Export braces

[BryanT]

Weld up the holes and use it

I have done this in the past. Tig welded the holes not used, ground smooth and painted.

[J_Speegle]

Rarely will i  go against the Speegle  word ......But  1967 /1968   "shelbys " would use same wide spaced  export brace   so even if it was early 68 it would have the 68 67  style.   the 65 66 style is really not  a direct fit without  the cowl brace  and equal spaced holes .  but the 67 68 will fit back to 65 with wide spacing and no cowl brace .  It would have made more sense to drill the cowl on the cars with even spaced export rather than the export brace. 

Just sharing what has been found and documented on 1967 Mustangs and Shelbys. Most if not all unrestored cars so at this point with these groups from specific production periods at specific plants there seems to be evidence of the possibility that some older stock may have been repurposed. Yes you could have the guys on the line redrill the cowl holes but the plant managers may not have been willing to slow down the line for a hand full of these export braces but instead have a worker, off the line, just redrill a stack of export braces so that it would not disturb the line in any way.

Knowing some of these cars I found it difficult to believe that a pas owner lost the original export brace somehow and purchased an earlier one from Ford later int he cars life when most if not all of the early stock with the even set holes had been depleted in the system.

A number of these that have been documented are from 67 export built Mustangs and some Shelby's. Would not be the first time we discovered something out of the ordinary. Think a similar thought was put forward the other day with the carpeted package tray discussed in the 65 GT350 section. 

Each of us have to choose how much evidence is needed or value placed on the findings for ourself.  Really should take the time and see if I have any more current examples that should be posted on that thread at that other site.

Again have not heard, seen or believe this would have taken place during 68 production

[Road Reptile]

Hi,
Just thinking that it would be simple to prep-paint-install, and don't worry about the additional holes
They will just become a very interesting conversation piece and should not cause any trouble. Your choice. Must agree with Jeff as we both have only seen a few 67 cars built with this part. Doubt it will
Show up on a 68 anytime soon What happened to the original on/from your car?
Have often wondered why the later cars are without this brace. Must have been the bean counters in action
R.R.

[Bob Gaines]

Ockham's razor the problem-solving principle comes to mind when contemplating this issue. That principle is of two competing theories, the simpler explanation is typically the correct one. In this case what is more likely, a purpose made factory brace with out of the ordinary two different bolt patterns ,no record in Ford documents of it's duel purpose being made or a past owner modification (especially with different size drilled holes) so as to fit the car it was being used on? Of course you can always invoke the "anything is possible" defense .

[Bob Gaines]

As a alternative, and over looking old junk repro's the Scott Drake export brace is made of thick steel same as the Ford brace using Ford prints to make the braces exactly like the original.  https://www.kentuckymustang.com/chassis/suspension/export-braces-monte-carlo-bars/export-brace-black-1964-1-2-1970-scott-drake.html#/filter:year:1968  . Compare the work needed to make the modified brace look like factory compared to the 78.00 + shipping price of the nice repro and it is a very viable alternative even if you are spending the hours and materials to do all of the work yourself. The ones that I have seen like this are concours correct in looks.

[Blackcar]

Is a NOS C5ZZ-E export brace considered a one for one replacement for a assembly line 67/68 export brace ?

[J_Speegle]

Is a NOS C5ZZ-E export brace considered a one for one replacement for a assembly line 67/68 export brace ?

Depends on when it was made and the details. Service replacements can and do have different details so comparing the specific part to an original is the place to start rather than a blanket statement IMO

We did a side by side comparison of an original 66 and a NOS/service replacement in a thread a while back. Think it was here or on CMF. Didn't do a search for it here on this site as of yet

[Bob Gaines]

Is a NOS C5ZZ-E export brace considered a one for one replacement for a assembly line 67/68 export brace ?

Depends on when it was made and the details. Service replacements can and do have different details so comparing the specific part to an original is the place to start rather than a blanket statement IMO

We did a side by side comparison of an original 66 and a NOS/service replacement in a thread a while back. Think it was here or on CMF. Didn't do a search for it here on this site as of yet

+1 . I have seen some late service replacements before they went obsolete that looked terrible . Even though they were serviced with the same number the last service replacements looked dramatically different then the assemblyline parts. In fact they looked as bad as the cheap repros which makes me suspect that is why the repros looked so terrible because the aftermarket copied the last service replacement. It has to do with the thickness of the metal and how the metal was formed. 

[pbf777]

Ockham's razor the problem-solving principle comes to mind when contemplating this issue.

    But is this actually "truly problem-solving"?  Or rather just a "suggestion" for simplicity sake and expediency; that when encountering multiple theories in competition, that the one with the lesser sum of "assumptions" might be the better bet?  Sounds reasonable!  But seems to present more as a crutch, as unfortunately does not "actually" present any "fact" or "solution" for which hypothesis might "actually" be true. 

    And here in this discussion, with either position, there are assumptions being made, and if not and if only "absolutes" on the subject existed, this discussion wouldn't exist, and to say that "typically" something happened, which very well may be true, doesn't actually present for "fact" that something else "never" happened.  And one might just be missing something if refusing to venture from a currently accepted norm.   

    So perhaps, before one should say "absolutely not", ask ones' self: how firm is that ground your standing on, and is it "possible", that something else "could" have taken place, and that just because one isn't aware of such, doesn't mean it didn't.   

    Scott. 

       

[Bob Gaines]

Ockham's razor the problem-solving principle comes to mind when contemplating this issue.

    But is this actually "truly problem-solving"?  Or rather just a "suggestion" for simplicity sake and expediency; that when encountering multiple theories in competition, that the one with the lesser sum of "assumptions" might be the better bet?  Sounds reasonable!  But seems to present more as a crutch, as unfortunately does not "actually" present any "fact" or "solution" for which hypothesis might "actually" be true. 

    And here in this discussion, with either position, there are assumptions being made, and if not and if only "absolutes" on the subject existed, this discussion wouldn't exist, and to say that "typically" something happened, which very well may be true, doesn't actually present for "fact" that something else "never" happened.  And one might just be missing something if refusing to venture from a currently accepted norm.   

    So perhaps, before one should say "absolutely not", ask ones' self: how firm is that ground your standing on, and is it "possible", that something else "could" have taken place, and that just because one isn't aware of such, doesn't mean it didn't.   

    Scott. 

       

Word salad?