Author Topic: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences  (Read 3377 times)

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« on: September 11, 2015, 04:30:27 PM »
Moderator NOTE: This thread was split from another discussion so some of the comments relate to the prior thread.


Just a comment on krelboyne's findings from the 1967 and 1968 Electrical Assembly Manuals, and this applies to all of the Assembly Manuals ; many times, Ford used the Engineering numbers in the Assembly Manuals, and not the Part Numbers. While these are usually similar to the Part Numbers, they are not the same. This is the case with the long courtesy light bracket he noted as Part Number "C7ZB-13763-A". The Part Number for this is actually "C7ZZ-13763-A". Likewise, I have found that many,many times for fasteners, you will not find the numbered fastener given in the Assembly Manuals in any of the Standard and Utility Parts Catalogs. This I believe to be the case for # 374121, which jwc66k noted as an attaching fastener that he could not find. This is shown in both the 67 and 68 Electrical Manuals as attaching only the Driver's side Courtesy Light Bracket; for the Passenger side, it shows to use "existing hardware" (which it shows to be the farthest right glove box hinge attaching bolt. However, in the 1965-72 MPC, it shows that both are attached with a 10-24, pan head, washer head Phillips machine screw with "built in" external lock washer (# 375978-S, and nut (45243). To add to the confusion, on my 67 Convertible, which I believe is untouched original in this area, the Passenger side Courtesy Light Bracket is not held on with one of the glove box bolts, or the # 375978-S, bot a #10, slotted, hex head (no washer head), 1/2" long, sheet metal screw.

Bob
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:40:59 PM by J_Speegle »
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline WT8095

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Dave Z.
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2015, 08:43:04 PM »
Just a comment on krelboyne's findings from the 1967 and 1968 Electrical Assembly Manuals, and this applies to all of the Assembly Manuals ; many times, Ford used the Engineering numbers in the Assembly Manuals, and not the Part Numbers. While these are usually similar to the Part Numbers, they are not the same. This is the case with the long courtesy light bracket he noted as Part Number "C7ZB-13763-A". The Part Number for this is actually "C7ZZ-13763-A". Likewise, I have found that many,many times for fasteners, you will not find the numbered fastener given in the Assembly Manuals in any of the Standard and Utility Parts Catalogs. This I believe to be the case for # 374121, which jwc66k noted as an attaching fastener that he could not find. This is shown in both the 67 and 68 Electrical Manuals as attaching only the Driver's side Courtesy Light Bracket; for the Passenger side, it shows to use "existing hardware" (which it shows to be the farthest right glove box hinge attaching bolt. However, in the 1965-72 MPC, it shows that both are attached with a 10-24, pan head, washer head Phillips machine screw with "built in" external lock washer (# 375978-S, and nut (45243). To add to the confusion, on my 67 Convertible, which I believe is untouched original in this area, the Passenger side Courtesy Light Bracket is not held on with one of the glove box bolts, or the # 375978-S, bot a #10, slotted, hex head (no washer head), 1/2" long, sheet metal screw.

Bob

The numbers shown in the assembly manuals are in fact the part numbers used to identify parts on the assembly line and in the original supply chain. The "C7ZZ" etc. are service part numbers, used in the logistics of the service part system. Service part numbers were not used on the engineering drawings or on parts used on the assembly line. To make things more confusing, a part ordered as a service part, using a "C7ZZ" number for example, may physically be marked with an engineering part number like C7ZA that matches what was used on the assembly line. Or it may be marked with a different number entirely. And even if it's marked the same as an assembly line part, it may not be physically identical to an assembly line part. To go one level more confusing, some parts will have a casting number that is not the same as the engineering number or the service part number.

krelboyne's findings are accurate regarding part numbers specified by the engineering drawings. However, actual build practice sometimes deviated from the engineering drawings, due to component supply, errors, etc. Your anomalous courtesy light screw may be an example of an assembly line improvisation (more likely a change by a previous owner). And the assembly manuals we have available are not necessarily the final versions that were in effect at the time any given car was built - they are what Jim Osborn was able to find in the archives, and later versions may have existed that are no longer in existence. Regarding the "use existing hardware" notation, that indicates a situation where there was overlap between the engineering departments. For example, in the '69 engine manual, a bracket that was used by both the smog pump and alternator on 390s with T/E shows all of the attaching hardware numbers, except for the alternator pivot bolt which is marked "electrical responsibility". Someone mentioned here recently about the friction between the various engineering departments at Ford, which no doubt made coordination of such fine details even more challenging.

The standard and utility parts catalogs you refer to were also part of the service parts system, showing what was available to dealers through Autolite/Ford. They do not represent the entire database of fasteners available to the Ford engineering department. Not every part was supported in the service part system.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:41:09 PM by J_Speegle »
Dave Z.

'68 fastback, S-code + C6. Special Paint (Rainbow promotion), DSO 710784. Actual build date 2/7/1968, San Jose.
'69 Cougar convertible, 351W-2V + FMX, Meadowlark Yellow.

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Re:Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2015, 11:36:57 PM »
Dave : Thanks for clarifying that for everyone. I of course agree that the numbers are assembly line numbers, but was really trying to make the point that restorers today are looking for the "Service Part " numbers and not the Assembly line Part Numbers - what are the chances of finding an NOS Assembly Line part ? Nevertheless, I think it is good information that you added. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that there were Revisions both before and after what Jim published in the Assembly Manuals. I'm sure there were also many minor line changes that never made it as an Assembly Manual Revision. Obviously, when one sees differences in the Assembly Manual, Shop Manual and MPC's, it does make one wonder.
As far as my particular application, I would be interested in what other early 67 Dearborn Convertible owners have found on the attachment of the Passenger side Courtesy Light bracket. I can only verify that it hasn't been touched since 1981 until today. Supposedly, the person that my Dad got the car from in 1981 was the original owner (I'm currently trying to confirm this), and was a Dentist. I would say that if that pans out to be true, chances are that he didn't do anything to change the attachment of the bracket, which is conveniently angled toward the center of the car, so that the Passenger side Heater Plenum Door may be opened, at least to some degree. Although, it of course is possible; particularly since he ordered Wide Ovals on it.
Thanks again for your input.
Bob
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:41:22 PM by J_Speegle »
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline jwc66k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7099
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2015, 12:35:12 AM »
- restorers today are looking for the "Service Part " numbers and not the Assembly line Part Numbers - what are the chances of finding an NOS Assembly Line part ?
Bob,
  It's the engineering part numbers that were used to make the items for the assembly line from the engineering drawings, and then that same engineering part number was used to make service parts. Finding a NOS Assembly line part was, and is, impossible. The factory ordered what it needed to make the cars and that was all. There was little excess, except maybe bulk items like hardware, and that wasn't tossed, but applied to the next model year, if possible. The dealer service groups ordered their own items and kept them at district warehouses for shipment to dealers as necessary. They were identified with service part numbers, which in many instances, used the engineering part number to make it and identify it. You are correct in that the way we find parts is by the "Service Part Number", which should be marked on the box, or on a tag, but you need to verify that the part inside is in fact a Mustang part and not a Comet, Fairlane or Galaxy part that will work.
Jim
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:41:34 PM by J_Speegle »
I promise to be politically correct in all my posts to keep the BBBB from vociferating.

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2015, 12:55:01 AM »
Jim : That's the point I was trying to make, but obviously it didn't come across that way. I understand what the process was, and was trying to make the point sarcastically, but failed. Thanks for your good description. It should make it plain and clear for those that didn't know. Mine was a case of "less was not better".

Bob
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:41:44 PM by J_Speegle »
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline WT8095

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Dave Z.
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2015, 01:04:30 AM »
Obviously, when one sees differences in the Assembly Manual, Shop Manual and MPC's, it does make one wonder.

Sorting out the various documents is certainly an interestng puzzle, especially because in many cases they don't tell the entire story. It's not a surprise that there are discrepancies, given that these documents originate in different organizations and over a wide span of time.

The assembly manuals as most of us have access to them are a snapshot of the assembly instructions that Ford's engineering department generated. The dates on the drawings range from early in the calendar year preceding the model year (example: '68 model year drawing generated in Jan '67) to several months into the model year. Some of the drawings are marked with revision history, so we know some things that changed, but we don't necessarily know how many times those changed, or if there were later drawings that were not available to reproduce. When Osborn put the manuals together, they were pieced together as best he could from surviving documents, and all of the drawings within a single manua were not necessarily active at the same time.

The shop manuals were prepared before the start of the model year, so they do not capture changes that occurred once the model year began. Also, some illustrations can be failry generic, showing "typical" part numbers for fasteners that may not have been the actual ones used in production.

The MPCs came later, so they have the benefit of hindsight. But, they serve a different purpose - they were not intended to instruct the assembly plant, their purpose was to provide replacement parts that were functional. Not identical, in many cases - they just needed to function. As time passed, improvements from newer model years would be applied, so some parts would be replaced with newer service parts. Sometimes parts were consolidated so dealers would not have to stock such a large variety of replacements (leaf springs, for example). At some point sales would drop off and parts would be obsoleted. And as all this was happening, errors crept in. I've found a number of instances where a wrong number was entered, some typos, and a few places where an obvious application for a given part was simply overlooked. By the time the final edition of the 65-72 MPC was published in May of '75, the first Mustangs were already ten years old!

The real kicker here is that no matter how much effort goes into the documentation, once production starts up things start to change. I forget who said "a battle plan is only good until the first shot is fired". In practice, there are problems with supply chains, sometimes things don't quite fit as planned or assemblilng in the intended order causes problems. Production operator skill levels vary from person to person, day to day. Sometimes they come up with ways to do things faster that are not quite the way engineering intended. Those differences show up between plants, and over time within each plant. So even when the documentation seems clear, we still have to double-check with what's actually been observed on vehicles. It can be very trying at times, but some of us enjoy the detective work, and getting info from other folks can be more rewarding than simply looking up a number in a book.

This really strayed off the original subject, but it's a fascinating subject and would make an interesting discussion in its own thread.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:41:54 PM by J_Speegle »
Dave Z.

'68 fastback, S-code + C6. Special Paint (Rainbow promotion), DSO 710784. Actual build date 2/7/1968, San Jose.
'69 Cougar convertible, 351W-2V + FMX, Meadowlark Yellow.

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2015, 01:52:09 AM »
Well said, Dave.
Bob
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:42:15 PM by J_Speegle »
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline WT8095

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Dave Z.
Re:Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2015, 09:46:47 AM »
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:42:26 PM by J_Speegle »
Dave Z.

'68 fastback, S-code + C6. Special Paint (Rainbow promotion), DSO 710784. Actual build date 2/7/1968, San Jose.
'69 Cougar convertible, 351W-2V + FMX, Meadowlark Yellow.

Offline 67gta289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2015, 10:14:59 AM »
Yes, very well written Dave.  I run into a lot of people that want to just pick one document, usually the Ford drawings as made available through Osborn's efforts, and use that as the ultimate truth.  When I try to make some of the points that you did so eloquently, they get upset.  My conclusion is they want an "easy button" approach to restoring a car, and don't really want to know more.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:42:35 PM by J_Speegle »
John
67 289 GTA Dec 20 1966 San Jose
7R02C156xxx
MCA 74660

Offline 196667Bob

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2015, 12:09:28 PM »
How true ! Stealing from the old TV Commercial, "The more you know..."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:42:45 PM by J_Speegle »
1966 Coupe, C Code, 3 Sp MT, 6T07C154XXX, Build Date 11/22/65
1967 Conv, C Code, C4, 7F03C154XXX, Actual Build Date 01/31/67
MCA 04909

Offline WT8095

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Dave Z.
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2015, 01:31:03 PM »
Yes, very well written Dave.  I run into a lot of people that want to just pick one document, usually the Ford drawings as made available through Osborn's efforts, and use that as the ultimate truth.  When I try to make some of the points that you did so eloquently, they get upset.  My conclusion is they want an "easy button" approach to restoring a car, and don't really want to know more.

Thanks John! It was kind of off-the-cuff and I rambled a bit. I would like to write up a little more thorough explanation with some more examples. Is that something that would be useful to folks? I'd like to add a little more background on the different divisions at Ford, but I would need help from someone who has more inormation on the subject. There are lots of explanations online and in books regarding how to interpret Ford part numbers, but most of the ones I've seen don't cover the history and the distinction between assembly part number and service part number very well.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:42:55 PM by J_Speegle »
Dave Z.

'68 fastback, S-code + C6. Special Paint (Rainbow promotion), DSO 710784. Actual build date 2/7/1968, San Jose.
'69 Cougar convertible, 351W-2V + FMX, Meadowlark Yellow.

Offline 67gta289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2015, 02:44:44 PM »
I think that such a document, with "concrete" examples of errors, variations between assembly plants, documents of running changes (and the drawing perhaps showing yet another change) might help put things into perspective and de-fuse the issue that it can seem to be.  Growing up in Dearborn, having family at Ford (continuous since my grandfather in 1914) and still living in the area, I do know a few old timers.  I'll ask for some contributing explanations and stories.

If we were not off topic before, we sure are now.  Although, given the topic, we are trying to "shed some light" in a "courteous" way.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 06:43:02 PM by J_Speegle »
John
67 289 GTA Dec 20 1966 San Jose
7R02C156xxx
MCA 74660

Offline 67gta289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3009
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2015, 12:11:42 PM »
Here's an attachment with some observations (some of which might not be correct) about Ford part numbers.  Many thanks to Bob (196667Bob) for sharing documentation.

Looking forward to additional discussion.
John
67 289 GTA Dec 20 1966 San Jose
7R02C156xxx
MCA 74660

Offline WT8095

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Dave Z.
Re: Ford Part and Engineering Number Usage and Their Differences
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2015, 01:24:02 PM »
Here's an attachment with some observations (some of which might not be correct) about Ford part numbers.  Many thanks to Bob (196667Bob) for sharing documentation.

Looking forward to additional discussion.

Thanks John, those are some good references. I have a couple of them, but I don't have an OSI that old, so it will be interested to see what evolution took place. I wasn't planning on going so far into deciphering fastener numbers, but it's interesting enough that I may add that. I'm sure Jim will have a lot of insight into the fasteners too.

I've got a draft started, but it's turning into more of a indoor winter project. I have too much outdoor stuff to wrap up before the snow flies, which could literally be any day now  :(
Dave Z.

'68 fastback, S-code + C6. Special Paint (Rainbow promotion), DSO 710784. Actual build date 2/7/1968, San Jose.
'69 Cougar convertible, 351W-2V + FMX, Meadowlark Yellow.