Original Battery Holddown Clamp

s2ms · May 8, 2006 at 9:42 PM

Does anyone out there have an original, production battery holddown clamp? Or at least a pic of one?

I have two NOS ones and they are a little different. One has a small cutout flange, much like you see on the spare wheel holddown plate, that I haven't seen before. It also has an older style part# sticker. Here's a pic:

[Blocked Image: http://members.aol.com/dmgt350/cars/temp/BatteryClamps.jpg]

CharlesTurner · May 9, 2006 at 9:45 AM

The one with the locater tab is the correct one. The tab actually fits into the original battery. This is something we put in the MCA rulebook this year for concours judging.

I'm surprised to see an NOS one with the tab, it seems like all the service ones I have seen did not have the tab. I have 2 originals with the tab.

I was thinking that one without the tab could be laser cut and the tab pressed out. An MCA friend in FL was checking with a friend of his if it could be done.

kar-nut_old · May 9, 2006 at 10:15 AM

MCA rules also state the hold down fastener must be installed the correct way. What is the correct fastener & correct way to install?

CharlesTurner · May 9, 2006 at 11:01 AM

There's a good engineering diagram of the battery hold-down and carrier in the Osborne assembly manuals. If you have the correct hold-down with the tab, it's easier to see how it goes. The side with the tab attaches closest to the battery with the tab pointing down and sliding into a groove on the battery.

I'm going to put together a little "tech" sheet on the installation of these and start handing them out at shows. Out of 10 show cars, at least half will have the hold-down mounted wrong.

s2ms · May 9, 2006 at 12:36 PM

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

The one with the locater tab is the correct one. The tab actually fits into the original battery. This is something we put in the MCA rulebook this year for concours judging.

I'm surprised to see an NOS one with the tab, it seems like all the service ones I have seen did not have the tab. I have 2 originals with the tab.

Thanks for the info Charles. I bought both of these from a small town Ohio Ford dealer a while back. I don't need both so will probably sell one, now I know which one to keep!

kar-nut_old · May 10, 2006 at 5:52 PM

The battery hold down clamps shown in the above pictures are for the heavy duty 24F battery. Per Ford documentation both clamps are correct. The clamp was initailly released with the locating tab, an engineering change dated 9-4-64 removed the tab.

Edited by - kar-nut on 05/11/2006 19:58:11

CharlesTurner · May 10, 2006 at 7:42 PM

Just curious, is that an engineering design drawing or a blueprint? Is the engineering number of the clamp C5GB-10718-A or -B?

Here's the assembly diagram from the Osborne Assy manual, there is no release date, the Page is noted as 'E5-8128', from the Electrical Assy manual:

http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/hold-down.jpg

You can see they specifically reference the "Tang" in step 1.

While there is no release date on the drawing, we know it applied to '65 production as noted on the top left "1965". Throughout the assy manuals, you will see "1964" or both 64 and 65 if it applies to both. This one only has 1965.

It looks like we have more work to do in trying to determine when the switch was made to the non-tabbed version. Based on unrestored cars I have seen, I have observed the tabbed clamp used as late as June of '65(at least 4 examples). I have a couple friends that are going to check their unrestored '66 cars and let me know what they find.

Murf_old · May 10, 2006 at 8:43 PM

For what it is worth, My April 22 Detroit built has the little tab that fits in the "V" in the battery foot.

Richard P. · May 10, 2006 at 10:45 PM

The January 1965 Ford parts and accessories catalog lists part #C2DZ 10718 A for 40/45 amp battery and C2DZ 10718 B for the 55 amp battery. The January 1966 Ford parts and accessories catalog lists C2DZ 10718A for the 45 amp battery (same as 1965) it lists C5DZ 10718 A for the 55 amp battery. It looks like the change was made somewhere in between.

CharlesTurner · May 11, 2006 at 9:55 AM

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

The January 1965 Ford parts and accessories catalog lists part #C2DZ 10718 A for 40/45 amp battery and C2DZ 10718 B for the 55 amp battery. The January 1966 Ford parts and accessories catalog lists C2DZ 10718A for the 45 amp battery (same as 1965) it lists C5DZ 10718 A for the 55 amp battery. It looks like the change was made somewhere in between.

Rich, the C2DZ is the long clamp for 22F battery. The C5DZ is the short one for heavy-duty 24F battery, which was an RPO. You can see the C5DZ service tag on both of the clamps at the top of this thread.

CharlesTurner · May 11, 2006 at 10:22 AM

A friend took a picture of the hold-down clamp of his unrestored '66 GT coupe with a scheduled build date of December 15, 1965. It has the "tanged" version. He says his Dad has a November, 1965 Mustang('66 year model) that also has the same version. He's going to check his unrestored low mile '66 coupe in a few days. I called Bob Perkins last night and discussed with him, he said he would check out his '66 cars. He said his 35 mile '66 coupe did not have the heavy duty battery option though. I think he has at least 2 more low mile '66 mustangs.

[Blocked Image: http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/battery_holddown/100_1040_rs.JPG]

s2ms · May 11, 2006 at 3:04 PM

Thanks for the info Charles, I'm curious to find out which is correct for my late March, 66 car.

Isn't the clamp in the pic above installed upside down and backwards?

CharlesTurner · May 11, 2006 at 3:43 PM

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

Isn't the clamp in the pic above installed upside down and backwards?

Yep! Just like most of them I see on the showfield! <img src=images/icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Beagle1_old · May 11, 2006 at 4:39 PM

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

Isn't the clamp in the pic above installed upside down and backwards?

Yep! Just like most of them I see on the showfield! <img src=images/icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Glad you cleared that up...I, by chance, installed mine the right way, when I seen the above pic I was ready to undo it <img src=images/icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

66gtk · May 11, 2006 at 6:33 PM

wow - mine is also upside down and backwards now that I look at it. Easy to see how that could happen.

CharlesTurner · May 11, 2006 at 10:08 PM

Tom: Any particular reason you removed the drawing? I think it's great that you can provide original Ford drawings and info to us.

gja_era · May 12, 2006 at 7:11 AM

Charles:

Glad I saw the drawing when I did! Guess I should have saved the image.

kar-nut_old · May 12, 2006 at 10:12 AM

The drawings are Ford confidential. For part drawings try The Henry Ford: http://www.hfmgv.org/research/services/forms.asp

CharlesTurner · May 12, 2006 at 10:41 AM

I suspected they were confidential. No problem. Thanks for the link.

I would be interested to know if that image you showed was a blueprint or a drawing though. I'm sure you know the blueprint is what is actually used to make the part and will contain revision information.

kar-nut_old · May 12, 2006 at 6:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm sure you know the blueprint is what is actually used to make the part and will contain revision information. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't understand what you saying, I suggest you look up the definition of the word blueprint.

Participate now!