[don_k]

Can someone tell me if a C5AF-F carb is the correct one for a 65 A code pony?
It has the 1:12 in the little circle on the side by the way.
I just picked up a really nice one at a swap meet. Guy says it was on his 65 GT coupe. I am not a numbers cruncher, but this carb was in great shape, so I bought it hoping he was right.
Thanks in advance.

 

[redden68]

I don't have all the numbers either, but the 1.12 is a 600 cfm carb and you need the 480 cfm, 1.08, to be correct. The 1.12 is a great carb though, if you wanted a little cfm than stock. Maybe someone else can further enlighten.

 

[66_Pony]

Don't think so... Mannel's book lists C5ZF-[C..M] as original on 1965 289 4V Mustangs.

In fact, Mannel doesn't list C5AF-F at all!

Steve

 

[gmart]

Pretty sure thats a t-bird carb, i think the k codes had 1.12 but not with those numbers. i will dig out the old parts books at work tomorrow ( ford dealer)and make a copy of 65 66 mustang numbers to make sure.

 

[Guest]

It's not there because Mannel's book only covers small block engines. Logic 101 tells us this is for a big block engine.

Also going by Mannel's book it appears that carbs with an A for the third digit were from full sized Fords - at least for 1965.

Galaxie or Thunderbird maybe? 390 maybe? Some people out there have the books that can tell you exactly what car/engine it was for.

 

[66_Pony]

Duh, sure, OK, that's why it's not listed. But, my answer to the original question is correct... it's NOT from a '65 A-code Mustang.

Steve

 

[sidewinder]

The carb is for a 1965 full size with a 352 and a auto. It is a 600 cfm. I think that the correct carb is a 1.08 and is a 480 cfm. I'd go ahead and run it if your not number conscience.

 

[Guest]

Most definitely not for a Mustang. I've fallen victim to the small block aspect of Mannel's book more than once so I'd figure I'd mention why it's not there.

It kinda makes me wish someone would make one for the big blocks but considering the effort that was obviously put into the the small block version I think it's doubtful.