Looking for pictures of the 1969 GT350 z bar for clutch
Is it different from standard 351 Mach 1?s-l1600.webp
I think it should bd the same, but I dont recall the peg on the side
Thanx
Quote from: Redmach70 on September 22, 2026, 01:55:55 PMIs it different from standard 351 Mach 1?s-l1600.webp
Clutch rod and the chassis side bracket were bare steel on the assemblyline part. Most later service parts are plated .
Bob looks the same. Not at home but out of state but had a friend send me some pics of his and I sent them to Pete.
The picture of the Z bar is not the same as the one on my 69 GT350. The peg should not be there IMO. The hole that the peg is in is the hole where the lower anti rattle return spring attaches. If the hole in the peg was used for the springs attachment point it would put the spring too close to the engine block side.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on September 22, 2026, 05:38:57 PMBob looks the same. Not at home but out of state but had a friend send me some pics of his and I sent them to Pete.
Gary, re read my post #3. The parts are finished different for the reasons I posted.
Agree that hole didn't get a post. Must have been a PO add on in the past.
This is an original a friend has but added support.
No peg on the '70 Cougar one I used on a 351C powered '68 GT FB.
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on September 22, 2026, 05:38:57 PMBob looks the same. Not at home but out of state but had a friend send me some pics of his and I sent them to Pete.
Apparently not the same then if it shouldn't have the post.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on September 22, 2026, 09:49:14 PMQuote from: shelbymann1970 on September 22, 2026, 05:38:57 PMBob looks the same. Not at home but out of state but had a friend send me some pics of his and I sent them to Pete.
Apparently not the same then if it shouldn't have the post.
look without being home and looking at mine I installed mine 25 years ago and have not looked at it since. I should be more clear as in the shape of the Zbar at the bottom looked like mine. To me it is unique as it isn't like a 289-302 or an FE. I asked a friend for a pic of his original. He dug it out and I posted pics of his. They added extra metal for strength on the curved part like I've seen done before on Z bars as his car was drag raced otherwise that is what one should look like .
Quote from: shelbymann1970 on September 23, 2026, 11:55:49 AMQuote from: Bob Gaines on September 22, 2026, 09:49:14 PMQuote from: shelbymann1970 on September 22, 2026, 05:38:57 PMBob looks the same. Not at home but out of state but had a friend send me some pics of his and I sent them to Pete.
Apparently not the same then if it shouldn't have the post.
look without being home and looking at mine I installed mine 25 years ago and have not looked at it since. I should be more clear as in the shape of the Zbar at the bottom looked like mine. To me it is unique as it isn't like a 289-302 or an FE. I asked a friend for a pic of his original. He dug it out and I posted pics of his. They added extra metal for strength on the curved part like I've seen done before on Z bars as his car was drag raced otherwise that is what one should look like .
Don't worry Gary it's all good. :)
Looks like I am going to have to squeeze under there again, this one is a little different?
The spring is down lower
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/8-230926161917.jpeg)
Quote from: Coralsnake on September 23, 2026, 04:16:06 PMLooks like I am going to have to squeeze under there again, this one is a little different?
The spring is down lower
(https://www.saac.com/forum/gallery/8-230926161917.jpeg)
Looks like the same place as in the picture I posted.
Mr Gaines, just take your car apart for me, please
I dont think I have that little jog (looks like two 90 degree turns to move bottom outward) in the bottom flat part
Bob's curves toward the back of car - Coralsnake's curves toward the front. Not the same.
Quote from: 67350#1242 on September 23, 2026, 06:39:36 PMBob's curves toward the back of car - Coralsnake's curves toward the front. Not the same.
By gosh your right. I am not clued in enough to say why there is a difference. Strange because the geometry on mine does not seem abnormal in any direction.
Since mine is for a 351W (69/70 GT350 )I wonder if it might have to do the other one having the bend forward being for a 351 Cleveland? When looking up the 351 W Z bar on NPD's website it shows a picture of my Z bar but has a notation that 1970-1970 MUSTANG 351C, USABLE AS A REPLACEMENT .In other words the 351 W Z bar can be used as a replacement for the 351C Z bar and the 351 C Z bar can be used as a replacement on a 351W. https://www.npdlink.com/product/clutch-equalizer-bar-aka-z-bar/196894 .That would explain why the one Coralsnake posted works for the 351 W even though it is a different shape.
I have a nice original (like Bob's) if interested.
Thanks, I just looking to identify them at this time
Sorry for the delay. Been a bit slammed. Looked through my pictures not expecting to find any clear pictures since from the bottom you have PS, steering and exhaust in the way and from on top, booster, master cylinder, shock tower support..... but got lucky on a couple and they match so here is my offering on the subject from unrestored 351W manual transmission car built at Dearborn
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/23/6-250926221254-236011839.jpeg)
Thanks to everyone that has helped. If anyone else has an early GT350 4spd would love to see the equalizer bar
Quote from: Coralsnake on September 28, 2026, 10:51:44 AMThanks to everyone that has helped. If anyone else has an early GT350 4spd would love to see the equalizer bar
FYI the picture I posted in reply #5 is of 0999.
Thank you Mr Gaines
I think I may have solved this question. It appears, the 1970 Fairlane bar will also work on a Mustang. Whooda thunk?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/297772830708