Author Topic: Shock tower reinforcements  (Read 1284 times)

Offline preaction

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Shock tower reinforcements
« on: November 09, 2015, 08:36:33 PM »
Does anyone know why 67 GT cougars got the CJ style shock tower braces and mustangs didn't ?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 08:51:55 PM by J_Speegle »
8R02S125064- January 6 1968  SJ   7F93S591808 - April 28 1967  Dearborn   7F91S544039 - December 17 1966 Dearborn

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13605
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2015, 08:43:40 PM »
Believe your asking about the shock tower reinforcements

You sure?  Looked through my pictures and I don't see that they are the same in those


Later Cougars (like 69-70) all were suppose to be equipped with the big block style reinforcements - just what the engineers and Ford wanted and a way to save money on the cheaper Mustangs


67 GT big block Cougar example (they look the same as C code non-GT examples I have pictures of)




68 CJ Shock tower reinforcements
 
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 08:55:53 PM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline preaction

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2015, 09:23:50 PM »
Jeff, I am sure I don't have pics today but will soon. The only model cougar I have seen with them were  GT"s  and I have seen 2 cars built this way and both are 67. when I first saw this I thought it was a fluke the only common denominator is that both cars are( early ) as both have bag windshield washer reservoir's.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 09:27:55 PM by preaction »
8R02S125064- January 6 1968  SJ   7F93S591808 - April 28 1967  Dearborn   7F91S544039 - December 17 1966 Dearborn

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13605
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2015, 12:15:28 AM »
Jeff, I am sure I don't have pics today but will soon. The only model cougar I have seen with them were  GT"s  and I have seen 2 cars built this way and both are 67. when I first saw this I thought it was a fluke the only common denominator is that both cars are( early ) as both have bag windshield washer reservoir's.

Will be spending the day with some of the Cougar experts later this week - will ask them

Not sure how shock towers that I would not expect to be in production for another 12 months would be available to use at Dearborn.

Picture of the GT engine compartment above was from a April built car

Were these small blocks or big block cars?
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline preaction

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2015, 10:53:57 AM »
Both cars are S code GT models.
8R02S125064- January 6 1968  SJ   7F93S591808 - April 28 1967  Dearborn   7F91S544039 - December 17 1966 Dearborn

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13605
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2015, 06:02:00 PM »
Sounds like a few owners may have replaced the shock towers with the current reproductions - with the additional reinforcements that look like the CJs

Apparently you've posted this question on a handful of sites and the unanimous response from the Cougar guys was no- they didn't come that way
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline sportyworty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2015, 10:44:22 AM »
I have never seen any Cougar with wrap around reinforcements before intro of the 68.5. Interesting would like to see this. I had a S code 67 GT 4 speed car so will look for the pics. We do know that R code 68 Cougars did not require the GT package nor the Mandatory extra cost option PDB like the Mustang brother. Some are 4 wheel drum non GT.

Offline preaction

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Shock tower reinforcements
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2015, 11:42:59 AM »
I believe that the only wrong question is the one that's not asked, but in the light of current information Im  learning to take more of these things with a grain of salt.
8R02S125064- January 6 1968  SJ   7F93S591808 - April 28 1967  Dearborn   7F91S544039 - December 17 1966 Dearborn