Posts by Murf_old

I feel that Ford intended the needle to be straight up when the temp at the sending unit (just behind the thermostat) was 195 F. This is the thermostat Ford used at that time. Also I think that the correct sending unit had 37 ohms resistance at 192 - 195 F. The temp sending units with the "260" stamped on their base seem to be those itended for Mustangs from the 66 on up era. Why the parts listings of today show the correct unit as something other than this I am not sure, probably just so they can consolidate applications. As to the reason for the different size sending units I have no idea. I have a 65 K GT that has always used the small unit and had a brass bushing, contrary to what others have found. It was scheduled to be built Apr 22, 65 if that is of interest. Ford did things in that era that made sense to them at that time but in retrospect leave us scratching our head. Anyway, I always measure the water temp just behind (toward the carb)the thermostat housing since that is where the most meaningful temps are found and is also where the Ford engineers intended. The temp of the water in the radiator taken with a probe under most circumstances also reflects the same information so it seems your gauge information is as it should be.

If you have a bushing in the intake than it will not use the 3/8 pipe thread sending unit. The intake with the bushing use a 1/4 inch pipe thread unit. Pipe threads are unusual in that when we say 3/8 pipe it means that the hole in the center of the pipe is 3/8". The thread size would be about 5/8 of an inch if it were measured as if it were a bolt. It is also tapered. That being said, if you drill out the bushing and do not destroy the threads in the intake you will find that the 3/8 sender fits your intake. And yes, I would expect the gauge to read correctly. You need an infa- red thermometer to see what your water temp really is BEFORE you monkey with what you have. Fixing a real problem is difficult enough - fixing a problem that does not exist is impossible.

OK, today a temperture sending unit was found that allowed the gauge in the dash to read as I feel it should. This one is available from NAPA by purchasing a # "TS6628". The speds show a higher resistance at 220 degrees F. than the unit that NAPA lists for a 66 and later Mustang with 3/8 pipe thread in the intake. This unit made my gauge read just slightly less than in the middle of the scale when the water temp was 180 F. The unit that is listed as correct in the NAPA sales catalog will give a reading ABOVE the middle of the gauge, in fact about one third of the way between midrange and full scale. Talked to the guy at Echlin where the senders are manufactured about getting a unit that was accurate but he was less than interested in helping. More or less indicated that I should not be so particular and as long as it was not reading IN the hot range that they were OK with their listing. ODD, since they also have in one that WILL BE CORRECT... Anyway now my gauge reads as I feel it should and all ended will in the quest for something that is correct, not just "functional" as the guy on the NAPA tech line indicated was their goal. So if you should encounter a higher than normal temp gauge reading AND YOU ARE SURE that the water temp in your engine is what it should be you may want to try this sending unit. It cured my problem and made this a happy day. OH, and the cost of a happy day? - less then $13.00 !

Looked in the service manual and could find no specs on the original units. Anyone have anything such as the temperture vs resistance relationship for the Ford units?

Most of the original senders that use the 11/16 wrench to change and were used on the Mustangs seem to have "260" stamped on them. I wish that it were that simple now to locate the correctly calibrated sender. And yes, it may be that I have to incorporate a resistor in series with the sending unit to get the gauge to read as it should. Most of us here understand the quest for the correct part, and hate to use a "crutch" to make something work as it should, but it may be the only way. Will be checking out the various brands of sending units, searching for one that will make things period correct.

The operating range is determined by the resistance at 220 degreesF. on the senders that NAPA sells. For instance, the sender for a 68 302 on the NAPA website says "15.2 - 19 ohms at 220 F.

Seems that present day parts catalogs have grouped a lot of applications under one listing in order to manufacture and stock fewer parts thus although they are somewhat functional, they are not accurate enough for those of us who are sily enough to restore Mustangs. I will look for a sender with the temp range stamped on it and see what is offered. Few manufacturers publish the specs on their replacement parts, or at least I have been unable to find the specs. Also it is difficult and painful to bring our engines up to the 220F. temp where the NAPA is specified to have between 15.2 - 19 ohms resistance. Has anyone found a table of specs for other brands?

I am looking for a replacement temp sending unit. The thread size is 3/8 pipe and normally this would take an 11/16 wrench to fit the brass hex. Seems that most units now are "generic" and put the needle on the temp gauge about 2/3 toward HOT when in reality the engine is operating between 180 - 195. Has anyone found a sending unit that has specs that are in line with those of the original Ford units that kept the needle in the center of the doal when the engine was at normal operating temps? Adjusting the CVR in the dash unit is out of the question since the gas gauge and the oil pressure gauge seem to be very accurate. I have a replacement unit in the car now and hope that someone can offer suggestions as to an aftermarket unit that is calibrated as the originals. I appreciate any ideas, or solutions any of you may offer.

Maybe this will help you. The correct paint number in RM for the speaker grille AND the lower WS molding is 5756, Also I think that the WS posts along with the little clips that retain the headliner (found at the top of the WS posts and retained with one screw in a counter sunk hole in the clip) should be this darker color as well. Charles is correct when he says these parts are a color in the same family as the dash pad. NPD used the RM paint code for many of their interior rattle can identification, so look in their catalog and place an "AP" in front of the RM number for paint or "VP" in front of the number for vinyl dye. As an example the NPD part number for the product for your grille and moldings and WS posts and clip would be AP-5756. The dye for your dash pad if you need to order it from NPD would thus be VP-5756. You are correct that the color name is Medium Ivy Gold. I think that Va. Mustang lists the colors only by name. Also your nearby paint store may be able to mix paint and fill a rattle can for you by crossing the RM paint code of 5657. These older numbers are getting difficult to convert to modern paint, most paint stores now want to give you just a basecoat mix which seldom matches anything that Ford used. The rattle cans are in most cases a better color match. The color you are working with will drive you nuts. The present seat covers for this trim code are awful as far as color match is concerned. TMI missed the color by a mile so be prepared for a bad experience when the seats look shabby and are a different hue than the correct colors in the rest of your interior. The color you are searching for is sort of an "olive" color and darker and more flat in sheen compared to the other color of green used in this interior, sometimes listed as "light ivy green" by the retailers. For what it is worth, the running horse panels in the original seats were also this olive color when originally manufactured. Good luck duplicating that aspect of your interior restoration. Maybe one of the major vendors who reads this will help you get some covers made that have the correct colors.

Edited by - Murf on 06/30/2009 10:59:11

"Engineering change MF394690 added a color code to both the front & rear shock absorbers."

Are you going to tell us what these added color codes were and when this change took place? Can you post the Ford info pertaining to this?

I have used the Drake GT concours tips and yes, they do "neck down" in size just after where they clamp on the pipe. They look just exactly like the originals, if you have one or have seen one.

Tom, can you share the date this happened and what color was used? Al;so Tom, the original set of shocks on my 65 hipo did NOT have the flare on the lower end of the upper tube. And Charles, you are correct, I have never seen an unrestored car with the "57 stamped on the ring of the front shocks, just the NOS set that my buddy purchased. I noticed them because it seemed unusual. In fact I have seen very few cars with the original front shocks.

For what it is worth, my buddy purchased an NOS set of FOMOCO shocks in unopened boxex a couple years ago and they both had the 57 stamped in the top ring where the mounting rod goes through. (front shocks) Also, the new Gabrial classic shocks for a 65 or 66 Mustang have the 57 stamped in the same location. So I assume it is/was? something that Gabrial uses in manufacturing?

KAR-NUT

Tom, I Will list the entire branding.

AUTOLITE

MADE IN USA

C4ZF-1x80-C (the "x" indicates a character that I cannot determine, might be a 6 or an 8 or ?, just cannot tell)

C5-CA

REAR

These were on the car when I purchased it in 86, and I suspect are the originals, you will have to determine that by the numbers, most of the car was not disturbed and low mileage. I have always questioned the AUTOLITE logo on them, so please let me know what you have determined.

Tom, I think that I have what you are looking for. Or at least the rear. Let me know what you need.

The base on my April 22 1965 scheduled build date car has, as far as I can determine, no date stamp. I have had the car 23 years, am the third owner and am satisfied that this is the base that was on the car when delivered. Just one of the odd things that Ford did or did not do.

Many of the low profile rally pacs in the very early production GT Mustangs and vehicles with pony interior were black, no matter what color the interior. After late April or early May of 65 they began to show up the color of the interior.I do not think there is any cast in stone date when this happened, but by maybe mid May most of the rally-pacs were colored to fit in with the interior colors.

OK, I will show my lack of knowledge! Just exactly what is a 60 gloss finish? Please help me understand about the color and/or sheen of the E-coat black finish.

Well, we are no further down the road to an finding a black paint that is the same sheen as that which Ford used in the mid-sixties. So a little different approach may uncover something. Have you found or know of a paint that LOOKS as if Ford applied it when the car was built? I still think that most of the cars being restored today have an engine compartment which lacks the original sheen and what we are using today has an "eggshell" look which is very different than the original. I looked at an original just today, as Kar Nut suggested and upon shining it up with just a clean rag it certainly looked to have far more shine than is commonly thought correct now. Perhaps I made it shine by cleaning, not sure about that. The car had been sitting for years and there was no way I could get the color "shot" by a paint sales person, but if anyone reading this has an unrestored engine compartment and has the time and inclination to drive by an automoible paint store for a "scan" of the color it seems a lot of us would be interested in the results. Anybody up for that? Thanks to those of you who have posted comments on this subject.

OK, the google search worked. However I do not know a bit more than before. No details, just the fact that the ESE-M2P10-A is applied .512 Mils thick and has a salt apray rating of 168 hours. It also was called engine compartment paint, and appears to be one of the lower grades of engine compartment paint as well as a spec for coating brackets. So now I am confused, was this an E-coat or just ordinary paint. Perhaps others will also Google the spec and give us their take on the results they read. The second spec that Kar Nut mentions is called resin based, either hardened by air or baked. Help!

During the time frame when our K cars were built did Ford use the E-coat for parts? Also, the engine compartment was sprayed black at the plant, correct? Is there a spec that Ford used for this paint? Can a person find that specification? I will Google the accessory E=coat spec and see what comes up.