Hipo H-pipe concours information
I am posting this information because I thought some may find this interesting from a concours research standpoint and maybe even thought provoking.
I was allowed to view the Ford blueprint for the Hipo H-pipe a few days ago. I was not allowed to copy it, but I was able to take some notes.
The print showed 2 major and one minor revision to the H-pipe. The pipe C5ZA-5246-C was originally completed on 6/24/64, approved on 6/25/64 and released on 6/30/64. On 4/6/65 the print was ammended and released as C6ZA-5246-E. On 8/18/65 the “FOMOCO” trademark was added to the pipe.
C5ZA-5246-C facts:
-Primary pipe diameter was 2” with the cross over pipe being 1.75”
-Material is listed as “LC steel tubing with .075” wall thickness.
-The item part number was to be stamped on the pipe “with a metal stamp in any suitable location.”
C6ZA-5246-E facts:
-Material was changed to “LC steel tubing, aluminum coated with a .090” wall thickness.
-“For identification purposes daub of yellow paint here 1.00” dia min either pipe for C6ZA-5246-E”. The location indicated was on the outer side of the pipe at the rear of the assembly just before the upward bend where the intermediate pipe connected. It could be placed on either pipe so long as it was visible.
-The “FOMOCO” trademark was added and was to be placed on either the outer side of the left hand pipe on the straight section between the 1st and 2nd bend after the manifold flange OR on the bottom of the right hand pipe just behind the manifold flange. The drawing was not clear on this and the location of the arrow could be interpreted either way.
In thinking about it, it seems that there must have been a reason why they wanted the trademark added to the pipe and in doing so they would want to make it visible to anyone looking at it, so the position at the bottom of the right hand pipe would be easy to see if looked at from below with the car on a hoist. My thoughts are that something prompted the addition. Possibly warranty claims for worn out pipes caused the need to be able to identify whether the H-pipe was the original Ford part versus a replacement pipe. If we go back to the revision from the C5 part to the C6 part it seems plausible that Ford recognized a need to change to a thicker aluminized pipe possibly due to premature rust out of the thinner steel pipe. Adding the trademark gave them a means of quickly identifying the part as being original to the car or replaced using a Ford service part. I do not recall seeing a TSB in regards to premature rusting of the pipe but it could have been a repair that was handled quietly. Adding the trademark would also be a longer lasting identifier than a paint daub that could burn off in time and be duplicated by anyone.
I also find it interesting that the yellow daub was specified for the C6 part. It is unclear whether the C5 part had a paint marking as the revision may have erased the original color code info and in fact the blueprint seemed to indicate that something was erased and rewritten on the original drawing. So we may never know what the color code for the early part was.
It is also possible that the change to the thicker aluminized pipe was not limited to just the Hipo H-pipe and seems likely that the change would have also effected the standard H-pipe and single exhaust Y-pipe. If things were rusting out prematurely I’ll wager they changed all the pipes at around the same time.
I hope you all find this as interesting as I did.
Regards,
Scott
