quote:I'm sure you know the blueprint is what is actually used to make the part and will contain revision information.
I don't understand what you saying, I suggest you look up the definition of the word blueprint.
Note to self: Next time Tom posts an engineering drawing save it before it disappears...
I don't understand what you saying, I suggest you look up the definition of the word blueprint.
Check your attitude at the door, I know what blueprint means. This is a very interesting topic and we are simply trying to figure out why the information you provided may not have made it into actual production as much as a year or more later. That's why I asked you if the image you posted was a blueprint or an engineering design drawing. They ARE different. The blueprint is what the manufacturer of the part uses to actually make the part. An engineering drawing has to be approved before it makes it to blueprint and can go through many revisions before final acceptance.
You must think I intentionally challenge information you provide. This is far from the truth. I am only providing physical evidence that does not always conform to the engineering documentation you have access to. It's become obvious that the documentation that's available does not always match the cars exactly, I wish it was that easy. I think the drawings you post are very cool, but you have to do a better job in telling us exactly what they are. If this is too much trouble, we can just order a copy through the research center.
Hi Guys,
Here are a few pictures of two different hold down clamps. This is my first time posting pictures. If the pics are too big could someone please resize them. The large clamp has the tab, this is my original one. I purchased the smaller NOS one, no tab, cause I got a bigger battery. That was twenty years ago. Charles do you have any input on larger clamp? I saved it all these years. Never throw stuff out!That's a NOS battery tray too. Hope this helps out. Date code is 13K (Oct 13th) on my fastback's Data plate. Dave V.
[Blocked Image: http://images6.theimagehosting.com/BatHolder2.th.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://images6.theimagehosting.com/BatHolder3.th.jpg]
[Blocked Image: http://images6.theimagehosting.com/BatHolder5.th.jpg]
I don't recall ever seeing the big hold-down without the tab.
Quote from s2msCharles, have you heard any more yet on when Ford switched to the clamp without the tab?
My plans are to observe the small clamps on low mileage or unrestored mustangs this show season to try and get a better idea of when the change happened. If this is not conclusive, I'll try and order a copy of the blueprint from Ford.
FYI: Today at a local cruise night there was an April 22, 1965 built original owner, unrestored, A-Code GT Coupe. 38,000 miles. Red, w/red Pony interior.
It had a short hold down clamp, with a tab, holding in a 24F Autolite battery, and it was installed correctly. Tab to the battery and down.
Just one more car for your info log Charles. 
As a side note, there was also the ugliest 66 GT Coupe I have ever seen. Painted PINK. It was the special order Playboy pink from 67. NOt original to this car. It had Bench seat/auto/GT. For Sale...ASKING $25,000?!?! About a $17k car IMO.
Cool, thanks! I actually saw that car a few years ago when I was there for a National MCA show. The story goes that the guy that bought it new waited for the warranty to run out and then went to Ford and bought a bunch of go-fast parts for the car and did some SCCA-type stuff.
There was an article in some magazine recently about the car too, and if I remember right, he was invited by Ford to one of the 100th anniversary events. Had his pic taken with Lee Iacocca, et al.
Might as well throw my two cents worth in.We've got a 65 GT, 4-speed, A/C, pony interior coupe with 62,000 actual miles, original window sticker in the shop with a june 15 build date that has the clamp with the tab.The car has a duralast battery in it, but the clamp was still mounted correctly.It just wasn't clamping anything.
Quote from CharlesTurnerCool, thanks! I actually saw that car a few years ago when I was there for a National MCA show. The story goes that the guy that bought it new waited for the warranty to run out and then went to Ford and bought a bunch of go-fast parts for the car and did some SCCA-type stuff.
There was an article in some magazine recently about the car too, and if I remember right, he was invited by Ford to one of the 100th anniversary events. Had his pic taken with Lee Iacocca, et al.
That must be the same car. It has a Cobra intake and a 715cfm carb on it. Looks like it has repop valve covers though (Cobra).
I don't know if you talked with the owner, but he's not very personable. Sort of rude and stand-offish. Usually leaves a car show or cruise early when more than 3 Mustangs show up.
On a plus though, the car was great for reference last year when I was doing mine He brings it our a lot, just not for very long?
Talked to B. Perkins, he says all his '66 unrestored Mustangs have the hold-down plates with the tab. Says he has a July '66 car that has a tabbed hold-down and original window sticker showing heavy duty battery. The car has something like 3-5k original miles.
Anyone else?
Charles,
I noticed in your first post on this thread you mentioned this being added to the rule book for Concours judging this year. Question 1 - is the clamp being reproduced so Concours owners can get them? I just checked 3 of the biggest suppliers and none mention the tab on their holddown clamps. Question 2 - if the clamp is not being reproduced with the tab and is only available NOS, are concours cars having a point deducted if they do not have the tab? If so, sound like Concours cars are being judged like thoroughbreds. For some reason that just doesn't seem right. Just curious.
Steve P
Availability of a part should not determine a rule. If we know a part or detail should be a certain way, then that should be incorporated into the rules. As far as I know, none of the repro clamps have the tab, so maybe the rule will get them to start making the part correctly!
Ford did service the tabbed version as can be seen in the initial post. Not to mention there was probably several hundred thousand originals made. Locating one is not that hard, there are not that many 65-66 concours cars these days anyway. Heck, we only had 11 at the TN show.
The rule change was approved by the head judges and B. Perkins.
That sucks. NOS parts that earn you a point deduction...
It's by far NOT the first service part that is not concours correct. I suppose Ford issued the flat non-tabbed version to be compatible with aftermarket batteries. Still have not concluded, though, that all '66 Mustangs had the tab version.
My point exactly Charles. I keep hearing it more and more on the show field, "Why are Concours cars being judged by Thoroughbred standards?" Maybe that is why we are seeing less and less Concours cars on the show field. We restored our cars to Concours standards, not Thoroughbred standards. What has been perfectly acceptable for a Concours car is slowly being eroded and being replaced with what a Thoroughbred car is required to have. If we think people who restored their cars 4 or 5 years ago to Concours rules are going to go back and change them we are crazy. They will just stop competing, and that is beginning to show. Get a grip guys, this is taking the fun out of it.
I think the term "RESTORE" says it all. IF we want to restore something, anything, we strive to duplicate the condition and appearance when it was manufactured. The fact that it is hard or sometimes impossible to make it as built should not enter into the mix. We have been lucky to be able to just know how things were built. I will always be glad to hunt for the elusive part if convinced it was in fact used in the manufacture of my vehicle. If we only accept what is absolutely correct for our restorations, our cars will be better. Remember, if they were able to make it in 1964, they can darn sure make it now. I ask that all of you consider the excellent reproduction parts available now because we would not accept generic parts in the past.
We demanded correct parts, and in most cases we got them. Create a need and someone will fill it. I think that the stricter and more absolute out guidelines are the better we will (be forced to?) make our cars. We were never ones to take an easy road or we would have never become interested in car restoration. For my part, I say we should be damm glad that there are folks who are interested enough to dig up the facts and present them to us. Make it as tough as you want, MCA. We (I) will step up to your challenge and have better Kars because of your rules. I want the toughest judging available and from the most knowledgeable judging staff. I will make no more comments pertaining to this, but welcome any comments others may have. Do you want to make your kar CORRECT, or do you want to make it easy to win a two dollar trophy? Murf
Steve: It's not about concours vs. thoroughbred, it's about learning as we go and trying to make the cars better. I don't think many owners who did their cars 4 or 5 years ago would fuss too much about finding the correct battery clamp. Heck, most of them might even have the right one already.
Learning new things about these cars is lots of fun and part of the hobby. It keeps it interesting!
At the TN show, I talked to a gentelman who owns a 65-66 concours trailered car. He asked me if I could help him correct all the little things wrong with his car, which I gladly accepted. Ironically, he had the car entered in the new Conservator class, but he believes that even if he's in a class where he isn't judged anymore, he still wants the car to be as correct as possible so others can learn from it. If you're going to show on this level, this is the kind of attitude you should have. It's a learning process and the judges are there to help educate.
Quote from CharlesTurnerLearning new things about these cars is lots of fun and part of the hobby. It keeps it interesting!
Bingo! 
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
