HEH-T

I have an HT in my Apr. 65 fastback. I am 100% certain it is original to the car although there is and never has been a VIN stamp on it nor the motor (I am also certain it is the original motor). One can only conclude that everything you read is not exactly correct! Ford did some strange things during those hectic days just to keep things moving down the assembly line and did not always follow their plan. Sometimes even the experts are misguided in their frenzy to make everything fit in neat little predictable packages. In the real world we know that all rules have exceptions and with Ford the exception seemed to be the rule.

Have an HEH-T in a Feb '65 K convertible. Hopefully the "book" will be proof-read a little better when the next version comes out.

Charles, it's not a matter of proof reading. It's what Ford states in the MPCs. When we find enough ORIGINAL Ks (and everyone swears that their's is an original and unmolested) with an anomaly from the MPCs, we make a statement to that effect in the book. An example of this would be found on Page 72 of the Fourth Edition.

My point is that if you involve the right people in proof-reading your future updates, you can avoid obvious errors. Depending on what MPC version you use, the information may not be completely accurate.

Several Ford MPCs were used and as early as April '68- none of that trash in May '75. It is NOT a OBVIOUS ERROR! IT IS CORRECT! That is what Ford dictated in it's parts books. Now if some plants choose to use older parts until they were exhausted, then that would be an anomaly and if we had enough original, unmolested Kars to prove an anomoly, then we would state so as I stated to you before.

This is not exactly new information, there are plenty of examples of HEH-T being used past the published date. Leverage your knowledge here from the collective member's of the site and your publication will be much more accurate. As it is now, we're already doing damage control, especially the part about the dual exhaust reinforcements. But hey, maybe I can use it in my favor to get a K code cheaper... says right here in this book the car has to have frame rail reinforcements! <img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=images/icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Don't take this the wrong way Marv, you know me well enough that my intentions are good and in the best interest of the hobby.

I think this forum is the only place the 'bastard HEH-T's" are discussed. It's a great discussion since it seems to only affect a small number of production K's. With respect to trying to quantify this type of anomaly, an effort to define main case casting dates for these transmissions could make a case of whether they were produced by Ford outside the envelope of the published dates.

My transmission main case has a casting date of E5. If they were only produced between Aug & Sept of '64, how does, what I believe to be, a May '65 casting date equate?

Also, because of the ever higher valuation of these cars, it's possible some restorers would discard "probable original" anomalies in place of a non-originals (HEH-BX's) just to make more money on return.

Matt

Just to add another thought on this, the 289 High Performance Mustang book is by all means a restorers technical guide. Other published restoration guides have supplimental data sections, probably the most recognizable one by Nolan Adams for Corvettes, which identifies casting date info vs VIN's. A similar supplimental for this book would be a terrific addition for a future edition.

This topic has been discussed before. I was curious about my own kar, so after I expressed my concerns, a number of k folks provided their own transmission info (see the below thread):

http://www.hipomustang.com/hpmx/topic.asp…e&TOPIC_ID=3450

I'll chime in a little on this one too.

My April '65 K has the original VIN stamped block AND HEH-T Tranny.

Here is the tranny casing info:

CASE INFO C5AR-7006-D

W-1 H264 (upside down)

TAILSHAFT INFO RF-

C4DR-7A040A

L13 W-2

The parts are early for a March/April car, but there is a VIN stamp - and I've had the car since 1979.

Obviously from the posts of later cars with this tranny "after the "Ford cut off date" either Ford was using any parts to exhaution - regardless of documentation - or the documentation is just wrong.

We all know how fast these cars were being built and how frequently Ford made mistakes.

I for one think - and have thought for many years - that in this case the documentation is just wrong and Ford never realized it and/or fixed it.

I am not an expert of HiPo trans, but with this discussion about the HEH-T, I thought I would do some checking. Ford listed the HEH-T for 8-20-64 to 10-1-64. (The 8-20-64 date, by the way, is not good. The transition was 8-3-64 [a Monday after the weekend].) The part number for the HEH-T was C5ZZ-7003-C, which has an engineering number of C5ZR-7003-C. The HEH-BX with followed (supposedly after 10-1-64) was C5ZZ-7003-W, with an engineering number of C6ZR-7003-B. I have a Ford Master Parts Catalog dated August 1965. It lists ONLY the HEH-T for the Mustang HiPo. It does list the standard 4-speed toploaders HEH-BR and HEH-BT transition as 2-1-65. Now putting together that the BX would probably be after the BT, the fact that HEH-T 4-speeds are being found after 10-1-64, and the engineering number of the HEH-BX is a 1966 part number, it seems reasonable that there is a good change the 10-1-64 date should have been 10-1-65, which would have been early 1966 production. So, find some early 1966 HiPos and see what the transmission tags have to say. It might help determine if the 10-1-65 date is correct if HEH-T boxes are found in early 66.

I'd bet you're probably right about the 10/1/65 transition to the -BX. I suppose that you know a -BT is a wide ratio trans (not that it matters much).

Yes, Both BR and BT are wide ratios. It was the sequence that was interesting. In and of itself, not important, but as a clue as to the date, possibly. It just fit with the other clues as a possible explanation of HEH-T boxes after 10-1-64. Hopefully, more data will help uncover the mystery.

I have a 12/30/64 SJ car with the VIN stamped original trans; HEH-T.

I enjoy the book, and no disrepect to Marv, but when patterns are found in cars that support a case at odds with official Ford publications it is reasonable to print a correction or addendum. Particularly when it can be based on the feedback received from registry members. The notion of finding truly authentic "unmolested" hipos given the few numbers that survive seems like looking for a needle in a haystack; how many really exist that way after 40+ years? If you believe in the notion of the registry trust the members to give decent information if you are willing to survey them. Books will be the better for it. Kudos to Bob Mannel for continually asking questions and updating his book via his web site.

I also agree with Charles that the exhaust issue in Tony's book needs to be addressed with a correction and have spoken out about it before; it's an error in the book. Waiting 4 years for the next edition seems unreasonable to owners of these great cars.

Edited by - round2K on 03/29/2007 20:23:06

My November 15, 1965 kar has a BX. The original markings are still visible in yellow. It is also VIN stamped.

Right, there is usually a H-T yellow ink stamp or for others, like H-BT stamped on the case. The font is somewhat large/skinny, here's an example:

http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/vert/3…26_05%20007.jpg

To summarize. All 4-speeds listed so far in this forum through August 65 have been HEH-T, all 1965 Mustangs. Earliest HEH-BX listed is 9-18-65, which was a 1966 Mustang. Looking more like the HEH-T was 1965 and HEH-BX was 1966. There could be some sloppy in the transition between 1965 and 1966 production. The 10-1-64 date, if in error and should have been 10-1-65, could represent the HEH-T slipping over into 66 production. What is needed is more data on August and September Mustangs (late 65/early 66). Need just one case of an early (September) 1966 Mustang with the HEH-T. (Or even a late 65 with HEH-BX.)