First, if it was on 60 Minutes, I'm automatically suspicious of it. Remember the
hatchet job they did on the Audi 5000 automatic? It was later revealed that
"expert engineer" who demonstrated the runaway condition had modified the
transmission to make it happen. All the car magazines thoroughly debunked the
Besides, if this really was the case, how come no one has figured it out before
> I don't think you divide that at all. My understanding is that it should be
> compression per cylinder. I've got readings of 165 to 175 on each of the
> cylinders in my '70 1600.
> Non-roadster item - a couple days ago there was a 60 Minutes blurb on sixties
> Mustangs being very dangerous in collisions. Seems that they have drop-in fuel
> tanks in the trunk, that will burst in a rear collision and shower passengers
> with gasoline. They (safety engineers and even Lee Iacocca) recommend getting
> rid of the car, or reinforcing the top of the tank with metal sheeting. Please
> check into this issue for your son's sake.
> Fred - So.SF
> ______________________ Reply Separator ______________________________
> >Subject: An Observation on Compression
> >Author: Mikie2U@aol.com
> >Date: 8/20/99 12:58 PM
> >I have a question/observation for the Roadster enthusiasts.
> >I am going to try to rebuild the engine for the 1600 that siezed up last
> >winter and while I was doing some reading to help me prep for the project I
> >made an observation and I want to ask if my reasoning is sound.
> >According to the specifications in the manual the compression pressure is
> >180.6 psi. If you divide that by 2 you come up with 90.3 psi. +/- a
> >little of that 90.3 should be considered a good compression reading,
> >shouldn't it? I base this assumption on 2 pistons being up while 2 are
> >down, therefore the 180.6 / 2.
> >Or, do I have it all wrong?
> >By the way, Chris, my son opted to buy a nice '67 Mustang this summer, so I
> >get to have the Roadster.
> >'67 1600
> >Va Bch, VA