Messages

As an offer to those attending SAAC 43 with their 65-67 cars I will again be attending with some of my assembly line stamps, specifically for this purpose my paint inspector ones, as I have for over a decade. 

Thought I might be a little more organized this year, so if your attending and your interested in having the paint inspector stamps applied to your car send me an email or PM and we'll try and arrange a time and place at the track on Friday, to get these done.  Takes very little time.  (I know someone is going to mention sentence structure – sorry 

And as always the San Jose paint inspector stamping is free.  I would rather help you get some that are accurate then try and guess from a picture or settle for something just close.

Just trying to help where I can. See you there and have a safe trip!!

Considering my question was more vague than I realized, you answered pretty much most of the questions.

Happens to us all

Did GT500's ever have the canister mounted directly to the pump? If so, also starting in April?

Never seen one attached to the pump with a metal bracket like done for the small block examples.  The two attaching hoses seem to isolate and hold the canister in place fairly well though you can find examples where a PO has wired or strapped it to other items (example starter cable) to reduce the vibration and additional movement

Though I am not even sure '67 GT350's were ever equipped with Thermactor systems, I came across a listing that shows the canister directly connected to the smog pump.

Did small and big block cars share the same pumps and canisters?

Are you asking about Shelbys or Mustangs & other Fords. Plenty of differences? 

For small block Mustangs 66-67 the attachment of the filter to the pump was standard.  67 GT500's were sometimes attached to the shock tower for some of the production year and were not other periods. Small blocks (April through the end of the production year) the filters/canisters were attached to the pump.

I'm recall of two different canisters and four different tops or covers. So there are allot of different combinations depending on car, production period, where they were built (yes some Mustangs out of Dearborn had Thermactor systems) and likely other governing details.

Pumps are the same but rear covers can be different as well as the pulleys.

Didn't all 67 K code Mustangs (not incl Shelbys) have to be GTs?

Guess only Kevin Marti could confirm one was or another but do have pictures of 67 K codes that appear not to be GT's and I can't see where an owner would remove that package and make a plain non-GT out of a car if it had been one originally. Lots of work for no benefit as these were no restored cars just a driver.   Should also be noted that the same (all S code 67 were GTs) was a fairly common belief in the past and that has been disproved

That got me very curious about the exhaust turn downs on GT models. Digging through my old book "Mustang Does It" I found an excerpt that states the GT appearance option was available on all four V8 models in 1967. (This includes the "A", "C", "K", and "S" code engines) It continued to note only the larger "K" and S" codes engines had the twin tip dual exhaust with the stamped GT valance. That means the "A" and "C" codes had the turndowns and a standard valance. A quick search on the internet showed the same information on the first site I opened.

For the Mustang the cars that came with single exhaust and were GT's, those rear exhaust pipes have a turn down formed into the tail pipe rather than them having a turn down that is attached to the tail pipe like used for dual exhaust cars that were non-GT's

So basically it was

A & C code with and without the GT package. = standard valance and turned down exhaust
K & S code without the GT package = standard valance and turned down exhaust tips
K & S code with the GT package = GT rear valance and dual exhaust tips through the openings

Just guessing but the problem may be a new one if the supplier of the hose is not metric and or the walls are now being made thinner.  Don't recall this being a major issue that had been asked in the past

[Header #1]

Photos are always good!

Here are a few to assist with the discussion. Labeled each so discussing/referencing a particular one is easier

Header #1



Header #2



Header #3



Header #4



Header #5



Header #6

Just to be clear I agree some early rear battery cars did not have the clips riveted to the floor to hold the jack and the handle/handles. I don't believe all were done that way without .   

+1

Thanks guys for all the kind comments. Hope many find these helpful 220 views and I don't know how many downloads within 24 hours is pretty good. Remember that there are always updates and corrections, seems never ending in an effort to keep the best info out there, so always check for a new version before you apply anything

One question would this information be correct for a 66? 

Might want to check here I posted the 66 version on SAAC also since the demise of the old forum

http://www.saacforum.com/index.php?topic=380.msg1914#msg1914

Next up will be 67 San Jose .....go figure    Then moving on to 68 NJ ........ I see a pattern here lol

Next chapter/article as promised.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not specifically a 65 Shelby's only document but our cars share the same details as a Mustang produced there if you pay attention to production periods.  You will note that it does not reflect the changes/modifications made at SA but those are few in this part of the assembly of the cars. Hope this helps others


This is an article I've written and rewritten a dozen times over many years. Found it was easier to have a prepared document when I got questions related to the subject rather than going through the whole thing every time. It proved to be a challenge as your always discovering new details, sub patterns and such along the way so it has only been share privately in the past since I never felt it was finished. Not sure anything I do is completely

Also just limiting the coverage to one area of the car was sort of difficult when you want to help and describe everything that was going on at that point at the car plant.  See allot of related requests here so thought it would be a good time to try and wrap it up then focus on some of the other years and plants. Hope some here find it useful in there related endeavors.

This one is still marked as a draft. Will be updates as new information is discovered and accepted as well as mistakes, typos and such are found which I'm sure many of you will find.  I invite anyone to send me typos and issues since these all sort of start looking very similar and plenty of other things going on that can take my focus away just at the wrong time

https://docdro.id/ZJzg67n


For those that are also members of CMF the article is also located in the Library there with all the other articles listed by model year

Its a Big file with plenty of pictures so will take some time to load. Be patient 

Hope it helps others

Thanks for looking

During 1967 production Ford had a problem with the new 390 Mustangs with the new 70 series (wide oval)  tires and at one point issued a Special Service Letter stating they would start rolling fenders on cars equipped with those tires and for dealers with cars in stock and customer cars (if they complained) to use the base ball bat trick to roll the edges but not fold them over. This was not like the 69 Boss 302 rolling of fenders by the plant since in 67 they didn't insert a arched rod in the edge/fold to keep it from folding over.

http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=16529.msg103485#msg103485

.............The assemblyline type open emmision base came with one small 1/8 nipple that was plugged. It was located in the same area that the larger nipple was located on at . I believe we have discussed this before after the big crash.

Posted this on the CMF a couple of weeks ago. Figured it would help here also. Not certain what other applications is was used on - notice what appears to be an old gold paint job. Hope this helps

Jeff,

It was the link that you provided. I clicked on it again and a number of pictures were now visible that did not work before.

However I could not see the pictures in post number 13. I will try again later, it may just be my computer.

That was TOBKOB that share a link to one of the threads related to the restoration but in any case feed back is helpful since my computer shows all of the pictures and if someone can't we need to address that issue if its on our end

Reply #13 in that thread was posted by the owner Dan and doesn't include any pictures

Jeff,

Thanks for the VIN. I did look at your site and saw several pictures. However a number of pictures do not show.

Odd since I though the new management at PhotoBucket had removed the blocks.  If you can identify the thread and even the post I will rebuild the post so that pictures can be seen.  Just part of the job     Without photos its not as helpful and have rebuilt many during the PhotoBucket mess .

The article is new though the restoration is now about 7 years old. As I understand it was first published on Mustang 360 a couple of days ago and now picked up by other internet car sites.  I understand its going to be in Mustang Monthly in the coming months

As far as identifying the car it's -481897.  During the research we discovered is/was one of the first cars to get the "big" suspension 69's. We also found that Ford saved a few dollars by slapping on the narrower earlier tires on the cars that they leased to Hertz. Car presently has the wider tires though. I posted allot of pictures of the build when it was being restored and those threads have become very popular with one getting over 11,000 views so far.