Topic: 67 Ramplocs -- 67 running change

[Bossbill]

Richard's build thread had a note from Bob G.about his ramplocs.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=16578.msg144871#msg144871 Reply 213

This reminded me of a Mannel picture (7D3) where he showed three different ramploc assemblies in 67.
The first was identical to the 66 style where the bolt had a captured lock with a flat washer underneath.
The second, which is only mentioned as a "as the year progressed" item, does away with the flat washer.
By the end of the year (he doesn't note model year, but I think that may hold true) the third type uses a different bolt with threads only about a quarter of the way up, but there is still a ramploc (it appears).

I'd post pics, but this is a copyrighted book.

Maybe item DE12 here?
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=20681.0

edit add flat

[67gtasanjose]

Thanks for posting this Bill. I do not have the Bob Mannel book but I should buy one...been saying that for 6 years now!

On edit, I FINALLY pulled the trigger on the book!
Currently, you get the PDF version WITH the printed version where the PDF version has all of the latest revisions in it.

[J_Speegle]

A couple of thoughts

- Since this is an engine related change this would not be a change specific to a car plant but would apply to all car plants

- As we look at examples engine assembly dates and or the aluminum ID tag information will be important as well as car information

- This change may related to a Change Level which will be listed on the engine ID tag

- Do we know or should be anticipate that we will need to split the thread at some point if the change was not introduced on all engine types at or about the same time period. 6 cylinder - small block - big block?

[J_Speegle]

67 Small Block Observations

Looking through some of my pictures small blocks appear to be the easiest even with allot of cars with AC

There may be a period where there was a mix of both earlier with washer and without washers were installed.

Found the following on 7R02C172xxx which of right now appears to be in the middle of the change over range at San Jose. Unfortunately I don't have many with engine ID pictures nor assembly dates making this a more difficult subject than others


Passenger side - Double washers on the middle two long exhaust manifold bolts







Drivers side - Looks like all double except for the last exhaust port where they both appear to be singles






Edited and rearranged to put both passenger and driver's pictures together and add a comment

[Bossbill]

Great pics as usual, Jeff.

Not an easy task given all of the different engines. Naturally I'm interested in all 289s (C,A and K codes). Not a lot of pictures of 170/200s.

[ruppstang]

I looked at our 68 unrestored HCS and it has no washers under the ramp locks. Most of the T,A,C and J codes I have worked on had no washers.

[Bossbill]

Thanks for posting this Bill. I do not have the Bob Mannel book but I should buy one...been saying that for 6 years now!

On edit, I FINALLY pulled the trigger on the book!
Currently, you get the PDF version WITH the printed version where the PDF version has all of the latest revisions in it.

Thanks for posting that the PDF is available. I prefer the PDF format for the shop. I have the book, but re-ordered the book and the PDF as I have a friend he really needs this. He doesn't know he needs this but he will thank me anyway.
And I like the fact that you can search the PDF! Hurray!

[Bob Gaines]

I looked at our 68 unrestored HCS and it has no washers under the ramp locks. Most of the T,A,C and J codes I have worked on had no washers.

I don't think I have ever seen any flat washers under the ramploc on 68-70 before.I am puzzled that they felt like it was necessary in the first place on 67.

[J_Speegle]

Earliest at the moment from San Jose cars with just ramplocs is 7R02C16488x and latest with second washer I could find was 7R02A1277xx
Basically somewhere around mid Nov 66 to first of Jan 67

So pretty wide range at the moment from me


Did find a engine with the ramplocs and an engine tag. It showed a level 15 but don't if the washer changed initiated a change level

[Bob Gaines]

Earliest at the moment from San Jose cars with just ramplocs is 7R02C16488x and latest with second washer I could find was 7R02A1277xx
Basically somewhere around mid Nov 66 to first of Jan 67

So pretty wide range at the moment from me


Did find a engine with the ramplocs and an engine tag. It showed a level 15 but don't if the washer changed initiated a change level

Jeff the picture of the 67 GT350 I posted on the other thread that mentioned the flat washers is Shelby VIN 0050. It has flat washers under the ramploc washer and it was built in mid Oct 66.

[67gtasanjose]

Off topic a bit but with my "lack of washers on my build" being the catalyst for this thread, I wish to chime in an important detail.

A lot of what has been shared so far, explains why my old bolts also had no washers (I pulled out the old baggie of used bolts yesterday as well as looking at my tear-down pictures again)...I have shared this detail before but my engine assembly is a July, 1967 assembly date...long AFTER the change-over time narrowed down so far. All engine-related date codes and visual differences confirmed this (e.g., C8 thermostat housing, C8 timing cover (with a tin timing pointer), C8 casting on the block above the starter, with "302" casting in the lifter valley). Yes, the engine is a replacement engine. This replacement was done in 1986 by me. This 289 was removed from a much lower mileage 67 Cougar A-code car. Little did I know at the time about date codes and change level details that we now know of today.
At the time, I believed it to be a very wise choice to loose over 100,000 miles on my engine. As a matter of fact, it still retains standard bore, standard rod and main journal specs.

(Fortunately/Unfortunately) Today...knowledge of such details are indeed key to helping pinpoint inconsistencies on "Thoroughbred Examples" out on the show field and I am sure, helpful at times of purchasing a classic Mustang (as well as any Classic car). These details are indeed very helpful in discovering the truth. I truly enjoy learning about these nuances and mind-blowing details.

That all being said, I am not building a Thoroughbred example nor are there any plans to sell the car (even after my passing) so as such, I also have no plans to "throw the baby out with the bath" either. This is an excellent engine assembly with the only defect being that it was "born about nine months too late". The decision was made several years ago to keep the "incorrectly dated engine" so having no washers on a July 67 assembled engine, is if nothing else, consistent with the final assembly date codes of the block, heads and exhaust manifolds.

[Bob Gaines]

Off topic a bit but with my "lack of washers on my build" being the catalyst for this thread, I wish to chime in an important detail.

A lot of what has been shared so far, explains why my old bolts also had no washers (I pulled out the old baggie of used bolts yesterday as well as looking at my tear-down pictures again)...I have shared this detail before but my engine assembly is a July, 1967 assembly date...long AFTER the change-over time narrowed down so far. All engine-related date codes and visual differences confirmed this (e.g., C8 thermostat housing, C8 timing cover (with a tin timing pointer), C8 casting on the block above the starter, with "302" casting in the lifter valley). Yes, the engine is a replacement engine. This replacement was done in 1986 by me. This 289 was removed from a much lower mileage 67 Cougar A-code car. Little did I know at the time about date codes and change level details that we now know of today.
At the time, I believed it to be a very wise choice to loose over 100,000 miles on my engine. As a matter of fact, it still retains standard bore, standard rod and main journal specs.

(Fortunately/Unfortunately) Today...knowledge of such details are indeed key to helping pinpoint inconsistencies on "Thoroughbred Examples" out on the show field and I am sure, helpful at times of purchasing a classic Mustang (as well as any Classic car). These details are indeed very helpful in discovering the truth. I truly enjoy learning about these nuances and mind-blowing details.

That all being said, I am not building a Thoroughbred example nor are there any plans to sell the car (even after my passing) so as such, I also have no plans to "throw the baby out with the bath" either. This is an excellent engine assembly with the only defect being that it was "born about nine months too late". The decision was made several years ago to keep the "incorrectly dated engine" so having no washers on a July 67 assembled engine, is if nothing else, consistent with the final assembly date codes of the block, heads and exhaust manifolds.

Keep in mind although date codes are important in Thoroughbred 99% of those restoring their car will not be building their cars to that level. Most are using reproduction parts and building their car to the trailered concours level standards which don't require appropriate date codes as long as the item looks as assemblyline.Of course icing on the cake are things in the form of original and or date coded parts opposed to reproduction and the like. Those are a personal touch and considered overkill in the trailered class but many take pride in doing anyway. Observers typically very much appreciate the high level.  It is apparent from your other assemblyline details and reproduction parts used that is the path you are trying to take. With that in mind the date code on your block will only hold you back in your own mind not anyone else's. My opinion is stop beating yourself up.  Many others are working through the same hurdle of restoring their car to a high level with a non original engine . Some of which are not lucky enough to have a engine dated as close as yours . That does not stop them from making everything else look as it is supposed to as if the engine was original to the car. Just like working on refurbishing parts to appear in nuance detail as assemblyline , reproduction belts and hoses that appear the same or close to original what is the difference in making the date code on the block disappear if you think in your mind it is holding you back from doing other things more correctly? Many date codes on blocks are slag obscured etc. Head date codes are invisible under valve covers. Even though it may not be the engine the car was born with the look will be that it could be.  Of course it is your decision but it would be a shame to let a small detail on your block dictate a path which you may not want to take on other assemblyline details . It would be a shame to see you stop short and be inconsistent on some details given the other superior work you have done . Again no harm no foul if done well to trailered concours level because date codes are not relevant as long as the part looks as it should for the time period. Best of luck with whatever path or compromise you decide to take. I for one appreciate your effort.

[J_Speegle]

I also would not want you to beat yourself up with your choice. They are what they are and like any you make them and move on.

As aside these cars are often not built to some clubs standard but instead your standard, falling where ever they do within a class. A show is only a day or a weekend out of a full year or many years. Many of us see these cars as a reflection of our choices, effort and dedication to an idea and plan and for others (I know you understand fully) this is not an easy path and will likely not be redone so we try to do our best.

Have a dream and plan and go for it - which you have. It's challenging and difficult at time but looking back we hope all feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in the end results.

Your about there - almost time to sit back and enjoy

Now back to the thread

[67gtasanjose]

No harm taken from the "critique" on my build. After all, it has brought to light a change over date and perhaps, AMK will get wind of this, once a date or change level has been determined. These types of "discovery" are what this forum is all about.

For anyone keeping records, clearly my late-build 289 engine, built in a 302 block, Final Assembly Date of engine being July 6, 1967 (photo of date code attached), wouldn't have had the Ramp-Loc bolts WITH washers but my 11/02/66 Actual Build Date Mustang WOULD have come with these washers.

Hind sight being 20/20, perhaps the addition of the washers isn't a bad Idea and perhaps had I have been aware of this knowledge BEFORE painting my engine or at least BEFORE putting it into the project, I may have added them in BUT...since the lack of washers is consistent with the rest of the change level of the engine, the "Lack of Washers" is how it will stay.

Thanks everyone again. Knowing these nuances is overwhelming at times but getting this information out of our heads and documenting it to be accessible to others, is truly an awesome thing!

[Bossbill]

I think the Concours judges remarks about dates in Concours, trailered and driven, should be repeated more often.
If the part physically looks identical to the original assembly line part the judges can not take the date or part number into account during the judging process.

I think your car looks great and find no fault with your efforts.