Battery Clamp Correct style -24F - 22F

mmv1966hipo · April 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I know this has been discussed more than once and as of this date no Mustang parts organization has produced the correct style with the battery TANG. I'm going to make a limited run on the group 24F style and perhaps the group 22F style. These will be exact in detail with the correct angles and with the cutout. In talking with Dave Wallace last weekend, I decided it would benefit a few who really want to add that realistic detail. I will post pictures hopefully next week of my progress. I do not know the cost as of yet. That will be determined if I can make a part that everyone sees as being correct.

Mark Vasquez

1966 Hipo, Ca.

CharlesTurner · April 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Cool, appreciate the effort Mark!

Once you figure out how to make the tang, would you consider taking some NOS Ford ones w/out the tang and modifying them?

Also, not sure that you should consider doing the 22F size as there is no correct battery being reproduced that the tang would fit into. All of the NOS size 22F clamps I have ever seen had the tang too.

kar-nut_old · April 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Bob Perkins technical advisor to MCA has a copy of the Ford engineering drawing for this part. The drawing shows an engineering change dated 9-4-64 removed the locating tab.

C6ZZKGT · April 30, 2009 at 7:37 AM Official Post

Tom, That is interesting information which would tend to make the clamps without the tang correct for most of our cars. The factory would, of course, used up their existing stock with tangs first which would have an indeterminate time frame. Charles is correct that the NOS Ford clamps for the 22 series battery do have the tangs.

-Fred-

CharlesTurner · April 30, 2009 at 7:59 AM

I've seen an "early" tang version which just has a tab sticking out on the end. The style shown in this drawing: http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/hold-down.jpg

Could it be that the referenced 9-4-64 engineering change went from this earlier version to the more common "down-turned" tang?

kar-nut_old · April 30, 2009 at 11:27 AM

The Ford drawing provides support for both clamps.

[Blocked Image: http://www.1965gt350mustang.com/temp/clamps.jpg]

CharlesTurner · April 30, 2009 at 1:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The Ford drawing provides support for both clamps.

Not sure I follow what you're saying here. The image of the drawing I provided shows a clamp type different than either of the ones you provided in the pic.

66gtk · April 30, 2009 at 2:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The Ford drawing provides support for both clamps.

[Blocked Image: http://www.1965gt350mustang.com/temp/clamps.jpg]

Those look like the same clamp - with one turned over upside down, no?

CharlesTurner · April 30, 2009 at 2:06 PM

One on the right has the tang, the other doesn't. I think the original intent of that image was to show that even though there was a change, the p/n remained the same.

round2K_old · April 30, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Mark - if you can pull it off I'll take two. Thanks for being willing to put it together for us.

kar-nut_old · April 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM

The Ford document provides support that Ford manufactured clamps with & without a locating tab/tang.

RalphJr · April 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Count me in for one.

CharlesTurner · April 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The Ford document provides support that Ford manufactured clamps with & without a locating tab/tang.

Yes, there is no doubt about that. The question I posed was whether or not the 9/64 drawing that you referred to was moving from the very early style clamp to the one we commonly see with the tang. I have seen many examples of cars built way past the 9/64 date with a tang 24F hold-down.

kar-nut_old · April 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Yes, there is no doubt about that.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It appears the MCA rules need to be revised.

Battery Carrier: Semi-gloss black with appropriate attaching parts. Hold down clamp mounted correctly, groove fits in carrier, centering tab present. Mounting bolt and nut – natural. ....3 Workmanship, condition and cleanliness.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The question I posed was whether or not the 9/64 drawing that you referred to was moving from the very early style clamp to the one we commonly see with the tang. I have seen many examples of cars built way past the 9/64 date with a tang 24F hold-down.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Please read my first post.

The drawing shows an engineering change dated 9-4-64 removed the locating tab.

You call it a tang, I called it a locating tab, it appears MCA rules call it a centering tab.

Again the change date on the drawing is when the drawing was changed and has nothing to do with when a change goes into or out of production.

J_Speegle_old · April 30, 2009 at 8:56 PM

I guess the additional question must be if the engineering drawing change ever went into effect for production parts and if so when?

There are plenty of examples of drawing changes (assembly manual examples come first to mind) that were never applied or used to produce items

Just something to consider

s2ms · April 30, 2009 at 9:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

One on the right has the tang, the other doesn't. I think the original intent of that image was to show that even though there was a change, the p/n remained the same.

I originally posted that photo a few years ago and Charles is correct.

CharlesTurner · April 30, 2009 at 11:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

It appears the MCA rules need to be revised.

Until we can find more evidence, you are correct that the rules ought to be revised to allow either one. There have been a lot of 65 and 66 Unrestored cars found with the "tang" version clamps, so the drawing may not be as clear cut as Jeff indicated. I know you're probably tired of me saying it, but if we can find a blueprint for the clamp, it might give us more accurate information.

6hypo5conv_old · May 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM

Not having ever held one of each style in my hand what purpose does the tab serve?

CharlesTurner · May 1, 2009 at 8:14 AM

The tab fits into a notch molded into the side of original style Autolite batteries. The tab was most likely removed so that the clamp would be compatible with after market batteries.

kar-nut_old · May 1, 2009 at 12:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

It appears the MCA rules need to be revised.

Until we can find more evidence, you are correct that the rules ought to be revised to allow either one. There have been a lot of 65 and 66 Unrestored cars found with the "tang" version clamps, so the drawing may not be as clear cut as Jeff indicated. I know you're probably tired of me saying it, but if we can find a blueprint for the clamp, it might give us more accurate information.

WOW, that's a welcome change in attitude. See my first post Bob Perkin's has a copy of the drawing I gave to him a coulpe years ago when you changed the MCA rules.

Participate now!