Authenticating my kar

Bramick_old · June 26, 2008 at 8:56 PM

ok, here's my big list of questions. I'm using the 4th edition of The 289 High Performance Mustang as my reference.

1.The book says the Alternator pulley for C5AF-10A352-H is for April 1, 65-67. Given this is a March 24, 65 car I'm appox a week before the cut-off and have this code. Is this an incorrect pulley for this year, possibly a replacement alternator? http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick/2614053863/

2. This car is a late 65, post 2/65, but my carb tag says C5OF-L. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick/2614889612/ The carb is a HP given you can see the lack of a hot idle compensator with a manual choke. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick/2614061643/ Where do I find the carb stamping, so I can see if the tag is correct or not. The tag looks very new, so I question it's authenticity.

3. Where do I find the casting number for the intake, manifold? I was able to find the casting number 20 on the heads, as seen in a my photo. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick/2614043761/

4. My GT exhaust mounting brackets do not seem to be welded, or the welds is really smooth. It's under the orange paint, so I'm wondering if this is a dealer install. I'd guess not since I doubt a dealer would repaint it after a bold on install, but I could be wrong in my thinking. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick…in/photostream/

5. This car has a Rally-Pac, the new version with a 5-dial instrument cluster. Is there a way to verify if this was an add-on or came originally on the car? Or do all Ks come with a Rally-Pac

C6ZZKGT · June 26, 2008 at 9:47 PM Official Post

Being so close to the "official" cutoff date for the alternator pulley, I would say it is probably correct.

The carb will be stamped on the left front toe of the carb on the side. A picture from the top side of the choke linkage where it mounts to the carb body would help to verify if it is real or a clone.

The intake casting is on the runner in front of the carburetor. It is not subtle. I see it in one of your pictures and it appears to be a C5AE 9425 M.

The reinforcements for the exhaust are spot welded and look correct. They are on Hipos as well as GT's in your production time.

Rally Pacs were optional equipment and were also available over the parts counter. The Rally Pac is the tach and clock cluster that clamps to the steering column. I only point this out because you are mentioning the 5 dial instrument cluster and you might be confusing this with a Rally Pac.

Where is your fog light switch as it should be under the dash in the "D" shaped hole near the choke cable?

You have a reproduction data plate and a later model 66 rear end housing.

-Fred-

jwc66k · June 26, 2008 at 10:38 PM

To add some clarification to your 4th querry: the brackets for the dual exhaust muffler brackets go from the inside of your car to the under body where the muffler bracket is attached. The bracket in question (called a plate by Ford, p/n C1VV-5B236-C) has two 3/8-16X2.0 studs 1 5/8 apart with a hole in the center to retain the plate to the body using a sheet metal screw. It was used thru at least 1969 on a lot of Ford and Mercury dual exaust systems. The finish should be natural.

Jim

289route66_old · June 26, 2008 at 10:44 PM

If the vin on the repro tag is correct, then your car would have a build date of approximately 13A or January 13, 1965. The March 24 date (24Q) would have a vin of 5F09K671XXX or higher.

CharlesTurner · June 27, 2008 at 6:57 AM

Agree about the VIN placing this as a January '65 car. The steering box tag has a Jan '65 date code(5A13C) as well as the intake manifold. The 4LA(first week of Nov. '64) date on the carb tag also fits a Jan build car.

As such, the car is too early to be a GT and also too early to have had pony interior. The plus side is that the car most likely had the Arvinode dual exhaust system which is now being reproduced. In one of your undercarriage shots, you can actually see the outline of the Arvinode rear muffler hanger where it was removed and the regular, more typical straight down dual exhaust hanger was bolted on. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick…57604422139176/

I hope this car was not bought under the assumption that it was a factory GT with original pony interior. With the repro door plate, no telling what color combo it had originally. One has to wonder if the scheduled date change was done intentionally to cover up that the car was built too early to be a GT.

RalphJr · June 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Your alternator pulley is correct for an early car.

I have purchased one for my mid-April dated K 2+2 - assuming that the alternator would have been built earlier - since I'm so close to the change over date.

I had to really search to find one of the correct "C" part number pulleys - not the more common and repop'd "H" pulley - AND it wasn't cheap.

I've only seen one sell on ebay in 4 years - part of a complete alternator - and it went for about $200.

By the way - this pulley uses a flat cooling fan too - so don't seperate them - I don't think the later style cooling fan will work with it.

round2K_old · June 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Your clutch linkage needs to be corrected as the return spring is not serving any purpose as installed. The correct spring is much longer and extends from the hole in the release fork over to the frame.

When checking the car for dual exhaust reinforcements in the rear frame rails please note that the book is incorrect. With a Jan '65 car you will NOT have the internal frame rail reinforcements for dual exhaust, nor will you have the through bolts holding the rear hangers in place against the inside of the frame rail. The internal frame rail reinforcements did not apppear on dual exhaust cars until the GT exhaust was introduced in March. Your rear exhaust hangers should have threaded holes on the inside of the frame rails that are roughly centered on the gas tank.

As Charles pointed out (good eye!)you had an Arvinode equipped car:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>one of your undercarriage shots, you can actually see the outline of the Arvinode rear muffler hanger where it was removed and the regular, more typical straight down dual exhaust hanger was bolted on. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Edited by - round2K on 06/27/2008 14:41:45

KBOB_old · June 27, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Looking at the pic of your Alt pulley I did not know that they ever stamped them in a straight line.

I also thought that the "H" was not stamped perfectly on the originals, The lower right corner is dropped and did not imprint correctly.

Maybe some of our fellow members could shed some light?

Bob

C6ZZKGT · June 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM Official Post

The "C" pulleys were stamped in a straight line and not curved like the "H" pulleys.

-Fred-

CharlesTurner · June 29, 2008 at 7:50 PM

FYI... as a point of reference, my '65 K fastback is unit number 393684 out of Dearborn and it had an 11A scheduled build date.

Bramick_old · July 1, 2008 at 7:25 AM

Thanks guys this explains a lot to me.

So what everyone is saying is this isn't a true GT because they weren't produced until March of 65? This definitely explains why the door plate is incorrect. I did notice that the exhaust is newer from behind the manifold/headers. Is this correct?

Yes this care was purchased under the assumption it was a true GT.

The fog light switch can be see here http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick…57604422139176/.

And also the Pony interior isn't correct either. It should be the standard?

Bramick_old · July 1, 2008 at 7:39 AM

This car was purchased in 99 for $17,500. What are your thoughts on what this car is now worth, not being a true GT.

And what can I do to restore/retain it's value?

Bramick_old · July 1, 2008 at 7:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> You have a reproduction data plate and a later model 66 rear end housing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I didn't think my rear end housing was correct. So does this mean the rear end is probably not the original too? What else can I do to verify it?

Bramick_old · July 1, 2008 at 7:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> If the vin on the repro tag is correct, then your car would have a build date of approximately 13A or January 13, 1965. The March 24 date (24Q) would have a vin of 5F09K671XXX or higher. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It's the same as on the fender/engine bay. I assume the block has one that should match too? Where can I find this or any other vin #s that should match.

C6ZZKGT · July 1, 2008 at 8:07 AM Official Post

You should have a VIN stamped on the right side front of the engine block above the oil pan rail. You should also have a VIN stamped on the trans.

-Fred-

Bramick_old · July 1, 2008 at 8:37 AM

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

You should have a VIN stamped on the right side front of the engine block above the oil pan rail. You should also have a VIN stamped on the trans.

-Fred-

Where on the trans? I'd like to know before I go poking around and figure out I can't find it because it's on the top side

C6ZZKGT · July 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM Official Post

The trans VIN will be stamped front to rear near the bottom of the main trans case. A San Jose car has the VIN from stamped side to side on the tab where the tailhousing meets the main case at the bottom. Here is a link that shows some examples.

http://www.hipomustang.com/hpmx/topic.asp…Terms=trans,vin

The answers to your ALL your questions (and then some) are contained in the Fourth Edition of The 289 High Performance Mustang, which is available directly from this website. Your purchase will also help keep this website going.

http://www.hipomustang.com/default2.asp?page=13

-Fred-

CharlesTurner · July 1, 2008 at 9:46 AM

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

Thanks guys this explains a lot to me.

So what everyone is saying is this isn't a true GT because they weren't produced until March of 65? This definitely explains why the door plate is incorrect. I did notice that the exhaust is newer from behind the manifold/headers. Is this correct?

Yes this care was purchased under the assumption it was a true GT.

The fog light switch can be see here http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramick…57604422139176/.

And also the Pony interior isn't correct either. It should be the standard?

Correct, there is no way the car could have been a factory GT or had pony interior. I'd say the value is affected more by your car being incorrect rather than originally being a std. interior non-GT K fastback.

Sorry to break the news, nothing wrong with what you have though and unless it bugs you, just leave the car like it is.

round2K_old · July 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM

If you do a nice job of making the car a non-GT original again you may well find that you are a standout at car shows as there are numerous fake GT cars. A nicely done standard car with minimal options is a rarity.

Bramick_old · July 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM

How can I verify via hard copies that this car can not be a GT based on the production date?

I tried a Marti Report, but it looks like they only do 67 and forward and there is no data available for 65.

Participate now!