ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Misc Items => Topic started by: jwc66k on November 04, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
-
Enclosed are pictures and drawings of 358352-S, J-Clip, used on 67-70 Mustangs with air conditioning. The clip is attached to the firewall to retain three vacuum hoses from the valve and vacuum tank. As far as I can determine, there is no Ford drawing available from any current documentation.
I borrowed a Clip and made a sketch, pic 1
- took a picture of my sample, pic 2
- included the installation of the clip, pic 3. from the 67 Mustang Electrical Assembly Manual (E7-8650-2, AM0018 pg 76).
Item 15 is the clip; item 23 is the screw, 42067-S8; item 24 is the washer, 44711-S8; item 29 is the location and hole drilling information as shown on the drawing. The hardware indicated apply to only 67 and 68 Mustangs.
Jim
-
An example from each year
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-041117213433.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-041117213524.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-041117213644.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-041117213737.jpeg)
-
Enclosed are pictures and drawings of 358352-S, J-Clip, used on 67-70 Mustangs with air conditioning. The clip is attached to the firewall to retain three vacuum hoses from the valve and vacuum tank. As far as I can determine, there is no Ford drawing available from any current documentation.
Jim : I am inclined to agree with you. I have checked my different "Ford Standard and Utility Parts Catalogs from 1954-1983 ; my OSI's from 1965-72, my MPC's, and my December 1966 Parts Price List, and that number does not show up in any of them.
I have seen this occur before on different hardware parts, and there are usually two reasons for it ; either the Part # shown in the Assembly Manual is an Engineering Part #, or, more likely, this was an "Assembly Line Only" part that was not "Serviced".
Interesting "aside" though, is that I found that Part # 358350-S100 appears identical with the exception that the 1/8" inch "step" you show is missing (at least in the generic drawing and description). This part had many applications dating back to at least 1954, so should be fairly easy to come by. Then it would just be a matter of adding the "step". Just a thought.
Bob
-
Also used for 67 tilt swing away vacuum lines. Jeff's pics seem to show 3 different fasteners too.
-
Also used for 67 tilt swing away vacuum lines.
This is one of those area not well documented, but the 67 and 68 Chassis Assembly manuals (pgs 46, 47 for 67 and 68 for 68) show the hose routed to the right of the installation of 358352-S, thru what appears to be a grommet, 357064-S, in the firewall (description corrected in the spreadsheets, still no documentation) to the steering column area (ref 67 Electrical Assembly manual) where the hose conveniently, does not appear.
Jeff's pics seem to show 3 different fasteners too.
I thought so as well. The clip in the third picture appears to be "thin", like a standard wiring clip. Look closely and just maybe it's - well, it probably worked. The last one is most likely out of focus, or distorted when blown up.
For 69 and 70 only a screw was used, no washer, so those would appear different.
Jim
-
Always hard to see and compare from one angle
For 69 and 70 only a screw was used, no washer, so those would appear different.
Might be better described as one was a hex head screw with intergrated washer and one without the intergrated washer design
-
Might be better described as one was a hex head screw with intergrated washer and one without the intergrated washer design
The specified screw for 69-70 was 55981-S2, 14-14X1/2HH,REC,FLNG 1/2,3/8HEX,TPG. It had a flange, not a lock or flat washer. For 67 and 68, a separate flat washer was used. That's as specified. As the third picture show a different type of clip, who knows what fell into the outstretched hand of the assembly line worker (before or after lunch) for use.
Jim
-
Jim, I'v found what I thought was the best explanation in the 67 chassis assembly manual on the max vacuum diagram. I could be wrong but for 67 it seems that hoses except A/C lines were not mounted to the shock tower braces like its more commonly seen on 68 models so routing the tilt vacuum lines to the periphery of the engine bay and on the J clip seemed to work. I tried to leave extra hose for "adjustments".
-
The specified screw for 69-70 was 55981-S2, 14-14X1/2HH,REC,FLNG 1/2,3/8HEX,TPG. It had a flange, not a lock or flat washer. For 67 and 68, a separate flat washer was used. ..........
Guess that is not what I'm finding on unrestored cars - just reporting. 67 San Jose for example
-
Jim, I'v found what I thought was the best explanation in the 67 chassis assembly manual on the max vacuum diagram. I could be wrong but for 67 it seems that hoses except A/C lines were not mounted to the shock tower braces like its more commonly seen on 68 models.............
Think you mean to say 67 AC hard lines were not attached to the shock tower braces since 68 non-AC hard lines weren't run through the firewall clip being discussed either. Or I'm just reading you response incorrectly
Vacuum lines were run across the upper firewall to the clip discussed for thos years
-
My clip has gone missing during the restoration so wondering if originals are possible to find?
-
My clip has gone missing during the restoration so wondering if originals are possible to find?
Since they were used on tons of cars yes they should be fairly easy to find if someone thinks enough to save one. Restoration, stripping, recoloring the metal and redipping would follow the same steps as those owners who have restored or even reproduced the AC hard line clamps have successfully done in other threads
-
Great, thanks Jeff!
-
Think you mean to say 67 AC hard lines were not attached to the shock tower braces since 68 non-AC hard lines weren't run through the firewall clip being discussed either. Or I'm just reading you response incorrectly
Vacuum lines were run across the upper firewall to the clip discussed for thos years
Thanks Jeff, you got it right.
-
My clip has gone missing during the restoration so wondering if originals are possible to find?
You can easily make one. There is another similar clip (sometimes two) used on 64-68 Mustangs behind the instrument panel to keep the wiring "neat". The part number for this clip is 370805-S100. It is also not documented (I'm working on it).
To make a 358352-S from 370805-S100:
- Strip the rubber off.
- Shorten it from a laid out flat of around 6 inches to about 2 3/8 inches.
- Drill out the hole from 0.225 inch (measured) to 0.343 inch, or a number "S" drill.
- Re-bend to the above drawing.
- Dip in black PlastiCoat, several layers.
Both clips are the same width and thickness.
Jim
-
You can easily make one. There is another similar clip (sometimes two) used on 64-68 Mustangs behind the instrument panel to keep the wiring "neat". The part number for this clip is 370805-S100. It is also not documented (I'm working on it).
To make a 358352-S from 370805-S100:
- Strip the rubber off.
- Shorten it from a laid out flat of around 6 inches to about 2 3/8 inches.
- Drill out the hole from 0.225 inch (measured) to 0.343 inch, or a number "S" drill.
- Re-bend to the above drawing.
- Dip in black PlastiCoat, several layers.
Both clips are the same width and thickness.
Jim
The "easily make one" comment is truly accurate when you begin with VERY accurate measurements taken from an original piece including the overall length of the material strip (as you now have provided in this reply, thank you).
A side-by-side comparison is probably the only way to confirm the accuracy of any "drawing" of such hardware. I add this comment because there are items sketched out in Ford "drawings" (and assembly manuals) that do not always appear the same or at times measure the same as what was actually found on the vehicles we are restoring. I just experienced this recently when duplicating a similar strap that I had been unsuccessful at finding an original one. Had I followed only the hardware information found in Ford documents, it would not have produced a same-looking part. Also, the Ford provided information did not include the overall length of the metal strip, the length before shaping the item, they often only provide the "finished item" dimensions, leaving more calculations that 'simple minds' like myself, struggle to calculate.
-
The "easily make one" comment is truly accurate when you begin with VERY accurate measurements taken from an original piece including the overall length of the material strip (as you now have provided in this reply, thank you).
A draftsman does not provide the cut length, it's the function of the machinist doing the layout (included is the "K" factor, metal stretching). I added the measurement as an afterthought, reluctantly, measuring the actual sample part, and from the drawing as a sanity check. What you did point out, inadvertently, was the thickness of the rubber, or substitute PlastiCoat, is missing from my drawing. It will be added, from measurements of an original piece (including "drips").
As to "VERY accurate measurements", after the part is made, it is covered with rubber. Measurements have an addition tolerance, the rubber cover. An educated guess would indicate that the finished part was dropped into a container with many others. I bet it subjected to outside forces that probably bent, twisted or otherwise adjusted it far away from the original "VERY accurate measurements", as it was stored, shipped, inventoried and handled. It was installed with a sheet metal screw from an air or electric tool. The installation was not precise. Then the part was sprayed and covered with sealant. When the rubber hoses were inserted, I'll bet the hook was bent again, once to open it just a bit more, and pent in to hold the hose that kept popping out. For the quality inspector, measurements have been superseded by function.
Jim
-
Yes, the "easily make one" is probably true. However, as I mentioned in Reply # 2, the 358350-S100 clips (identical except no "step" shown in the generic Ford Standard and Utility Parts Catalogs) were used as far back as 1954 (actually earlier on Ford Trucks), in such applications as 1949-51 "Starter Cable to Frame" on Passenger Cars, "Heater Switch Wiring" on 1957-59 Passenger Cars, "Headlamp Wiring to Grill Panel" on 1959 Passenger Cars, etc. This clip was still shown as available in the 1975 "Standard and Utility Parts Catalog" but not in the 1981. Thus, there were obviously many more application where it was used after 1959 in order to justify its being around for such a long time.
As I mentioned in my Reply # 2, this 358350-S100 appears identical to the 358352-S, except for possibly the "step". This step could easily be added, then the clip restored as Jeff me3ntioned in his Reply # 11.
OR............................................
You could go to NPD's site and purchase the one shown in the attached picture, Note that it is shown with the step, rubber coated, etc. This 358350-S clip is shown for a Thunderbird, but sure looks identical to me. This goes back to my comment in Reply # 2 that the 358352-S number was either an Engineering Number or an Assembly Line only Part Number.
I don't know about others, but my time is sure worth more than $1.94 an hour for the hours (and materials) needed to "easily make one of these".
Hope this helps.
Bob
-
A draftsman does not provide the cut length, it's the function of the machinist doing the layout (included is the "K" factor, metal stretching).
TRUE! My point exactly (if it was missed in an "assumed" measure of sorts). Perhaps it is only me but I figured a good number of us are 'amateur restorers' at best, we are mostly skilled in a self-taught, learned-by-error and we simply keep trying it (whatever "it" might be) again & again till we get it right. I try and do it "right" one time, but that isn't always how it goes.
I am not an "illustrator" nor a "machinist" though I have dabbled a little in both. I simply trying to do the best we can with the information available and trust me Jim, your help has been a HUGE BLESSING for me as much I am sure it has been for all of us! We are grateful!
Now, without at all trying to "poke the bear", the "very accurate" measurements I mentioned, are simply accurate measurements taken from a "real world" example (using machinists tools), measurements taken from an item that is "known as an original assemblyline part".
(e.g., that "P" loop strap I made a week or so back for the Thermactor, the "real world measurement didn't at all match up with the drawing specs, "K" factor or not, sometimes there CAN BE an error in those particular numbers)
-
Now, without at all trying to "poke the bear", the "very accurate" measurements I mentioned, are simply accurate measurements taken from a "real world" example (using machinists tools), measurements taken from an item that is "known as an original assemblyline part".
What? I gotta list tools? Trust me, I got them.
Jim
-
The only tools needed for my solution (in case you didn't read it), are a computer and a Credit Card !
Bob
-
What? I gotta list tools? Trust me, I got them.
Jim
I was sure you did, <poke> ;D ;)
-
What? I gotta list tools? Trust me, I got them.
Jim
Man, you are a tool! Just kidding...
-
Man, you are a tool! Just kidding...
He's just wound up 'cause his 'neighbors' the "O & 9-er's"...are doing like our Browns team is this year....nobody wants neighbors like that! ;)
-
He's just wound up 'cause his 'neighbors' the "O & 9-er's"...are doing like our Browns team is this year....nobody wants neighbors like that! ;)
Yes, but I know of a pretty good quarterback that's readily available that could help out either club. His initials are CK.
-
As I mentioned in my Reply # 2, this 358350-S100 appears identical to the 358352-S, except for possibly the "step".
I like your way of thinking, but it's too short (no further comments are necessary).
He's just wound up 'cause his 'neighbors' the "O & 9-er's"...are doing like our Browns team is this year....nobody wants neighbors like that! ;)
I heard there was a game there last weekend. What sport?
Yes, but I know of a pretty good quarterback that's readily available that could help out either club. His initials are CK.
CK is a "flash in the pan" quarterback. After a couple of games, the defense figured him out. Now, there's too much "baggage".
Jim
-
I like your way of thinking, but it's too short (no further comments are necessary).
Jim
Jim : Do you really think that 1/16" (.0625) would be that perceptible ?
Bob
-
I used heat shrink tube to replicate the rubberised coating and it gives you that nice, tight, rubber-like finish. It's just another way to get the end result.
-
I used heat shrink tube to replicate the rubberised coating and it gives you that nice, tight, rubber-like finish. It's just another way to get the end result.
It's also very obvious.
Jim
-
Do you really think that 1/16" (.0625) would be that perceptible ?
There are several 1/16 inch differences. Your length is calculated down, then back up on the "hook" side, plus the amount needed to make the curved base of the hook. We're now short 3/16 inch (est). You also don't know the thickness of the steel.
Jim
-
I am surprised that you don`t appreciate the joy it brings you when you have made something from nothing.
I made my j-clip when I wanted it using pictures from this forum (not drawings).
When I later found the right one in a forgotten box ;D I saw that the two clips were very much alike. So the right one is
waiting for a restoration and is available if somebody wants it. I might make a couple more just for fun when I have
a model now.
I guess I am not 100% concours myself.... :-[
Ralf
-
Lots of great info on here! Thanks for sharing.
When I first discovered my J clip was missing, my plan was to make one from the picture of my original clip. That, like many things, just hasn't happened yet.
And there is always the chance I'll come across it in a box of parts. ;)
-
There are several 1/16 inch differences. Your length is calculated down, then back up on the "hook" side, plus the amount needed to make the curved base of the hook. We're now short 3/16 inch (est). You also don't know the thickness of the steel.
Jim
Jim : Here is the Repo 378350-S100 clip. All of the dimensions are "spot on" with your drawing; length, width, hole size, the 2, 1/8'' radii, and the 11/32" radius of the loop. The only difference I can find is in the thickness of the steel. While it is thick enough that I can't bend it by hand, I only miked it at 0.039", compared to the 0.050" that you show on your drawing. Also, when measured at the coated portion, it only measured 0.047", which means that the coating is only 0.004" thick, compared to the 0.025" that you show. In zooming into the picture of the original that you showed, it appears like there are bubbles in the coating, most likely from the heat in the Engine Compartment, thus giving you a thicker than original coating measurement (although, still thicker than the coating on the 378350-S100 clip).
Even with the minor steel and coating thickness differences, for $1.94, IMO, it seems like a bargain, and just as "correct" as a "made from scratch" one would be.
Bob
-
My intent was to document an item that has no currently available documentation for identification and possible fabrication. Apparently it worked. But -
- it appears like there are bubbles in the coating, most likely from the heat in the Engine Compartment, thus giving you a thicker than original coating measurement (although, still thicker than the coating on the 378350-S100 clip).
Any dipping process, paint and other coatings, usually leaves flaws. The most common types are runs (drips), voids and buildups. Gravity is one of the factors that determines this. Quality inspectors have a lot of leeway in acceptance from a perfect item. I doubt a bubble is from the engine compartment heat, or all the rubber items would be destroyed.
Just to refresh the topic, would you call out your source.
Jim
-
The clip pictured above, in my Reply # 32, is from National Parts Depot. It is actually noted for a 1957 Thunderbird ; entering the Part Number (358350-S) in their "Search" in the Thunderbird Catalog will bring it up (of course now, if you go to their Site, it shows "Out of Stock" at all of their locations guess I cleaned them out).
As far as the "bubble" on the coating, it's not just a "bubble", but many small "bubbles" (zoom in to see them). Over the years, I have seen them do this not only on Mustangs, but on my '57's and '59's also. I truly believe that the "bubbling" effect is caused from engine heat acting upon an "ultrathin" layer of rubber coating. Obviously not hot enough to affect thicker rubber components, but enough to affect the thin layer on clips.
Bob
-
The clip pictured above, in my Reply # 32, is from National Parts Depot. It is actually noted for a 1957 Thunderbird ; entering the Part Number (358350-S) in their "Search" in the Thunderbird Catalog will bring it up (of course now, if you go to their Site, it shows "Out of Stock" at all of their locations guess I cleaned them out).
As far as the "bubble" on the coating, it's not just a "bubble", but many small "bubbles" (zoom in to see them). Over the years, I have seen them do this not only on Mustangs, but on my '57's and '59's also. I truly believe that the "bubbling" effect is caused from engine heat acting upon an "ultrathin" layer of rubber coating. Obviously not hot enough to affect thicker rubber components, but enough to affect the thin layer on clips.
Bob
I tend to disagree. The two similar clips I removed from behind the instrument cluster of the 66 Thunderbird this weekend, were bubbled and never exposed to any extreme heat. Perhaps only a manufacturing "acceptable" defect as Jim suggests.
-
OK, I'll agree. An acceptable manufacturing defect is a possibility, and maybe more prevalent, also (is there an emoticon for foot in mouth ?).
I guess whatever the source, the "bubbles" will show a thicker coating than a smooth coating.
Bob