Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models > Parts
Questions Regarding Static collectors
196667Bob:
Jim : Thanks for confirming that. The OP should now feel "comfortable" that his '65 Mustang could have had the Wheel Static Collector Springs.
Now, I have one more question for your 1965 documentation. Does the page you noted that shows both "6 cylinder and 8 cylinder applications", have a detail like the one John Posted from the 1967 Shop Manual ? If so, this gets even more interesting (confusing). My 66 Shop Manual and Electrical Assembly Manual both show the 2 separate details for 6 cylinder and 8 cylinder, yet the 1967 and 68 EAM's only have "one size fits all" detail of the collector with the "tails". The 1966 6 cylinder detail, and the 1967 Shop Manual 6 cylinder detail appear to show it as the older style with no "tails", like on my 57's. Adding to the "confusion" is the fact that the only Ford Part Number for a Wheel Static Collector Spring, C6AZ-18938-A, with no differentiation of 6 cylinder versus 8 cylinder. If the 8 cylinder application for 1965 shows the collector with the "tails", this compounds the question as that carries a C6AZ Part Number. The C6AZ-18938-A does not appear in either the 1965 MPC, or the 1966 MPC. Possibly the collector with the "tails" was used before a Part Number was assigned to it ?
Thanks,
Bob
67gta289:
Just found in my collection a few of these, and there are three distinct types. There are two different sizes of the "three prong" version, one larger than the other.
Bob, if you could measure your C6AZ-18938-A like shown in the picture, that would be appreciated so I know which is which.
I suppose I could have both the 6 and 8 cylinder versions, accounting for different dust cap sizes.
The four prong version is different yet that the one with six prongs you showed. I suppose this could be from any car line.
preaction:
I found a set installed in my 67 Cougar. Also they are listed in the assembly manuals. My mentor who worked as a mechanic at Swenson ford in Philadelphia through the 60's and 70"s said it was common practice to through them away when doing service on a front end.
Bob Gaines:
--- Quote from: 67gtasanjose on January 06, 2018, 05:55:34 PM ---Interesting read. At least I now get the gist of what they were doing with these static collectors.
So, times have changed, car radios have changed too since the late 30's and it took over 30 years for these to no longer appear to be needed. I had trouble reading some of the text of the patent but I did not notice any reference to the tubes in tires, only the tires, the air and other "ideas" with no proof of the exact source of the static.
So, did the advent of transistors change the need? FM radio? Hmmm...tubeless tires? Obviously, we no longer need these in modern cars so I suppose more could be learned if somebody wishes to search but I am pleased that we do not have to all run out and search for a couple of these to add to EVERY car with a radio in it!
--- End quote ---
It was mainly phasing out of AM popularity IMO but I wouldn't put it past all of the above as being contributing factors . AM radio is what was effected most by electrical static . With the phasing out of AM popularity there was no need for the extremes in suppression.FM was not effected in the same way. I can remember taking them out of my first car in 1970 (69 Mach) changing rotors and forgot to put them back They made no difference in AM radio reception as far as I could tell . I realized I left them out some weeks later . When I asked what they for I thought the Ford tech was lying because I didn't notice any difference in reception . We only listen to AM stations back then. I thought it was a joke to reinstall so I didn't.
196667Bob:
--- Quote from: 67gta289 on February 03, 2018, 02:07:25 PM ---Just found in my collection a few of these, and there are three distinct types. There are two different sizes of the "three prong" version, one larger than the other.
Bob, if you could measure your C6AZ-18938-A like shown in the picture, that would be appreciated so I know which is which.
I suppose I could have both the 6 and 8 cylinder versions, accounting for different dust cap sizes.
The four prong version is different yet that the one with six prongs you showed. I suppose this could be from any car line.
--- End quote ---
John : Here we go (although this is likely to provide more questions than answers) :
The first two pictures are of my C6AZ-18938-A collector. Note that the spread of the 3 equidistantly spaced legs is about 2-1/8". The third picture is of this same collector installed in a B5A grease cap. While the envelope for this collector was opened, after talking with the person I purchased this one from (his last one), he noted that he had had several others, in the same envelopes, and all were identical ; a pretty good indication that these were original Service Parts.
The next two pictures are representative of several ones that I have picked up from two different sources ; first, I purchased several from a radio Repair man, who dealt mainly with Ford radios, and said that all came from several different Ford Radio Suppression Kits. Secondly, I had picked up a "C7AZ Radio Installation Kit" (similar to that shown in Jeff's Reply # 4 that shows a C8ZZ radio Kit. The C7AZ Kit that I have is shown in the next picture and included all of the parts shown (which includes a C60E Voltage Regulator Condenser, a C7AA Coil Condenser, C7 cast knobs and tone control disks, a hood bonding angle, miscellaneous hardware and 2 collectors). On all of this type collector, the spread measures 1-7/8". Note that this collector also fits fine into the B5A cap.
While both of these appear to have larger "spreads" than the ones you posted, I would guess that yours would also fit into the B5A cap, only with a little less "spring holding power". The only thing I believe that would prevent this is if the "base spring diameter" is larger than the ID of the grease cap (and I have seen several where this is the case, at least in 50's and up). It may just be an optical illusion caused by the fact that on your "top" example, you show one turned upside down from the other, but they appear to have different "base diameters". Are they in fact the same ?
As far as 6 cylinder versus 8 cylinder, I don't believe that there is really any difference to speak of in base diameters (see attached portions from 1967 and 1960-68 MPC's in regard to grease caps). The only real difference is that shown for Broncos (U). I believe that the difference between 6 cylinder and 8 cylinder collectors is in the type as depicted in your previous Post that shows the cross section from the Shop Manual. To me, it appears that the ones for 6 cylinder are of the "prong" (pointed) type, while the 8 cylinder ones are of the "3 - legged" type.
Finally, an interesting observation ; All of the older "6-prong" ones that I have seen, as well as the C6AZ one are Brass. When I purchased the several from the Radio Repair guy, only one was like the one I have shown here in pictures 4 and 5 ; bright and shiny (the 2 in my C7AZ Radio Installation Kit were both like this), and gold-ish in color ; the remainder looked like yours, dark in color. I just assumed that these were just tarnished from age, but when they wouldn't "polish-up", I got out the magnet, and found they were steel. The others appear to be zinc dichromate finished, explaining their darkening. Are any of your examples Brass ?
While the sample size is obviously small, it appears that the earlier "prong" (pointed) ones and the C6AZ Service Parts were Brass, and at some time (unknown), the collectors furnished with the Factory Installed Radios and Radio Installation Kits were changed to steel.
As I noted at the onset, this likely has brought more questions than answers to a relatively useless part.
Bob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version