Posts by CharlesTurner

Yes, yes... you guys got me there! Of course I meant the exhaust portion beyond the H-pipe.

jwc66k: The only way possible to get factory dual exhaust on any 65-66 A code 289 was if it was a GT car.

Merlyn: It is reasons like this that we should be exploring the discrepancies between production cars and engineering drawings.

I wish it was as easy as just looking it up on a chart. There's probably some dusty stack of assembly line documents sitting somewhere that would answer all our questions about driveshaft stripes!!

You hang in there and keep looking. Something will come up eventually.

Quote from kar-nut

Charles: Do you have a copy of Ford Motor Company engineering material specification for phosphate & oil?

I don't have a copy of an official Ford document, but according to the AMK Products Guide to Ford Fasteners, on page 3, the S2 Phosphate & Oil finish and requirement is listed as:

"This finish is a phosphate conversion coating plus an oil, black or dark gray in color, and is intended for general use on steel parts which do not require long term attractive appearance. Parts shall be evenly coated with oil. Parts supplied shall withstand 72 hour salt spray test.

The phosphate coating shall be fine of medium grain size with a minimum coating weight of 1000 mg. per sq. ft. It shall ordinarily be of the zinc phosphate type, but manganese phosphate type may be used provided all other requirements are met. The specific phosphate process used is optional with the supplier, but it is recommended that all special cleaning and post-phosphate solutions used be obtained from the same source as the phosphate bath. (This does not necessarily apply to the oil used.) Controls shall be provided for solution composition and concentration, and for time and temperature of the process steps, so as to assure a uniform coating which meets the above requirements.

To avoid phosphate coating of coarse grain size or excessive weight, use of strong acids or alkalies for cleaning should be minimized. If the condition of parts prior to treatment require such cleaning, a neutralizing rinse should be used prior to phosphating."

I still have the pic up of a lower alternator adjustment brace from an unrestored low mile '65: http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/Dsc00899.jpg

Phosphate does not flake off like paint.

There was no such thing as special mufflers for a hi-po. Once GT's started being built, A code GT's shared the same exhaust as a hi-po (no matter if the hi-po was a GT or not)

Tom: At the 2006 MCA judges meeting, I put forth a proposal to pursue obtaining original documentation from Ford Motor Company to help validate our rules. It was voted on and approved. This year we are making strides in that direction with the MCA VP having made progress with our Ford contact who is looking into the matter. I would have asked for your help, but did not believe you would be cooperative.

I have been as diplomatic as possible, it's your attitude that everything published by Ford should be considered the gospel that I have a problem with. We have already proven the alternator bracket drawing did not reflect what we find on production cars. If you would simply have more of an open-mind in this matter, we could work together and solve some production mysteries.

None of the documentation has caused any controversies, only peaked our interest to learn more.

I would be interested in at least 4 systems.

Quote from kar-nut

Charles Turner finally chimed in.....Charles I'm not being defensive I'm merely providing information for the betterment of the hobby. As always someone comes forth as a self appointed expert that has to thump there chest because they think they know more about these cars then Ford Motor.

If the green & vert paint stripes colors were revised in any way from initial release to the end of production I would have stated so.

Obviously you still have issues with people questioning the documentation you provide. And yet you still refuse to answer simple questions about blueprint vs. design. If you don't know, then say so. If you really are interested in the betterment of the hobby, you'll check your attitude at the door and work with us in getting to the bottom of the more challenging details such as drive shaft stripes.

Nobody is saying the Ford documentation is not valid... that would be absurd. What we would like to know is what type of drawing it is and when exactly was it made? Those 2 things can help us in correlating that data with physical data found on the cars.

The biggest cause of inconsistencies are the running changes throughout a model year. A drive shaft marking could be different from one month, week or day and/or be different at each of the assembly plants. If patterns can be found on original parts, then we have to assume that there was an engineering change that caused an inconsistency. The drawing you referenced may very well be correct... but maybe only from March-April of 1966 (random period).

Keep in mind that the data you are referencing may also be incomplete in such that you may not have a drawing that shows a later change. How confident are you that ALL of the drawings were saved?

You don't need to get defensive about this, think about it from our perspective. All we are trying to do is figure out what is right.

It would only matter on a convertible if the car had a power top. Generally a clip or 2 were added for the power lead to the top switch.

Seems that San Jose used the large clips on the brace more often than the other plants.

We are definitely gracious of any Ford documentation that has been shared. As I have said before, it would also be useful to know if the documents that Tom is referencing are blueprints or design drawings. Blueprints should have more information attached to them about running changes. I'm not sure if that can be easily determined, but the actual drawing that was sent out and used to actually make the part would be the most accurate reference. A blueprint would also have to go through an approval process, whereas a design drawing might not and might simply be a snapshot from a certain time period that may or may not have been approved later.

MCA has a close contact at Ford who is looking into possibly allowing access to some of the engineering data which might help improve the MCA Rulebook.

BTW, it is a common misconception that the washer reinforcements were done during the Shelby conversion. The washer upper mounts would have been done at the assembly plant.

Scared to think what it will sell for!

Would also add that the Special Handling package was included with all K codes, no matter if it was a GT or not.

Just restoring cars for a couple guys these days. Probably will not be attending the Scottsdale auctions this year.

No problem. Getting a car ready to take to Scottsdale?

Factory export brace would not have had the "ears" welded on the shock towers. Factory installs also have the reinforcement brace welded into the cowl. Dealer installed would be pretty much any combination, but I doubt very many were installed by dealers... if any.

Windshield washer systems were optional in '65 but standard in '66.

You can keep the points.

White with red appointments would mean that everything in the interior is white except for the padded dash, carpet and seat belts. The car might also have had red pinch-on windlace.

Also... the moldings in front of the dash pad next to the windshield would be painted red like the color of the dash pad.

$20k is not too bad for the car, maybe a tad high. It would cost $40-50k to restore it though.

Not too many of these available nowadays. If it was a later production one with more options I might be considering it! Dark Blue with black interior is my favorite color combo.

The biggest bang for the buck will be port matching and smoothing out the ports.

Also, if you haven't done it already, have the entire rotating assembly balanced (including balancer, flywheel and clutch).

Yes, seen repro's with a different size bolt, like a 5/16" instead of 3/8".