COMET CENTRAL

My 1965 comet was originally a 6 cylinder car, and it still has an original-looking radiator. The radiator has the inlet and outlet both on the passenger side, is that correct for the 6 cyls?

The car was given a 302, so the radiator might have been replaced as well (the 302 has the pump inlet and T-stat neck both on passenger side).

Every replacement for a 1965 comet I have seen has the staggered inlet/outlet (inlet-passenger, outlet-driver).

Thanks!

The radiator you have in it now is for a 289/302. The 6cyl radiator has the outlet (top) on the pass. side and the inlet (bottom) on the drivers side.

Matt

Early fords no matter the engine almost always had both fittings on the pass side. I believe around 68 to maybe 70 when they started going to a wider rad did they switch to the drivers side for the lower intake.
Ron

6cyl took a smaller dia hose then a v8

Thanks for the info guys. Anyone have any cooling problems with a radiator that has both inlet and outlet on both sides? Mine ran hot (220) last summer (here in FL) at stoplights, until I changed my mixture to about 80% water and switched to manifold vacuum on my distributor, which got it down a bit. I plan to keep it as is until this summer and then by a shroud if it gets above 200 again.

Is there any other benefits to using manifold vacuum? I have always wondered why people done that. What exactly is the point of having it advanced at idle?

Matty wrote:Is there any other benefits to using manifold vacuum? I have always wondered why people done that. What exactly is the point of having it advanced at idle?

I have never understood why some choose to use full manifold vac for dist timing. Vac will reduce under load which then reduces timing advance. And it doesn't effect ideal timing compensation under load the way I see it. The only timing control then falls to the mechanical which is rpm dependent only.
Some think it works but i don't agree. The only place it might work is on an engine running fixed rpm use not on the street. I would never do it that way. But that's me.
Ron

POP has been wanting to answer this post ,but glad I waited RON said it just right...I agree x's 10 with ron....you have nothing in reserve when hooked to manifold vacumn......you did good RON !!

From what I have read, there should only be a difference at idle anyway. If you go WOT, then there is little vacuum with either method. If you are at part throttle, then both manifold and ported should be pulling the same, right?

I wish I had been more scientific-minded when I was playing with my cooling system last summer. My car got up to 220 at some stoplights, so I changed my coolant mix and also changed over to manifold vacuum at the same time (I should have done one at a time to see the effects). I am back to ported vacuum now since I tuned the car last weekend with a different plug gap. I put it back on ported since it seemed to idle better (there is a lot of initial advance, which I might change in the future).

I will probably play around with it this summer, since I am considering getting a new radiator but not sure I actually need it yet.

some might not agree with me but the stock radiators are too small. when they are new they are adequate. but put some rust in there, broke down antifreeze ,which is basically made from sand, some dirt, & put it all in the rad & motor for 50 years, & a hot day ,idling. it's just not big enough for me. If I cant mix the antifreeze like it needs to be or the timing is off a little, something is going to get changed . another thing I wont let an old gas tank keep me busy either. I have messed with enough of both over the years so I wont tolerate a bad tank or rad.

poboyjo65 wrote:but put some rust in there,

Good point. When I opened it up the other day I did see what looked like a few small rocks inside the radiator. No idea what they are or how they got there.

I've read about the 2 different method's of vacuum advances. I read the manifold vacuum method produces better fuel economy. I plan on experimenting on the Falcon. It is only a matter of switching port's and adjusting idle speed. I set my timing at 36 degree's fully advanced with vacuum plugged off and let the base timing fall where it may. It seems to be happy there right now. I am a long way from fuel economy experiment's though.

SW

Sorry to Jack your thread. I did the manifold vacuum today and it really brought my car to life performance wise. The driveability is so much better. I complete understand why this is the case now. I also have an adjustable vacuum canister also. Basically engines don't like to run at 12 degrees of timing. The only reason they set the timing that low is for ease if starting and it burns cleaner for emissions. They resorted to that for the convience of the everyday driver. Perfromance wise the car needs the timing advanced to operate properly.

What I experienced was basically the same as putting in lighter mechanical advance springs. My problem was that I had already tried just that and mine was advancing at idle giving inconsistent idle and performance. I couldn't find a combo on mine via weights and springs.

Matty wrote:Sorry to Jack your thread.

No worries, I jacked my own thread when I switched from radiator questions to vacuum questions. I'm not that experienced with my Comet yet so I really don't mind going off on tangents.

And I can't say much about stock rads as I have always run a 4 core rad on mine. I know some say that is too thick and slows down air flow but I have never detected that to be a problem. With the 4 core and at least a 5 blade fan and shroud have never had an overheating problem even on a hot day with the ac on. We always refered to the 4 core rad as the 'Desert Pack'.
Ron