHC was there. I was just working on some F3 pistons and the machining on the crowns looks like the bit hadn't been changed in 5,000 units. Deep machinig scores and uneven surface. I spent a good deal of time just getting them to what I consider OK. I blame it on to much Disco.

[Terry in Australia]

Honda really dropped the ball on the F2/3. They were carrying SOHC until the DOHC was there. I was just working on some F3 pistons and the machining on the crowns looks like the bit hadn't been changed in 5,000 units. Deep machinig scores and uneven surface. I spent a good deal of time just getting them to what I consider OK. I blame it on to much Disco.

Geez, can you imagine a Japanese disco? Stuff of nightmares, ha ha!

[Chris Schneiter]

But seriously folks (yes, we know this should be on the open forum!) when I was a kid, my Dad had a white, '64 1/2 mustang convertable with a 289 V8. Some friends had a Red, '65 mustag coupe with that stinky v6...they paid higher insurance because theirs was RED!

[jotor]

But seriously folks (yes, we know this should be on the open forum!) when I was a kid, my Dad had a white, '64 1/2 mustang convertable with a 289 V8. Some friends had a Red, '65 mustag coupe with that stinky v6...they paid higher insurance because theirs was RED!

Uh.... I think that "stinky six" was an inline.  I had a '76 Monarch with the 250 cu. in. version and had NO problems with it--other than having to tighten the carb base screws every couple of years.

Wasn't too fast, though.

Joe

[Terry in Australia]

But seriously folks (yes, we know this should be on the open forum!) when I was a kid, my Dad had a white, '64 1/2 mustang convertable with a 289 V8. Some friends had a Red, '65 mustag coupe with that stinky v6...they paid higher insurance because theirs was RED!

Uh.... I think that "stinky six" was an inline.  I had a '76 Monarch with the 250 cu. in. version and had NO problems with it--other than having to tighten the carb base screws every couple of years.

Wasn't too fast, though.

Joe

I had a '67 (Aussie) Falcon with the 200 "pursuit" 6, was as slow as a wet week in London, but sooper reliable, but then I bought another Falcon with a 4V 351 Cleveland, and I was a changed man, ha ha! (I wish I still had it, boohoo!)

[HondaMan]

But seriously folks (yes, we know this should be on the open forum!) when I was a kid, my Dad had a white, '64 1/2 mustang convertable with a 289 V8. Some friends had a Red, '65 mustag coupe with that stinky v6...they paid higher insurance because theirs was RED!

It was most definitely an inline 6, the 200 CID with 1bbl, 156 CFM carb. A real screamer! That engine stayed in Ford's lineup from the 1963 Falcon until 1984, showing up as the "base" engine, including in my Fairmont station wagon (1979). Boy, what a screamer...like me, yelling, "Come on, hurry up...!".

FYI: there's a place called fordsix.com, where you will also find me, where we hop up these old sixes into something usable. 

[TwoTired]

When I met her, my wife had a 64 1/2 Mustang.  It had the base 170 Cu. in. inline six, 1 bl carb, with the C4 automatic, 13 inch 4 lug wheels and 9 inch drum brakes.
While many people called this a pony car, it was more aptly named a dog.  I guess to compensate for it's lack of stopping power, they put in an engine that would hardly get up and go.  One day an exhaust valve head broke off, holed the piston, and the cylinder sleeve, while on the freeway.  (It would actually get up to 70, even 80MPH if you were patient.)  I could have made that into a nice car by changing the suspension and entire drive train.  Had the carcass hauled away instead.  Was for the best, really.

[Terry in Australia]

When I met her, my wife had a 64 1/2 Mustang.  It had the base 170 Cu. in. inline six, 1 bl carb, with the C4 automatic, 13 inch 4 lug wheels and 9 inch drum brakes.
While many people called this a pony car, it was more aptly named a dog.  I guess to compensate for it's lack of stopping power, they put in an engine that would hardly get up and go.  One day an exhaust valve head broke off, holed the piston, and the cylinder sleeve, while on the freeway.  (It would actually get up to 70, even 80MPH if you were patient.)  I could have made that into a nice car by changing the suspension and entire drive train.  Had the carcass hauled away instead.  Was for the best, really.

If you find another one TT, can you send it to me? I've got an evil 351C/C6/9 inch DL diff waiting....................

[TwoTired]

If you find another one TT, can you send it to me? I've got an evil 351C/C6/9 inch DL diff waiting....................

Well, that was in 79, I think.  Way before prices of any Mustang went rediculously high.  But, if I'd had those kind of guts to put in it, we'd still have it in our garage.

Oh, and I can still find them.  It's the paying for them that's an issue.  Lordy, I wonder what shipping to oz would cost?

Cheers,

[Rushoid]

With all this talk about Mustangs, I just have to chime in. My dad and I are (slowly) restoring his '65 2+2 Fastback (289 2V, 3-speed stick). He bought it new in Sep., 1964 and it was driven regularly until the late 70's. It's pretty much sat since then except for short periods when another car was needed. It was my first car 20 years ago (Damn, I'm old!  ). This past winter, I, and my mom, finally convinced him to put some time and money into it. Just for grins we put in a battery, poured some gas in the carb, and started cranking. After 30 secs of cranking she roared to life! First time it had been started in almost 10 years! We drove it up and down the road a couple of times (brakes sucked, old gas in tank, etc.), then pulled it back into the garage and started taking it apart. The 289 is being rebuilt by a friend, we've got the interior out, and we're collecting a bunch of parts. Hopefully by next Spring she'll be back on the road. That has always been the most dependable car I've ever known. Anyway, like I said, I just had to chime in.

BTW I know the early '64 1/2 had the 260 V8. When did it change to the 289?

[Bob Wessner]

Neat story. Glad to hear it's being revived. Post some pics when it's all done, I would be interested in seeing them.

[Rushoid]

I thought, the other day, about posting some "in-progress" pics in my gallery but I can't find them! I'll keep searching and let y'all know when they're in there.

[BobbyR]

In 1967 I bought a 1967 Mustang 2+2 fastback. It had the 289 271HP Shelby engine. It was a great car on dry pavement going straight. Turning and braking left a great deal to be desired. Wet or snowy roads made for in interesting ride. In retrospect the car was a piece of crap, each week I would have to time the engine, set the dwell so it would be ready for stop light combat. It was truly poorly made, it was also truly beautiful. I sold it in mint condition in 1975 for $1,000. Today I would have been able to send my kid through College today on what it is worth.  Oh well.

[jotor]

One day an exhaust valve head broke off, holed the piston, and the cylinder sleeve, while on the freeway.

Had one of them black engines, did it?

[HondaMan]

With all this talk about Mustangs, I just have to chime in. My dad and I are (slowly) restoring his '65 2+2 Fastback (289 2V, 3-speed stick). He bought it new in Sep., 1964 and it was driven regularly until the late 70's. It's pretty much sat since then except for short periods when another car was needed. It was my first car 20 years ago (Damn, I'm old!  ). This past winter, I, and my mom, finally convinced him to put some time and money into it. Just for grins we put in a battery, poured some gas in the carb, and started cranking. After 30 secs of cranking she roared to life! First time it had been started in almost 10 years! We drove it up and down the road a couple of times (brakes sucked, old gas in tank, etc.), then pulled it back into the garage and started taking it apart. The 289 is being rebuilt by a friend, we've got the interior out, and we're collecting a bunch of parts. Hopefully by next Spring she'll be back on the road. That has always been the most dependable car I've ever known. Anyway, like I said, I just had to chime in.

BTW I know the early '64 1/2 had the 260 V8. When did it change to the 289?

The 289 replaced the 260 in late 1964 production, began showing up in March, 1965 in Mustangs. But, it had been around since 1962 or so - I had a '63 Galaxie with a 289 2-bbl in it. Since the Mustang started as a Falcon with different styling, the Falcon's 260 was the first V8 to be fitted.

[Rushoid]

HondaMan,
Dad's '65 was built and bought in Sep. 1964, and has the 289. The March '65 date must be inaccurate. Or it's worth more than we thought!  Yes, the Mustang has quite a few Falcon parts. Love those too! And Galaxies, etc. I had a '69 Torino GT until I moved 2 years ago (nowhere to put it  ). Had that car half my life... Oh well. Bikes are cheaper, smaller, and more fun!