Author Topic: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference  (Read 698 times)

Offline DM_1964

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« on: March 20, 2017, 12:01:00 AM »
Noticed another difference with the battery tray after trying to install a NOS one, bottom section holes are in a different location.

Seems like the bolts are a different design when comparing to what you get in the AMK kit which provide the star washer, compared to the disc washer with teeth which I've found for the fenders, shock towers bolts and a number of other sections as well. I can't be upset with AMK when they set up the kits that way to account for a model that was only 6 months in production.
Regards,
Dom
64 1/2 Caspian Blue Convertible - Dearborn

Offline jwc66k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2017, 12:13:55 AM »
Noticed another difference with the battery tray after trying to install a NOS one, bottom section holes are in a different location.

Seems like the bolts are a different design when comparing to what you get in the AMK kit which provide the star washer, compared to the disc washer with teeth which I've found for the fenders, shock towers bolts and a number of other sections as well. I can't be upset with AMK when they set up the kits that way to account for a model that was only 6 months in production.
Dom,
All three of the battery trays I got a quick look at have the wide pattern on the bottom. I do remember having to ream the hole in one a bit to match up with the holes in the body. I think that car is in the Melbourne area.
The "rusty bolts" look like the ones in the MPC used as service replacements. The external tooth ones are OK. What are the head markings?
Jim
I promise to be politically correct in all my posts to keep the BBBB from vociferating.

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2017, 02:04:27 AM »
If the bottom piece isn't rusty, it can be removed and spot welded to the NOS part.  I've done that before to retain this detail and also the date stamp.
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline DM_1964

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2017, 07:46:20 AM »
What are the head markings?
Jim it looks like BRW to me, I believe them to be original to the car.

If the bottom piece isn't rusty, it can be removed and spot welded to the NOS part.  I've done that before to retain this detail and also the date stamp.
The bottom section is salvageable with a bit of work so that's what I plan to do, thx
Regards,
Dom
64 1/2 Caspian Blue Convertible - Dearborn

Offline C9ZZ-16228-B

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2017, 11:59:31 AM »
The NOS tray you have is for a Falcon, they have the narrower support and different bolt pattern than a Mustang.  If it still has the label on it, it probably is a C3DZ-10732-G.  An NOS tray for a Mustang is usually a C5ZZ-10732-C.

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2017, 02:30:56 PM »
Dom, that bolt looks like the ones used to attach the horns to the lower a-arms.
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline DM_1964

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2017, 08:55:53 PM »
The NOS tray you have is for a Falcon, they have the narrower support and different bolt pattern than a Mustang.  If it still has the label on it, it probably is a C3DZ-10732-G.  An NOS tray for a Mustang is usually a C5ZZ-10732-C.
You're spot on, going back through my eBay history confirms it's a falcon tray from 63-65, restoring a 64 1/2 I was also scouting through NOS falcon listings. I hope there's no differences with the top of the tray, my original is to far rusted out to compare.

Dom, that bolt looks like the ones used to attach the horns to the lower a-arms.
Thanks Charles, I always wondered where those bolts went, the joys of restoring a car I stripped down 20 years ago. I'll use the AMK battery tray hardware and have these re-plated and used for the horns.
Regards,
Dom
64 1/2 Caspian Blue Convertible - Dearborn

Offline midlife

  • Wiring Guru---let me check your shorts!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
    • Midlife Harness Restorations
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2017, 09:46:00 PM »
Dom, that bolt looks like the ones used to attach the horns to the lower a-arms.
Horns (the kind that go beep beep?) were attached to lower a-arms?  Huh?  That makes no sense to me...

Offline caspian65

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2017, 09:55:02 PM »
Horns (the kind that go beep beep?) were attached to lower a-arms?  Huh?  That makes no sense to me...

Note his signature line... "64 1/2"
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline Hipo giddyup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
  • There is no end to doing right. Giddyup!!!
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2017, 03:15:29 PM »
I read through this post and wanted to share a few pics of the differences between the Falcon/Comet/Ranchero battery tray and the Mustang battery tray. In the first pic, the Mustang tray is on the left, a little dirty, and the Falcon tray is on the right with the C3DZ part number. In the second pic, if you look hard enough, the Mustang tray has runs in the paint where I assume it was dipped?? The Falcon tray looks like it might have been sprayed? Both are very heavy compared to the aftermarket pieces. The Mustang tray also shows the wider mounting holes compared to the Falcon version. The top part of the tray itself is identical.
1967 Springtime Yellow Coupe, 289 2v 3spd, Metuchen built, Nov. 17th 66'
1966 Sahara Beige Coupe, 289 2v 3spd, Dearborn built, July 21st 66'
1964 1/2 Pagoda Green Coupe, 260 2v 3spd, Dearborn built, June 30th 64'
1966 GT350 Fastback clone, 289 HiPo, 725cfm Holley, 4spd, SanJose built, Nov 25th 65'

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4322
Re: 64 1/2 - 65 Battery Tray Difference
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2017, 04:43:23 PM »
I read through this post and wanted to share a few pics of the differences between the Falcon/Comet/Ranchero battery tray and the Mustang battery tray. In the first pic, the Mustang tray is on the left, a little dirty, and the Falcon tray is on the right with the C3DZ part number. In the second pic, if you look hard enough, the Mustang tray has runs in the paint where I assume it was dipped?? The Falcon tray looks like it might have been sprayed? Both are very heavy compared to the aftermarket pieces. The Mustang tray also shows the wider mounting holes compared to the Falcon version. The top part of the tray itself is identical.
I Appreciate the side by side. Thanks.
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby