ConcoursMustang Forums

1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: roddster on January 06, 2013, 06:52:23 PM

Title: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: roddster on January 06, 2013, 06:52:23 PM
Just reassembling my 67 GT 350's rear valence.  October 66 San Jose build.
  The two brackets that bolt up under the valence.  These support the bumper gaurds.  Are these natural with some body color overspray, or something else?
  I remember that Jeff said the valence is hung with two screws before is goes through the paint booth.  So thouse two screws are now white (orig.color) Just wanted to know about the brackets
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: CharlesTurner on January 06, 2013, 07:27:15 PM
Those brackets were typically black, installed on the car before the valence went on.
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: TLea on January 06, 2013, 08:13:53 PM
Also those brackets should be in before paint so bolt heads in trunk have body color on them
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: J_Speegle on January 06, 2013, 08:39:26 PM
++1 :)

The retaining screws are typically the third one in from each end
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: 67gta289 on March 25, 2014, 10:54:27 PM
Since the brackets were installed before paint, I have a few more questions.

There are two bolts from the trunk side for each bracket.  My observations are:

1. The bolt that faces the rear of the car is installed, and is covered with paint.

2. The bolt that faces straight down appears to be unpainted, so was this installed after paint?  Is that accurate, and if so, what would the finish be -P&O or other?

3. Since the bracket was installed prior to paint, it would make sense that the part of the bracket that can be seen through the trunk, where the gas tank is not yet installed, would get overspray with color.  The amount of course would vary depending on the person doing the painting.  Has this been witnessed?

Thanks, John
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: J_Speegle on March 26, 2014, 12:22:26 AM
There are two bolts from the trunk side for each bracket.  My observations are:

1. The bolt that faces the rear of the car is installed, and is covered with paint.

Yes the bolt head and sealant is normally found to be body color


2. The bolt that faces straight down appears to be unpainted, so was this installed after paint?  Is that accurate, and if so, what would the finish be -P&O or other?


Easier just to find a couple of pictures and post them will follow up - phones ringing again ;)


3. Since the bracket was installed prior to paint, it would make sense that the part of the bracket that can be seen through the trunk, where the gas tank is not yet installed, would get overspray with color.  The amount of course would vary depending on the person doing the painting.  Has this been witnessed?

Have not seen all of them with overspray and don't typically find a shadow on the back of the rear valance. It would depend allot on how far the painter leaned in and how much effort. they put in. I would guess that if the upper bolt had allot of paint (good coverage) on it then the angle was less and applied straight back towards the back of the car. In those examples there would be more chance of overspray on the back of the valance and the possibility of some on the bracket. Not as much on that particular bolt (shadow below), angle was greater and not as much or any related painted below and onto the surfaces below the opening

Other possibilities for  overspray (less likely in any great or noticeable amount) it would have come through the back up light holes ( way to odd of an angle for that to happen) or from the open ends of the valance - likely too far.   Its not common to find any overspray on the floors (bottom of the trunk floors, rear frame rails or other rear panels) from this paint application through that hole

As mentioned will post some examples - lets wee what we find ;)
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: 67gtasanjose on June 11, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
Pictures?  ???
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: J_Speegle on June 11, 2014, 07:13:29 PM
67 San Jose question/discussion points #1 & #2

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-110614171237.jpeg)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-110614171304.jpeg)



Point #3 example - Again not seen on all but at least some ;)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-110614171143.jpeg)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-110614171123.jpeg)

Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: 67gtasanjose on June 11, 2014, 10:14:31 PM
Thanks Jeff, The pictures help. My tank has never been out yet, it comes out tomorrow morning. The area under the tank should be in rather good, untainted condition. I already pulled the valance & brackets and I didn't recall seeing paint on them (overspray) but they were dirty and I had used a penetrant. Evaporust should yield a bit of reality there.
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: J_Speegle on June 11, 2014, 10:39:53 PM
Thanks Jeff, The pictures help. My tank has never been out yet, it comes out tomorrow morning. The area under the tank should be in rather good, untainted condition. I already pulled the valance & brackets and I didn't recall seeing paint on them (overspray) .............

Most of them I've seen had no overspray either but apparently at least some were :)
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: mtinkham on December 11, 2015, 01:47:42 PM
Bringing up an old thread....

I have a question about the two studs that lock into the mounting tab on the back side of the rear valance...were these installed prior to the valance install?  If so, there might be evidence of overspray on these threaded studs, as the valance was installed and hanging during the painting process?  Anyone have any recommendation as to having the threaded studs installed or not installed in the brackets prior to paint?

Thanks,
Mark
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: J_Speegle on December 11, 2015, 03:10:43 PM
Bringing up an old thread....

I have a question about the two studs that lock into the mounting tab on the back side of the rear valance...were these installed prior to the valance install?  If so, there might be evidence of overspray on these threaded studs, as the valance was installed and hanging during the painting process?  Anyone have any recommendation as to having the threaded studs installed or not installed in the brackets prior to paint?

If they had been in place during the painting process the paint would have been removed from the threaded stud when the nut was run down the length of the shaft during installation possibly leaving only a little paint on the outward (best chance of getting paint from the direction sprayed) side of the stud facing the quarter panel.

I've not seen/noticed any of these little studs having exterior color on them when I removed them but that 's just my experience
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: Bossbill on November 11, 2017, 12:01:06 PM
I seem to be following roddster's posts around the forum.

I gather the valance is primed in red oxide (RO) on both sides.
It is then hung on either 3 (most common) or 2 screw holes in from each end.
The bracket is already in place. The bolt squished any sealant present.
The outside of car is sealed/primed. The trunk is not, but gets overspray. Some small amount might land on backside of valance.
Trunk is painted first and some overspray along tailight panel might land on back side of valance.

I think that's the process?
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: Bob Gaines on November 11, 2017, 01:10:22 PM
I seem to be following roddster's posts around the forum.

I gather the valance is primed in red oxide (RO) on both sides.
It is then hung on either 3 (most common) or 2 screw holes in from each end.
The bracket is already in place. The bolt squished any sealant present.
The outside of car is sealed/primed. The trunk is not, but gets overspray. Some small amount might land on backside of valance.
Trunk is painted first and some overspray along tailight panel might land on back side of valance.

I think that's the process?
It reads from your post that you are not aware the trunklid  and tailpanel on a Shelby were not painted on the car or at Ford. The valance was painted with the body at Ford but all of the add on fiberglass Shelby pieces were painted at Shelby American. The Shelby parts were painted off of the car. Backside of fiberglass pieces were painted black or left raw fiberglass from mfg depending on time period. A Shelby in the 1300's would typically have a all fiberglass hood and trunklid . They would be black on the back side with body color overspray . Only the steel innerstructure hood and trunk were purposely painted both sides. 
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: Bossbill on November 11, 2017, 02:38:23 PM
Bob -- I fully understand that a knock down car was delivered to SA. And that SA cut out the rear taillight panel and installed all the fiberglass pieces. But SA cut out a fully painted taillight panel -- inside and out.

I think you read too much into the word "trunk". I do mean the interior of the the trunk and not "trunk lid".
When I said the trunk gets some overspray, I mean the interior of the trunk surfaces. Just like the interior gets primer/sealer on various surfaces, so does any surface in the trunk.

My contention is that the trunk interior is painted exterior color first. A painter can't lean into the trunk interior if the taillight panel is painted first. And here I mean the stock Mustang taillight panel. It's painted just like any other Mustang rolling down the line.

But I appreciate you remembering my 1300s car. I bought an all fiberglass trunk lid because you guys were assured that this car would not have a steel/glass trunk lid. And I agree.

My hope with this post was to get into more detail on the trunk interior primer/sealer overspray and then color coat and how that relates to the valance. Trying to stay on topic.
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valence
Post by: J_Speegle on November 11, 2017, 02:42:09 PM
I seem to be following roddster's posts around the forum.

I gather the valance is primed in red oxide (RO) on both sides.
It is then hung on either 3 (most common) or 2 screw holes in from each end.

Believe you are confusing the location of the two mounting screws (second or third position from the ends) with the number. I've never found a San Jose car with three mounting screws installed before exterior paint


The bracket is already in place. The bolt squished any sealant present.

Yes the rear bumper guard bracket

The outside of car is sealed/primed. The trunk is not, but gets overspray.

The trunk would have gotten some red oxide primer Items like the trunk lid (Mustang)  hinges back side of the taillight panel and a half** attempt to spray some on the quarters and forward towards the interior. No attempt to coat the surfaces with the gray primer filler

Some small amount might land on backside of valance.

Think you might be thinking exterior color?  Rear valance hung after light gray primer coat but before exterior color. Some dusting from overspray from all the paint floating around, what mist might be introduced through the gas tank opening, the ends hanging down and the paint passing through the open back up light holes and pushing off the rear cross member through those holes

Trunk is painted first and some overspray along tailight panel might land on back side of valance.

Normally the inside of the trunk and back side of the taillight panel got a decent coat of paint where it would be visible from standing and looking into the trunk. No effort was made to coat all the small hidden panels, supports and such especially towards the front, up under the rear window, bottom of the quarter panels and places like the corners where the quarter panel extensions and quarter panels meet
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bossbill on November 14, 2017, 09:08:04 PM
I've searched through the 1967 Mustang Part & Body Illustrations and -- of course -- the rubber washer (red arrow, second pic) doesn't appear in there.
 
But my question concerns the built-in nut (yellow arrow) in the bracket.
Here is the bracket all by itself:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4556/38426621971_233334040b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21xCtX2)

and here it is waiting to be installed:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4564/38426623191_a975d17764.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21xCuj4)

The yellow dashed line indicates where a bolt w/washer would pass through the body, the gas tank flange, some black goop and into the built-in nut. The hole in the body is smaller (0.4") than the barrel end of the built-in nut (0.5") so either you need to install a rubber washer on top of the built-in nut, we enlarge the factory hole to 0.5" or we simply allow the nut to dig into the body. The later just seems wrong.
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valance
Post by: J_Speegle on November 14, 2017, 09:18:06 PM
The yellow dashed line indicates where a bolt w/washer would pass through the body, the gas tank flange, some black goop and into the built-in nut. The hole in the body is smaller (0.4") than the barrel end of the built-in nut (0.5") so either you need to install a rubber washer on top of the built-in nut, we enlarge the factory hole to 0.5" or we simply allow the nut to dig into the body. The later just seems wrong.

I don't see any signs of a gasket or sealer between the cross member and the rear bumper brackets and see no problem with just allowing for the nut to be held tightly to the cross member as part of the retaining especially considering the second retaining bolt and j clip (in that location)

Would not enlarge the hole to allow the nut to pass through the hole. More likely to create a lose fit and not what was done originally
Title: Re: 67-reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bossbill on November 14, 2017, 11:45:23 PM
Thanks Jeff. I saw no evidence either, but the bracket had a bunch of surface rust. The repops are flat without the raised barrel and would actually work better -- flat against flat.
Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bossbill on February 04, 2018, 11:39:24 PM
I was cleaning, painting and POing some parts and got back to this area. A few things have always bothered about this area and I think I know why.
During a mock-up of all the bolts required for this assembly, I looked up the AMK kit for the bracket and see that you get a pair of Cad iridescent yellow finish hex bolts and the same finish on a pair of PoziDrive bolts. This lead me down the bunney trail of exactly where do these go? Are these correct? I had two PosiDrives in my old parts off the car, but my description sheet for those was missing.

First, here is a snip of the Body Assembly Manual detailing that area and to items I refer in the comments following. Highlighted in red are the items in question.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/4249-040218221540.jpeg)

Here is  Jeff's post in this thread (http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=5726.msg50794#msg50794): in which he shows this pic:
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-110614171143.jpeg)

This shows the rearward facing bumperette bracket attaching bolt with 1" washer. According to the Body Assembly Manual Pg 63 this hex bolt is item "4L" and is part 377357-S36. S36 denotes this as having a Cad iridescent yellow finish.
Here it is covered in paint, correctly. The finish is the most important part, I think, even though it's covered in paint later.
One of the other Cad iridescent yellow bolts is part '5Q', a PoziDrive bolt listed as a 379949-S36. The PoziDrive screws the bumperette itself to the bottom of the bracket and is very visible at the bottom of the valance.
It should also be noted that the AMK kit I referenced earlier has the correct 4 square J-nuts for both bolt '5Q' and bolt '4L', a 378681-S2.
We'll get to one more pair of Cad iridescent bolts used in the bumperette assembly in a bit ...

However, two items are missing in the bracket build up.
In this thread, earlier, I asked why the square protruding nut on the bracket didn't have any allowance in the body for it to fit.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4556/38426621971_233334040b.jpg)

It turns out the factory originally did have a shim listed to keep the square nut from digging into the body, noted in the Assembly manual as '4Y'. IMO, it appears the shim never made it into cars as the gas tank goop filled that need. Or they just left it out.

Speaking of gas tanks and shims, the bolt that went vertically into the bumperette bracket after the tank was installed has been a bit of a mystery to me. In the Assembly Manual it's listed as part '4M', a 378242-S2. In Jim-Speak, a 5/16-18X1 1/4HH,REC,DISC LKW,LD PT.
Most of these bolts appear to have a built in washer with serrated teeth in 1967. However, my correctly date coded gas tank marks indicate a 0.75-0.80 disc without any teeth. My parts car doesn't show teeth marks here either.
Help here appreciated.

Finally, the bumperette itself.
I already mentioned the bottom PoziDrive bolt as it screws the bumperette into the bracket assembly at the bottom. However, the top bolt is considered part of the bumperette and is listed as part '5R', a hex bolt 377357-S36 also in Cad iridescent yellow. Strange that I've not noticed this bright gold part on restored cars. Is it not used in production even if it's listed?
This pic shows the empty hole for the bumperette, right above the bracket bolt.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-110614171123.jpeg)

As a parting shot, the Assembly Manual shows the bumperette top J-nut, '5F', is a 379670-S100. S100 denotes a special finish of various types over the years, but I don't know as to what it is here.
Help here appreciated.
Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: J_Speegle on February 05, 2018, 12:20:05 AM
It turns out the factory originally did have a shim listed to keep the square nut from digging into the body, noted in the Assembly manual as '4Y'. IMO, it appears the shim never made it into cars as the gas tank goop filled that need. Or they just left it out.

Think your overstating things a bit. The drawing shows that Ford considered and drew up plans to use a shim this doesn't not mean it ever made it into production and/or applications. May have been used on other cars and applications.

Finally, the bumperette itself.
........................However, the top bolt is considered part of the bumperette and is listed as part '5R', a hex bolt 377357-S36 also in Cad iridescent yellow. Strange that I've not noticed this bright gold part on restored cars. Is it not used in production even if it's listed?

As always the gold part of the zinc dichromate disappears quickly when cleaning the bolts or they are exposed to the elements or poor storage practices. Longevity also seems to relate to the surface texture of the metal part plated.

Here are a couple of examples from unrestored cars to illustrate the original finishes. In both examples the plating has held up better on the washer than the head of the bolt. Really hard to see on a 67 Shelby  ;)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-040218225947.jpeg)

(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-040218230016.jpeg)



As a parting shot, the Assembly Manual shows the bumperette top J-nut, '5F', is a 379670-S100. S100 denotes a special finish of various types over the years, but I don't know as to what it is here.

Norm is a phosphate and oil looking finish on J nuts/clips
Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bossbill on February 05, 2018, 01:42:11 PM
Thanks for the pic.
I don't recall the use of that upper Cad iridescent gold bolt being discussed before.
Since the AMK bracket kit only supplies 2 bolts I might just order two kits to get the 4 bolts.

My engineering brain refuses to allow a large square item to go into a smaller round hole.
The shim satisfies how engineering would have handled that. Whether or not any given plant used it is really immaterial. I understand this site is really about how the cars were built, not designed or called out. So I'll go with that, knowing that engineering called it out in a manner that makes engineering sense.

But another reason for my post was to show how one can combine your excellent pics with Jim's work on the hardware spreadsheets and then combine that with the data in the Osborne manuals. It melds the engineering portion with the procurement/hardware side and then onto the as-built.
Combining all of these gives you a real feel for how it all came together -- 50 years ago!
Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bossbill on July 31, 2018, 09:54:22 PM
Sometimes what certain vendors offer (or don't offer) leads you down an erroneous bunny trail.

The kit to attach the bumper bracket to the car is AMK 17B876-2K and is not offered by all vendors. I found this one at NPD:
(https://d2zl5tj7gmc4tr.cloudfront.net/images/products/17b876-2k_20180411210447.jpg)
This kit includes items K, L, M, and Y, as noted in a previous post. NPD carries this 'concours kit'.

To attach the bumper guards to the car and to the above bracket requires a different kit, AMK 17984-2K, which contains items Q, S, F and R.
(https://d2zl5tj7gmc4tr.cloudfront.net/images/products/17984-2k_20180411210434.jpg)

While the kits look similar there are important differences. Thankfully this all came to light during a final mock-up of the rear prior to paint.

Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bob Gaines on August 01, 2018, 12:39:42 AM
Thanks for the pic.
I don't recall the use of that upper Cad iridescent gold bolt being discussed before.
Since the AMK bracket kit only supplies 2 bolts I might just order two kits to get the 4 bolts.

My engineering brain refuses to allow a large square item to go into a smaller round hole.
The shim satisfies how engineering would have handled that. Whether or not any given plant used it is really immaterial. I understand this site is really about how the cars were built, not designed or called out. So I'll go with that, knowing that engineering called it out in a manner that makes engineering sense.

But another reason for my post was to show how one can combine your excellent pics with Jim's work on the hardware spreadsheets and then combine that with the data in the Osborne manuals. It melds the engineering portion with the procurement/hardware side and then onto the as-built.
Combining all of these gives you a real feel for how it all came together -- 50 years ago!
I am curious to know if you have the manual AMK Guide To Fasteners? Not to take away from any of the very informative and I am sure tedious work that Jim has put into his spreedsheets but with the AMK manual it provides a quick and easy way to decipher the fasteners illustrated and coded in the assembly manuals. You take the number from the assemblyline manual and look it up in the back of the AMK manual . When you find it in the back of the AMK manual it will list a page to turn to. When you go to the page you will find a picture of the fastener and if you look up the assemblyline manual number on that page it will give the exact dimensions of the fastener. This is the quickest way for me to determine what is referenced on the pages of the assemblyline manual. Others may have a different opinion.   
Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: Bossbill on August 01, 2018, 02:06:59 PM
I have an entire, tall bookshelf of Ford literature. And guess what hidden on the shelf that I forgot I had?
Yep. The AMK book.

Thanks for the post, Bob. Without it I would not have looked up the book online, recognized the spiral binding and pulled it from the shelf.
Title: Re: 67 San Jose -reassembling the rear valance
Post by: jwc66k on August 01, 2018, 03:58:50 PM
The AMK guide is probably the best and most current source of hardware information. It has a few errors which I have listed in the spreadsheet included.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=12357.0
Jim