4th edition - frame rail plates

    Marv suggested I post on this so here goes. No disrespect to Tony or Marv, but the book states that the frame rail plates for exhaust hangers are mandatory on a hipo:


    "A true "K" car body will have all three kinds of plates."


    Referring to frame rail plates, rear seat plates and the rear axle bumper plate: I don't know that this is entirely accurate and would like help in solving it.


    Frame rail plates:

    I have 65 non-GT fastback, 12/30/64 San Jose. My car has every hipo characteristic on the undercarriage with the single exception of the frame rail plates. The brake line, rear seat plates and rear axle bumper plate are all correct. Are there other cars like this one, that were originally sold with transverse duals (at a point when production was changing to stratight-through duals)that lack frame rail plates? With tranverse duals the plates aren't necessary.


    Transverse exhaust systems:

    I have seen posts by various folks trying to solve their exhaust system and/or hanger dilemmas. In some cases they have found that the car was equipped with transverse duals. I suspect that there were more cars configured this way than we realize as evidenced by the availability of the reproduction transverse dual systems that are being sold by NPD and others.


    This holy trinity of undercarriage rail details is a touchy situation with those of us that don't have rail plates. Once things are published they become accepted fact and can have an adverse effect on the perceived authenticity of a car. Can we survey the board membership to determine which cars were equipped with transverse systems and no rail reinforcements? (Maybe I'm just nuts, and won't be offended if it's pointed out.)


    If it is determined that there are K codes out there without the frame rail plates, can a correction be issued?


    Edited by - round2K on 10/20/2006 18:06:44

    I don't know you, but you must be nuts to be in this group.<img src=images/icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>


    I have an October 21 San Jose fastback that still has the transverse-style tailpipe hangers. I have never checked for the framerail plate, but will try to remember this weekend. From what I understand, it is kinda like proctology - put your pinky up in the hole and...<img src=images/icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>


    Edited by - b9folk on 10/20/2006 13:44:37

    One other note on the lack of frame rail plates: you will also be missing the two bolt holes for the GT style hangers in the frame rail, which further explains the lack of rail plates. You can put your pinky in the opening, but you won't find the reinforcement there.

    My August '64 convertible fits in that category, too - no frame rail plates or extra holes for the hangers. I was hoping that the absence of frame rail plates in the early K's issue would be addressed with the 4th edition. Previous owner(s) installed duals with the GT trumpets on my car. They used the tie-down plate frame bolt holes for the rear hangers. I plan on converting back the correct transverse system in the future.


    Edited by - 65gt on 10/20/2006 17:47:01

    <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

    One other note on the lack of frame rail plates: you will also be missing the two bolt holes for the GT style hangers in the frame rail, which further explains the lack of rail plates.

    <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>


    I need to pay more attention. I thought the book was talking about reinforcement for the dual exhaust tailpipe hangers, not the GT exhaust trumpets which transverse cars would all be too early for. Wish I was at home so I could look at the book - I'm so corn-fuse-ed.

    <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

    One other note on the lack of frame rail plates: you will also be missing the two bolt holes for the GT style hangers in the frame rail, which further explains the lack of rail plates. You can put your pinky in the opening, but you won't find the reinforcement there.

    <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana" size=2 id=quote>


    Yes, you are exactly right. The introduction of the rear "GT" hangers did not appear until probably around early April '65. The Arvin system, that was used before the common GT system, utilized rear hangers further up towards the front of the car on the rear frame rails. A large 'C' clamp was used to secure the system to the hanger. The clamp is large enough to go around the resonator.

    Don't worry B9folk.....There are lots of confusing things about early Mustangs and early cars in general. Things were not set in stone back then. We all go through this. I give alot of credit to the 289 High Performance Mustang people. They are tackling a subject with limited information. Lots of records have been lost. Learn all you can about your car, digest it, portray it as best you can and most of all...take time to enjoy what you have. ED

    Hey, I actually remembered to take a look at my early frame rails. Not surprisingly they don't match the book. This info may also help answer the following thread:


    http://www.hipomustang.com/hpmx/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5899


    The access hole is 3.5" forward of the shackle, with nothing in between, and nothing behind the shackle. There is a reinforcement plate just forward of the access hole, but it is for the tie-down bracket (mine are still on the car). This is fortunate because the rail is badly corroded there and the thick bracket and plate are probably holding things together!


    The tie-down bracket's rear-most hole is 1.75" forward of the center of the frame-rail hole. The middle hole is about 2.75" from the center of the frame-rail hole. The forward-most hole for the tie-down is 4.25" forward of the center of the frame-rail hole.

    Note: Tie-down has 2 holes on the side of the frame rail and one threaded one on the bottom. (see this old pic, front is to left:)

    http://hometown.aol.com/misterend/images/lhang.jpg


    The early-style tailpipe hanger for transverse exhaust is mounted 8" forward of the frame-rail hole. Other than the holes I mentioned, there is nothing else.


    One other thing I noticed is that the shackle mount looks a little different than the pictures of I have seen. It looks like it was built as a complete bracket, with a flat part that mounts to the trunk floor. The rear frame rail has cutout areas on the sides that go loosely around the tubular parts of the shackle bracket. The photos that I have seen of replacement frame rails all look like the bracket and frame rail are more integral.


    I am absolutely positive that my rails are original, and that my car is an October '64 Hipo. I think Gerald ("65Hipo") has an early transverse car, too. I'll try to take some photos and link them here.


    Lyle


    Edited by - b9folk on 10/23/2006 12:55:07

    If that should be the case, then an ammendment to the book should be given consideration and the section on Body Identifcation corrected. Does this summarize the information?


    <b>Hipo bodies had two possible undercarriage configurations:</b>


    Prior to 3/22/65: two types of reinforcing plates were installed, at the rear seat and the axle bumper. This would include non-GT cars only equipped with transverse duals or early straight through duals.


    After 3/22/65: three types of reinforcing plates were installed, at the rear seat, the axle bumper, and the frame rails. This would include GT's and non-GT cars with straight through duals.


    Can anyone else contribute to this for sake of accuracy or additional content? Any assistance would be appreciated.


    Edited by - round2K on 10/23/2006 20:05:00

    As it happens, I have recently replaced the rear frame rail extensions on my Dearborn 65 K fastback which has a build date of Oct1/64. The rear rails were original to the car and do have the frame rail plates that are being discussed. I measured the existing rail plates and made copies which I welded into new rail extensions. I have pics of the original rail extension showing the plate and the new rail with the new plate installed. If anyone wants the pics, let me know or I can attempt to post them.

    Two photos:


    First, the rear framerail arrangement on my early San Jose fastback, inboard driver's side. (Ignore the ladder bar - it will be replaced by a standard shackle).


    [Blocked Image: http://hometown.aol.com/misterend/images/earlyrear.jpg]


    Below is a close-up of the shackle and hole area. You can see the reinforcement plate for the tie-down inside the hole, not to be confused for an exhaust hangar plate. Notice how the shackle mount looks like a separate bracket sitting in a framerail cutout. The photos I have seen of replacements don't look like this, though I could be mistaken.


    [Blocked Image: http://hometown.aol.com/misterend/images/shackle.jpg]


    I know that photos add cost to a book, but it would be nice to have some of these details documented by more than text. Tony's book is still a top-notch resource, though.


    Edited by - b9folk on 10/25/2006 16:39:43

    I've got a picture here somewhere of the inside of my frame rail still in place with the trunk floor removed. There is no special plate for the tie-down that is not on any Mustang, the only difference is the exhaust hanger support. The repro frame rail I used was only lacking the dual exhaust support which we transfered over. The repro was not exact but was close.

    My August `64 Convertible has the plates behind the back seat but no reinforcement plates in the rear rails. My 66 GT coupe has both seat plate reinforcement and the rear rail reinforcment.I have to agree ,as with others,the very early models do not have the rail plates,but the later ones do. This should be noted in the next edition........Regards,John

    We will be researching this topic and have everything resolved for the 5th Edition. If it ends up like we think it will, that is the early cars did not have the Rear Frame Rail Reenforcement Plates, then we will note it and also say the earlier editions were incorrect. We will get this resolved for sure.

    My Nov '64 non-GT F/back also has no frame rail plates. Severe disappointment after the 'pinky test' a couple of years ago! It's nice to know others have these freak characteristics!! Phil.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login