Ace Brooklands Thread Ctd from CRS Forum!

[keithjecks]

Max - yes I did get the message and ordered a cover today, so thanks for that.
   
   I would be interested in seeing your friend's Aceca and your Ace - where are they? I am in Woldingham in Surrey. Don't suppose you will be going to Good wood on Saturday - I plan to have my Ace there (provided the weather isn't too horrible!)
   
   I am very surprised at the comment on the weight of the 4.6. It looks big certainly, but it is all alloy and I had been led to believe that it is lighter than the standard iron block 302. Is that not right? My car has the 32 valve Mustang Cobra based engine (presumably hand built because it is signed Aston style by the builder) rather than the engine from the F150's, if that makes any difference. Regardless, it is a much better engine than the SVO engine in my Cobra. It is so flexible and smooth, and sounds lovely. Mine has had some tweaks I am told to give about 340 BHP, but I don't really believe it because the car feels quite slow unless you really rev it (it will run to 7,000 RPM quite easily). If you do that it goes quite well, but I must admit that I think it does best when just cruising at 55 - 60 MPH, when it all works beautifully. I am not sure I would replace the 302 with the 4.6 if I had a car fitted with one, but it is definitely a major step forward.
   
   The handling is another issue. I totally agree about the steering - it is very odd. It is far too high geared on first moving from the straight position. I have wondered whether a slower rack would improve it, though in truth I always get used to it again after a little while. The ride is a bit stiff on my car (which runs on 17" wheels), but the damping seems pretty good. The faster you go, the better it seems to work, and I can drive quite quickly across country without ever grounding (which was my Cobra's big failing)
   
   I certainly don't have any need for anti roll bars on mine, but I haven't looked to see is it already has them. I will look over the weekend and let you know.
   
   I am not really sure what the chassis is on my car. I am sure I heard at the time that the Lubinsky cars had galvanised chassis rather than stainless, but can't find any thing to confirm that. All I know is that behind the sills the metal sticks to a magnet, when I didn't think stainless did normally. Does a magnet stick to yours as a matter of interest? I would like a bit more rigidity from the body/chassis (even though by other AC standards it is very stiff), but it does handle quite well - for a 2 seater tank weighing 1.75 tonnes anyway!

[Guest]

Gents,
   
   Dont get me wrong the 4.6L is a great motor ... the 5.0L wieghs 405 with Iron block and the 4.6L motor wieghs 425 with alloy block other wise add another 70 lbs for iron block type ... the blocks bare are 15 lbs difference its about 1" longer and 6 inches heigher the width is 5" wider.  The problem is horsepower ... for the added size and wieght ... an SVO crate engine will have more horsepower for 8k from FORD.  The 4.6L cammer needs a lot more R&D ... the parts are starting to work there way out a 5.0L cammer with 600hp is avalable ..but for 17k.. I'm not ready for that.
   
   Ron

[Max Allan]

I'm based Headcorn, Kent, Keith - not a million miles from Surrey, but have just sent the road tax back for a refund, as I don't use the car in the winter. In fact, apart from exhibiting at a couple of car shows and the occasional run down to the coast I've not used it at all this summer - much to the annoyance of my partner, who can't see the point spending years modifying the car only to leave it sitting in the garage!
   
   The Aceca resides in Lancaster.
   
   I too was surprised learn the iron block 302 is lighter than the all alloy 4.6 (even more so once aftermarket alloy heads are fitted – saving 25lb). Apparently, the superior casting techniques used in the small block Ford produced a unit that compared favourably in weight to an alloy casting. That, plus the additional cams, valve gear and multiple chains of the 4.6 made for a heavier lump. That said, I've no doubt the 4.6 looks more impressive....
   
   To be honest I doubt mine needs an anti-roll bar – it doesn't seem to roll excessively. But I don't know of any car these days that's not fitted with one, which makes me wonder whether fitting one would further improve the handling.
   
   I stand to be corrected, but I suspect none of the Aces were fitted with stainless (chromweld) chassis. Mine is a comparatively early Ace (No 44), which according to the handbook should have a stainless chassis, but any bare patches readily rust if I don't keep the garage heated, so I reckon it was another example of wishful thinking on the part of AC.
   
   Like I say, I've sent the road tax back now, so wouldn't want to venture too far in the car. But if you care to come out this way for a run, you'd be more than welcome to a spot of lunch and a comparative test drive round the lanes.
   
   Cheers Max

[Max Allan]

Keith. The weather looks set fair for the weekend, so Goodwood should be good for "Go". Enjoy the day. If the weather continues to hold up thu November, and you fancy meeting up, give me a shout! (Same invite applies to anyone else with a Brooklands within reasonable travel distance.)
   
   Max

[administrator]

I fitted my 3000ME with a Chromweld tub when I rebuilt in 94 - 95 and it still looks as good today as the day it was fitted.  It is painted and Waxoyled and undersealed, but any areas where the covering peels off are still bright and shiny and stay that way until I get round to covering them up.
   
   AC made (or I should say had made) 5 or 6 3000ME tubs in this remarkable material.
   
   Bryan

[Max Allan]

I don't dispute chromweld is good stuff, although heavy. Whether chromweld was used or not, for Ace owners keen to loose weight there must be considerable saving to be had fabricating the front and rear subframes using aluminium section. Just a thought...
   
   Max