Hello, My 1967 Shelby GT500 clutch fork has a hole worn through it from the rod from the z-bar (past owners handy work from many years ago). I was going to buy a new one and CJ has a 65-68 fork (looks like ones I've seen on small blocks) but it does not say big block or small- are they all the same? If not the same is there a good source for them someone can point me towards? Thanks.
Don't know. Me, I'd weld the hole and grind away to make it work.
Quote from: cboss70 on October 19, 2020, 09:39:25 AM
Hello, My 1967 Shelby GT500 clutch fork has a hole worn through it from the rod from the z-bar (past owners handy work from many years ago). I was going to buy a new one and CJ has a 65-68 fork (looks like ones I've seen on small blocks) but it does not say big block or small- are they all the same? If not the same is there a good source for them someone can point me towards? Thanks.
67 GT500 big bearing clutch fork is different then the later big bearing CJ version . It was used up into 68 production during which time the forks and bellhousings changed from the type with the wire clip to the tongue shaped clip. That is the changeover point. The 67 427 Fairlane and 67 /early 68 GT500 were all that use the fork so consequently the fork is very rare and not reproduced. I would suggest fixing what you have if possible. The CJ version will work fine but the end that sticks out of the boot has a different shape if historical accuracy is a concern plus you will have to change the pivot point in the bellhousing (bellhousing removed from engine for conversion) to accept the tongue type clip in the later CJ fork.
I have only had 3 genuine 67 GT500 forks that I have sold in 40 years of parts buying/selling to give you a idea of how hard they are to find . I sold the last one for 500.00 to give a idea of supply and demand and also justify effort to fix.
Thanks for the great info and I must be loosing it because it never even crossed my mind I could repair mine - which is something I could do. Thanks for the feedback and education.
Quote from: cboss70 on October 19, 2020, 11:29:22 AM
Thanks for the great info and I must be loosing it because it never even crossed my mind I could repair mine - which is something I could do. Thanks for the feedback and education.
Don't beat yourself up .You are far from the first to overlook that alternative . I would guess up to 3/4 of the 67 GT500's on the road have a CJ fork as a replacement based on the many I have seen. It is one of the most common source of deductions in 67 GT500 concours judging for a example.
Does anyone have a picture of the correct GT500 clutch fork
Quote from: nctrucks on October 19, 2020, 01:34:10 PM
Does anyone have a picture of the correct GT500 clutch fork
Here is a comparison of the end that you see . The bearing end is the same with the exception of the wire clip on the early fork.
Does the '67 clutch fork have a '67 part#? The '68 GT500 clutch fork (non KR) is C8OZ-7515-B.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 05:04:00 PM
Does the '67 clutch fork have a '67 part#? The '68 GT500 clutch fork (non KR) is C8OZ-7515-B.
You are misinformed on your application. The C8OZ-7515-B clutch fork is for a small bearing small input 390 trans. All of the GT500's 67-70 used the large bearing fork for the large input trans.The 68 GT500 that used to the tongue style on the clutch fork pivot point used the same fork as the CJ . I am not sure of a definitive date when the pivot point change from wire clip to tongue style occurred. Maybe someone else here does.
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
That should be C8O
A-7515-D, which is the engineering number with the PN being C8OZ-7515-D.
Your right. typo on my part.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
Assemblyline 67 500 fork is unmarked with the big bearing clutch fork end. So it's safe to say, it is not C7 marked.
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
The fork used on the 67 GT 500 did not have a metal stamped engineering number into it like the CJ fork did.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on October 19, 2020, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
The fork used on the 67 GT 500 did not have a metal stamped engineering number into it like the CJ fork did.
What is the "paint" finish that you expect to see on this arm and for that matter the equalizer as well? Black oxide or just plain steel or what?
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 28, 2020, 10:13:19 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on October 19, 2020, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
The fork used on the 67 GT 500 did not have a metal stamped engineering number into it like the CJ fork did.
What is the "paint" finish that you expect to see on this arm and for that matter the equalizer as well? Black oxide or just plain steel or what?
The expectation is a finish that looks like fresh bare steel on both the equalizer/Z bar and the fork arm. Don't forget to darken the welds of the Z bar with gun blueing to mimic the darker weld material at the joining points.
Blue'd welds? It's my own fault for asking? ::)
I just saw a "metallic" paint in Lowes that I'm going to try. If it matches the cap it will be nice.
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 28, 2020, 01:05:01 PM
Blue'd welds? It's my own fault for asking? ::)
I just saw a "metallic" paint in Lowes that I'm going to try. If it matches the cap it will be nice.
Be careful what you ask for. ;)
Quote from: Bob Gaines on October 19, 2020, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
The fork used on the 67 GT 500 did not have a metal stamped engineering number into it like the CJ fork did.
I have a Ford service part that has no identification stamped into it.
If I understand this correctly, if the snipped off corner can be replaced and camouflaged then there will be no external give away to the replacement fork? :)
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 30, 2020, 05:49:34 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on October 19, 2020, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: 68stangcjfb on October 19, 2020, 06:12:10 PM
Yes you're right. I just looked at a 390 fork I have lying around . Sorry. I got that part number number off the Coralsnake site. But the '68 GT500 fork I'm pretty sure has a part number on it that's different from the Cobra Jet fork which is C8OE-7515-D. I had one but I didn't take a picture of the part number before I sold it. But did the correct for '67 fork have a C7 part number stamped on it?
The fork used on the 67 GT 500 did not have a metal stamped engineering number into it like the CJ fork did.
I have a Ford service part that has no identification stamped into it.
If I understand this correctly, if the snipped off corner can be replaced and camouflaged then there will be no external give away to the replacement fork? :)
You are over simplifying the effort but yes to your question. FYI you are not the first to think of this solution. You may be surprised at the labor involved to accomplish the look not to mention the skill to pull it off. Been there done that. ;) A modified CJ fork is the best way to get the proper function and look. Of course you will also have to modify the pivot point in the bellhousing to accommodate the different style fork . You have to disguise the replacement machine screws for the replacement pivot to look from the outside like undisturbed factory rivets. FYI the fork is made of hardened type steel and is very hard to work with.
I've found button head screws often pass for rivets.
I have another fork that I can sacrifice for the formed metal missing.
The weld doesn't need to be structural, just cosmetic.
It's just a thought Bob. Who knows were it will go. Maybe something to keep me busy in the shop?
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 30, 2020, 07:29:54 PM
I've found button head screws often pass for rivets.
I have another fork that I can sacrifice for the formed metal missing.
The weld doesn't need to be structural, just cosmetic.
It's just a thought Bob. Who knows were it will go. Maybe something to keep me busy in the shop?
Best of luck with success..
Quote from: Bob Gaines on October 30, 2020, 09:18:32 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 30, 2020, 07:29:54 PM
I've found button head screws often pass for rivets.
I have another fork that I can sacrifice for the formed metal missing.
The weld doesn't need to be structural, just cosmetic.
It's just a thought Bob. Who knows were it will go. Maybe something to keep me busy in the shop?
Best of luck with success..
Thank you.