It's not much to read, mostly mundane replacement instructions. The main thing to know is the casting number on the bottom of the MC.
Posts by CharlesTurner
-
-
Posted this on VMF:
Not sure if anyone is aware of the H-26 Service Campaign that had to do with Disc brake master cylinders. I have a copy of the letter date 1/29/65 sent to dealers describing what to look for and the procedure for replacement.
Specifically, any disc brake master cylinder with "618467" and a "4" on the bottom were supposed to be discarded. This is all fine and dandy.... EXCEPT! Has anyone ever noticed the endless supply of NOS disc brake master cylinders sold on ebay over the years? Well guess what... I have purchased 2 of these... and you guessed it... they both have the number above cast on the bottom! Evidently this stash of "NOS" master cylinders could quite possibly only consist of defective units.
Just a heads up and FYI!!
-
-
No. As I noted, I have no idea what happened to this car. I just have the docs.
Something else interesting that I just noticed is that the buyer had a Rockville, MD address... which was almost 300 miles from Bradford, PA!
-
Put this page together as promised...
http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/66_order/66order.htm
As a side note, Bob asked about the limited slip being written on the bottom of the Order Sheet and that if this was written, why couldn't dual exhaust be written?? On the IBM Order Card, limited slip is listed in one of the sections, but there is absolutely nowhere on the card for dual exhaust to be ordered as a separate item.
-
Quote from 65KHIPO
Just a little confused, I looked to see if this Kar was in the registry and the closest kar is 5R07K240873 Built July 6, this Kar's vin is 5R07K240934 built July 2 , How can that be? somethings weird.
Since the cars were not built in sequence, it is most definitely possible. You need to understand that a VIN was assigned when an order was received from a dealer. Due to batching like cars, combination of options and availability of parts, it is quite possible to understand why a unit number greater than another could be built before that car.
Also, keep in mind that the date on the door tag is the scheduled build date and may not be the actual date the car was built.
-
-
Well... he did post in the GeneriK Parts section!
-
I was wondering when someone would notice that
I'll throw up a little web page this evening with all the paperwork from that car. I have the order sheet, invoice, copy of the window sticker and the IBM punch card from the factory. I'll also check the price list and see if limited slip is on there. Heck, I might just throw up a scan of the price list. I had to pay someone for it, but I'm not one for being stingy with original documentation.
-
For anyone interested, Troy does a great job on these! You won't be disappointed!
-
There's a guy that's been trying to sell one of those mufflers on ebay for about a year or so now... claiming it is a correct replacement muffler. I think I might have one.
Glad that others are weighing in on this subject. While details such as this may seem mundane at times, it is for the benefit of the hobby to get to the bottom of these challenges (here or anywhere else). None of us claim to know everything. Learning new things keeps this hobby interesting!
-
I'm not sure if dual exhaust would require a 6 digit DSO, but it certainly seems feasible. It would be interesting to see the original window sticker and buck tag.
-
Well that is just it, dual exhaust is NOT on the order sheet. Reference this actual order sheet from 1966:
http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/66_order_sheet.jpg
If you are telling me that you had a special "in" to get the exhaust ordered, then that is fine. But, you are attempting to state that this was a regular production option... which it absolutely was not.
-
If you search old threads you will see that someone does indeed rebuild the crimped pumps.
-
How sure are you that the exhaust system was factory installed rather than the dealer taking it to a local muffler shop and having duals installed before you took delivery? It would be great if you had more proof.
-
Bob:
I have a copy of the April 1965 Dealer Mustang Price list, which shows the updated prices (including the GT equipment group). On this price list as the previous, there is no price listed for dual exhaust as a separate item. Dual exhaust is not even listed under the Cobra High Performance Kits section. I do not see how it would be possible to get dual exhaust from the factory on any other 65/66 Mustang besides any K code or an A-code GT.
-
Quote from jwc66k
Not true. As I said, it was a special order 1966 non-GT 'A' code engine Fastback built in Metuchen. If your statement was true, then there were no non-dual exhaust Mustangs in 1964 1/2 thru March of 65 (the intro of the GT option) and the Performance Image Option (dual exhaust) was bogus. Sorry - you're incorrect.
Jim
Please provide more information about this supposed A code non-GT with factory dual exhaust. Would like to see your proof. There is nowhere on the dealer order sheet or dealer price list where "dual exhaust" is a line item. A car specially ordered is not the norm and would have taken some strings to pull to get such a car produced.
I never said there were not any non-dual exhaust cars before the GT's came out, that is ridiculous. Only K codes would have had dual exhaust before the GT cars were produced. After that, only K codes and A code GT's could have dual exhaust.
-
I don't believe there is a definitive answer to that question as every case is subjective. In reality, there are only 2 or 3 body panels that were originally marked with the VIN. Everything else is pretty much a generic piece (either dated or not).
-
Quote from kar-nut
Charles…Just wanted you to know Ford phosphate & oil can also be black in color.
Many of us including myself entered this hobby without unrestored/unmolested vehicles; if you feel you have that luxury you are correct restore to original to the best of your ability/believe. Even if several pictures of alternator brackets, driveshaft paint stripes, leaf spring paint markings, battery hold down clamp etc. are revealed I don’t think I would be convinced (do the math) my vehicle was built that way. By having & sharing the Ford data I’m hopefully giving each individual the option to make the choice if so desired to restore to a picture/photo or what ever they deem to be correct or the way Ford intended the vehicle/part to be produced. Given the choice I personally will take the Ford (or MCA) way.
Yes, I was aware that a darker color phosphate was possible. AMK fasteners tend to be the darker appearance... which means they might possibly be using manganese instead of zinc.
I certainly can respect your choice of how to restore your car and also understand that not everyone has a pristine original to start with. All we can really do is pull from multiple sources to try and answer questions we have. In the event that we cannot ascertain answers by observing physical evidence (cars), then the only choice is to accept or not accept the Ford documentation. Even then, that is a calculated risk... but undoubtedly a viable choice that has a certain level of validity as it pertains to a certain detail in question.
If you would be willing to share information about how/where you have obtained the original drawings, I can relay that information to the MCA/Ford liaison and possibly have MCA enter into some type of mutual agreement to review the documentation for research purposes. Send me a private message or e-mail and we can go from there.
-
I've always been confused by the "full" vs. "skin" quarter terminology. I have only seen Ford service the quarters one way, and that is with the end sections spotted onto the quarters (the area where the extension attaches). Otherwise, cannot see any reason to differentiate between full or skin.
