ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: socalgt on June 10, 2015, 08:27:56 PM
-
I'd like to know if the orientation(clocking)of this alternator is correct for my original wire harness...where the rubber coated 2 wire connector attaches to the BAT & FLD.
-
Original wiring harness is bent from age and appears to fit, so I'll assume the rear case is properly oriented.
-
Looking at your picture the back half of the case appears to be correctly "clocked" when compared to other examples I've got on file
-
Socalgt,
Can you post some pictures of your original alternator wiring harness? Mine fried in 2004 or 5, I replaced it with one from NPD but that is modelled after a 68. I have collected two what appear to be original 67 harnesses, but there are slight differences between the two. I'm hoping that yours breaks the tie.
Thanks, John
-
I'd like to know if the orientation(clocking)of this alternator is correct for my original wire harness...where the rubber coated 2 wire connector attaches to the BAT & FLD.
That sounds like the 68 style. All the 67 harness I have seen were the individual wires with the rubber boots on the end. Unless it was a very late 67 transition I think the wires encased in a block of rubber to secure to the alternator were 68 and up assemblies. Just my observation.
-
That sounds like the 68 style. All the 67 harness I have seen were the individual wires with the rubber boots on the end. Unless it was a very late 67 transition I think the wires encased in a block of rubber to secure to the alternator were 68 and up assemblies. Just my observation.
The 1-piece connector was announced in the '68 preliminary shop manual. I don't know if they were used earlier than that. The file attachment is an excerpt of that manual, not the entire thing.
-
John and I have been trying for several months now, to find out what is “correct”. This all started when disassembling everything from my 289 before pulling it. I noticed that my Alternator Harness was brittle, both wires and the boots, and began looking for a replacement(being very confident that mine was original, my Dad having been the second owner, and my having talked with the original owner). I looked at the Repo harnesses (figuring my chances of finding an NOS one were slim to none) offered by our “major suppliers”, and found that all were of the “rubber block” type (as Bob calls it; I call it the “rubber yoke type”), which was definitely not correct for mine. I then decided to “gamble” and started searching for an NOS one, using the Part # from my 1967 MPC (I felt that this would be the most accurate Part # for mine since it was printed in March of ’67, and mine was built on January 31, 1967. To my shock, I found one supplier that had 6 of them. I of course ordered one. When it arrived, in the correct “C7ZZ” package, I could hardly believe it. Then I opened it, and what did I find but a harness with the “rubber yoke type” connector, an orange wire, and a “C8” wire sticker on it. Obviously a Ford “Re-replacement” part.
At this point, I decided to contact John, as I knew that he also had an early ’67 (his being earlier than mine), to see what his harness was like. As John mentioned above, his original was “fried” in early 2000, and he did not have it; but he did have two “donor” harnesses that he thought were correct. After he sent me pictures of his two donors, I could see that they were not at all like mine. While mine had two rubber boots (one reddish brown and one, slightly smaller, white one), John’s “donors” have 3 rubber boots (one reddish brown, one white and one black). Mine has a large (12 or 14 gage) black wire, a white smaller gage (16 or 18 gage) wire, and a black wire with a red stripe (again a 16 or 18 gage), all 3 of which go to a 3 prong (2 male, 1 female) bullet connector. John’s, on the other hand, has a black with yellow stripe heavy (12 or 14 gage) wire, a white smaller gage (16 or 18) wire, and a white with black stripe wire, again of a smaller (16 or 18) gage. On John’s, his black with yellow stripe wire is not part of the same 3 prong connector, but goes to the starter solenoid.
Now it was time for me to do some research. Realizing that the Assembly Manuals and MPC’s are not always “correct”, I decided to look at them anyway. I used the 1967 Electrical Assembly Manual (appropriate page, E7-8601-2 dated 10-14-66), the 1967 MPC (copyright 1966, dated January 1967), the 1960-68 MPC (appropriate page dated February of 1967), and the 1967 Shop Manual (printed March of 1967). I did not use the 1965-72 MPC as by its printing (May of 1975), too many “Superceded’s” (replacement Part #’s) would have occurred. While the research was not extremely helpful, it did yield some information which is appropriate to both Bob’s and Dave’s comments in regard to the “rubber block/yoke’s” use of not being until late 1967 or 1968.
Here is what I found :
1) The 1967 Electrical Assembly Manual (10-14-66) shows the Alternator with
the rubber yoke.
2) The 1967 MPC has no Illustration of the Mustang Alternator Wiring.
However, it does have an Illustration for the Alternator Wiring for a 1967 Fairlane, which looks strikingly similar to John’s donors.
3) The 1960-68 MPC (dated February of 1967) again shows the Alternator
Wiring with the rubber yoke.
4) The Shop Manual (March, 1967, page 13-16) shows the Alternator Wiring to
be identical to mine, including the same colored wires being noted.
While, as we know, just because something is shown in one of the publication Illustrations, doesn’t mean it was used. However, in regard to the “rubber yoke”, it is interesting to note that it was at least considered as early as 10-14-66.
All of this “digging” along with some conflicting information, brings up several questions :
1) Were there differences between “Early” and “Late” models Alternator Wiring ?
2) Were their Plant differences ?
3) Was their a difference between Convertibles (mine), Fastbacks (John’s) and Coupes (even though there are no differences noted in the Assembly Manual nor the MPC’s)?
4) Was there a difference between Factory A/C and non A/C ?
While I am confident that my harness is original and correct for my particular car, questions remain for others (like John’s) as to what is correct ?
The only way that I know to resolve these questions is through feedback from owners who are reasonably confident that theirs is original, and note its configuration, Plant, build date, body type, with or without Factory A/C, etc.
So, let’s hear from people out there and see what we can come up with.
Bob
-
Bob, possibly you neglected to consider "with Tachometer" or "w/o Tachometer". I believe the alternator harness is different (two wires with boots on early non-tach) and has 3 wires with boots on early 67 small block, tach equipped cars .
Notice also that the alternator main feed to battery on this early style, non-tachometer applications is within the 3-wire connector to the headlamp harness and on the early tachometer equipped cars, the alternator main feed wire is separate from the 3-wire connector to the headlamp harness and that separate wire bolts onto the solenoid lug with the battery cable and other vehicle power feed wires.
I know we are talking small block here, but similar situations on the big-block though I don't believe the aftermarkets are making two versions on the big block cars (read as the 1-piece connector on BB cars not available reproduction for 67)
The two vendors I checked, both sell the small block, tachometer style harness with the individual boot type ends. The alternator feed harness being sold at those two locations non-tachometer cars is a two lug, block style connector for only the 67-68 289's.
-
I have only seen the seperete terminal/boot type on the many servivor type cars I have examined . With that said the vast majority of those were early to late SJ built tach equipped cars (Shelby's) . I am skeptical if the rubber block type (with the plastic round terminal caps) were used in 67 unless very late in production. I have a high confidence level that they were not used during the time the Shelby's were being produced.
-
I have only seen the separate terminal/boot type on the many survivor type cars I have examined . With that said the vast majority of those were early to late SJ built tach equipped cars (Shelby's) . I am skeptical if the rubber block type (with the plastic round terminal caps) were used in 67 unless very late in production. I have a high confidence level that they were not used during the time the Shelby's were being produced.
I checked the 67 shop manual and pre delivery manual and all of the illustrations of Mustang related alternators are of the individual terminal type. When checking the assemblyline manual I did see illustrations for the two wire system only in the rubber block listed for 289,390 and 6 cyl . These are no tach base option cars apparently.
-
There is one supplier that has commissioned 1967 alternator wiring harnesses. He has reverse engineered NOS and excellent used Ford harnesses.
Two styles:
With 'half a dog bone' for the 1967 Mustang without tachometer or 1967 Cougar XR7. Ford service number C7ZZ-14305-B, wire harness marked C7ZB-14305-B or C8WB-14305-C.
With individual wires as described, for 1967 standard model Cougar, and 1967 Mustang with alternator warning light (without ammeter and with tachometer). C7ZZ-14305-E, wire harness marked C7ZB-14305-E.
I know the Ford MPC uses 'with tachometer' or 'without tachometer' for determining application. But it gets convoluted on the Cougar side, which use the same harnesses. From an engineering stand point, the harnesses should be determined 'with ammeter' or 'without ammeter'.
Not allowed to post links, but you all can probably figure it out.
-
Richard - I am remiss on not mentioning the non tach versus tach harness; I should have noted that as well as included it as # 5 in my ending list of questions. To answer your question, yes, I did consider it. Because the ones being offered by suppliers for the "non tach" application are only of the "rubber block/yoke" type, and definitely not like mine, I even ordered a "with tach" harness figuring I could remove the third black boot. But as you noted, the "with tach" harness has a separate wire that goes to the starter solenoid, so that was definitely not like mine. Then the "real killer", the connector plug at the "free end" (the end away from the Alternator), was backwards ; it has two female and one male bullet connectors instead of the needed two male and one female. In looking at the offerings by at least two of the major suppliers who offer Alternator Harnesses for 1967 Big Blocks w/o the tach option, it appears "correct" for the SB w/o tach except that one of the boots is gray instead of white, and possibly the heavy gage black wire may have a stripe on it (it may just be a reflection on the picture; hard to tell). In any case, since it wasn't exact, and no supplier apparently makes the correct 3 wire harness with the two rubber boots and correct connector for the SB, I sent my original to Oregon and had it reproduced. When I received it back, I also received an 8-1/2 x 11 drawing of the harness with wire colors noted, so I know that it is "on file" should others need this harness in the future.
Bob - I too am skeptical of the "rubber block type" of connector harness being correct for 1967, SB, w/o tach harnesses, yet I don't have a lot of verification in order to document, which is why I solicited input. My Dearborn car is just like the SJ ones you mentioned, as well as being a "pre February" build.
That being said, it seems strange to me that virtually all of the suppliers are selling a harness that is truly for 1968, as being correct for 1967. Yes it will work; yes it allows for less inventory; yes it shows as such in the Assembly Manual and MPC's; but, is it correct for 1967 ? Like you, I think not.
Based on what has been brought out here, it would seem to me that John's "donor" harnesses may be for "with tach".
John - Do I remember correctly that yours is a "non tach' application ? If I did remember incorrectly and yours has the tach option, then your "donor harnesses" may be correct.
Bob
-
... mine had two rubber boots (one reddish brown and one, slightly smaller, white one), ...Mine has a large (12 or 14 gage) black wire, a white smaller gage (16 or 18 gage) wire, and a black wire with a red stripe (again a 16 or 18 gage), all 3 of which go to a 3 prong (2 male, 1 female) bullet connector.
Bob
Using your description, I did find a source in Maryland (on eBay) selling a very similar harness but does not look to be identical. It has a red boot for the larger, power feed and a gray boot on the white wire at the alternator. This reproduction also has a yellow stripe on the larger black alternator power feed (yours did not have a stripe? Yours was only BLACK with a red boot?) The third wire is as you described, black with red sripe and no boot (ground wire) and the three wire bullet is also as you described.
This reproduction harness is $34.95 as of this date. No "I.D. tag" but the way you have described your original, this one matches very closely except you claim your white wire has a white boot (this has a grey boot) and this reproduction has an extra yellow stripe (which can be removed) so maybe not a "home run" but at least you could consider it as a "base hit" or a "double".
-
Bob M, yes my car is a non-tach application.
I've picked up two oldie but goodie used 67 harnesses, one from eBay, and one from a Craigslist purchase, both about a year ago.
Attached are some pictures. Referring to the two harness in the "side by side" comparison, with a "top" and "bottom" harness:
1. The three post connector at the wire harness connection are different. The top harness has a white with black stripe connected to the center post, with a white to the outer male post. The bottom harness has those two same colors, but they are flipped. In this case, the rubber boots MUST have been color coded to prevent any mistakes. Very strange.
2. The large gauge wire that connects to the relay is black with a yellow stripe on the top harness, and black with no stripe (unless it has worn off) on the bottom harness.
3. The large gauge wire that does what I'll call the cross over is black with a violet stripe on the top harness, and black with orange stripe on the bottom harness.
4. Two of the three rubber boots on the bottom harness appear to be color coded, one red, one white, based on remnants inside the boots. On the top harness is it hard to tell.
5. The overall lengths compare well. But as you can see in the side by side picture, the "take off" point for the three post connector is a few inches different comparing the two.
-
It is tough to get a good pic on the car but I believe this is original to this 11-04-66 SJ small block convertible.
-
Richard - Thanks for the info; however, as noted in my Reply # 11 of last night (early this morning), I sent my original off and had it professionally reproduced, exactly like my original.
Marty - Thanks for the pictures. My plug connector is exactly like yours, including correct color and positioning of the wires. However, the harness on the rear of the Alternator does look different. As you noted, it is hard to get a good picture of the harness on the car; but, it appears to me that I only see one rubber boot (possibly a faded red one ?). In addition, it looks like some kind of rectangular "block" at the top ? Also, is there a separate wire from your Alternator to the Starter Solenoid ? Is this on a "non tach" car ?
Your picture now adds something else that I should have included in my original "list of questions"; since, as of January 1967, there were 3 Alternators (38, 42 and 55 Amp),shown as "correct" for 1967 289 Mustangs, did all use the same harness ? Another possible variable.
Finally, since yours and John's cars were built at the same Plant, and only a couple weeks apart, assuming that they had the same Alternator, and that there is no difference between a Convertible and Fastback Harness (at least no written evidence that I have seen), wouldn't it make sense that the harnesses should be the same ?
Bob
-
It is tough to get a good pic on the car but I believe this is original to this 11-04-66 SJ small block convertible.
Was the fuse holder connector original? What was the fuse protecting?
-
Bob M, yes my car is a non-tach application.
I've picked up two oldie but goodie used 67 harnesses, one from eBay, and one from a Craigslist purchase, both about a year ago.
Attached are some pictures. Referring to the two harness in the "side by side" comparison, with a "top" and "bottom" harness:
1. The three post connector at the wire harness connection are different. The top harness has a white with black stripe connected to the center post, with a white to the outer male post. The bottom harness has those two same colors, but they are flipped. In this case, the rubber boots MUST have been color coded to prevent any mistakes. Very strange.
2. The large gauge wire that connects to the relay is black with a yellow stripe on the top harness, and black with no stripe (unless it has worn off) on the bottom harness.
3. The large gauge wire that does what I'll call the cross over is black with a violet stripe on the top harness, and black with orange stripe on the bottom harness.
4. Two of the three rubber boots on the bottom harness appear to be color coded, one red, one white, based on remnants inside the boots. On the top harness is it hard to tell.
5. The overall lengths compare well. But as you can see in the side by side picture, the "take off" point for the three post connector is a few inches different comparing the two.
Richard - Thanks for the info; however, as noted in my Reply # 11 of last night (early this morning), I sent my original off and had it professionally reproduced, exactly like my original.
Marty -...
...Finally, since yours and John's cars were built at the same Plant, and only a couple weeks apart, assuming that they had the same Alternator, and that there is no difference between a Convertible and Fastback Harness (at least no written evidence that I have seen), wouldn't it make sense that the harnesses should be the same ?
Bob
For those reading along, keep in mind that John's examples (images posted earlier) are NOT ORIGINAL TO HIS December '66 Mustang!
Looking at everything I understand about this wiring as well as the wiring diagrams in the assembly manual (dated 2-24-67), it is entirely possible John's examples are from another Ford product, not necessarily taken from a Mustang. As we know, "function" isn't always "concours", so I would hope other readers follow examples close to their build info. (Bob M., I understand you know this already)
I also wish I could be of more help since my 11/2/66 S.J. built example has a tachometer, I can only speak to that option best. My examples need some "help" too, but I will likely be purchasing reproduction harnesses for the replacing mine. (read as including headlamp harness). Hopefully, the Alloy Metals versions I have seen, are "correct" enough in detail. I see there are tags available to use on them, unless instructed otherwise, that has been my plan.
Richard
-
Was the fuse holder connector original? What was the fuse protecting?
Having seen Marty's car, I can add that the fuse holder is for the under hood lamp, and is original.
-
Having seen Marty's car, I can add that the fuse holder is for the under hood lamp, and is original.
Got it . I thought because of the subject discussed it had to do with the alternator harness or other side of Alt harness and was puzzled.
-
Keep in mind that John's examples (images posted earlier) are NOT ORIGINAL TO HIS December '66 Mustang!
Looking at everything I understand about this wiring as well as the wiring diagrams in the assembly manual (dated 2-24-67), it is entirely possible John's examples are from another Ford product, not necessarily taken from a Mustang. As we know, "function" isn't always "concours", so I would hope other readers follow examples close to their build info. Richard
Richard, you are correct to stress that point. All I have in anecdotal evidence at best. On eBay the seller claimed it was from a 67 Mustang, and had other specific 67 Mustang parts for sale at the same time, appearing to have stripped a car. But you never know. For the Craigslist part, it was from a Mustang builder for 40 years finally hanging up his tools. I bought a box of wiring that was all labeled as 67 or 68 Mustang, many of which is for certain based on the part number stickers. But again, you never know.
-
Richard - I realize that John's donor harnesses may not be correct for his car. Just trying to find out what should be correct as it came from the Plant. Hopefully, Marty will be able to help in this regard; if his is a "non tach" car.
Bob
-
Couple of San Jose non-tach examples. Hard to get good pictures with all the Thermactor stuff in the way.
Both individual boots
7R02C172xxx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-131015172844-4628176.jpeg)
7R01C168xxx Notice the rear edge fo the case - alternator has been replaced
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-131015172843-46261550.jpeg)
Are you limiting this to one plant or all?
-
Couple of San Jose non-tach examples. Hard to get good pictures with all the Thermactor stuff in the way.
Both individual boots
7R02C172xxx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-131015172844-4628176.jpeg)
7R01C168xxx Notice the rear edge fo the case - alternator has been replaced
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-131015172843-46261550.jpeg)
Are you limiting this to one plant or all?
Jeff why are all of your cars so dirty? ;D ;D ;D
-
That's true concours dirt....
-
Ahhhh.... a bunch of Concours snobs ::) lol
-
Jeff : Thanks for coming up with the pictures; specifically the first one (...172xxx). I think this should help John in his quest for the correct harness. The harness appears to be the same as that on my early Dearborn '67 (unless additional pictures of the "172" car reveal a separate wire going to the starter solenoid do you have any additional pictures of its harness/solenoid, 3 wire connector etc. for this car?). Do you know the build date on "172" ?
I have attached several pictures of my original and repro harnesses. The first picture shows my original on the right and the Repro I had made on the left. The remaining four pictures are details of the Repro.
Jeff, besides the reasons I noted in an earlier reply, do you have any idea why, at least up to this point in time, no one has offered the "correct" Alternator harness for the non tach '67's ? I can hardly believe that I am the first one who has needed to replace the original, and who wanted to replace it with a "correct" one.
Marty : You forgot to mention whether your picture of the Alternator harness was "with or without" tach. Also, do you know what the rectangular "thing" is in the harness near the top of the Alternator ?
Thanks to you both.
Bob
-
Sorry I forgot to say that our car is a non-tach. The black rectangular thing is a plastic wire retainer with a loop that goes under the stud above it.
Marty
-
Marty : Thanks. I thought that's what it was as I've seen that on other harnesses. Interesting though, as my original Dearborn one (non tach) doesn't appear to have had that.
Bob
-
............ Interesting though, as my original Dearborn one (non tach) doesn't appear to have had that.
So after all these years the alternator's never been off?
Easy thing to leave off when reinstalling the wires -
-
Jeff : Although possible, highly unlikely. I can only say for sure that it hasn't since my Dad bought it in 1981. When I next talk with the original owner again (probably next week), I'll see if I can fill in the gap from 1967-81. He already told me that the car never was in a wreck, never changed the wheels (if you'll remember from a previous Post, I have 3-5" and 2-6"), and that the Wide Ovals were the worst tires he's ever had on any vehicle - "only got 12,000 miles out of them" he said. If when I removed the Alternator in July is any indication, I'd say it had never been removed. Can't tell you how long I rapped on the long bolt with the impact on high, shot it with PB, etc. before it finally broke loose. I thought I was going to shear it.
Isn't that little bracket/ support just taped to the harness ? My old harness sure had no indications that something had been there.
By the way, did you come up with any answers to the questions in my "Reply" that I Posted on October 14 ?
Thanks,
Bob
-
Well have know my fair share of original owners that either didn't remember or didn't know their car had been touched up (exterior paint) or other changes but in this situation would like to see more untouched car without the detail before I'd feel comfortable - even if it was my car :)
By the way, did you come up with any answers to the questions in my "Reply" that I Posted on October 14 ?
"Do you know the build date on "172" ?"
Not the real date - Door tag showed Ford guessed it was going to be 21st of January 67
-
Jeff : Agree with you 100%. That's why I'm hoping we get more replies here to see what may be correct. Not only in regard to the bracket/ support, but for the rest of the harness. That was the original purpose of this Post, I believe.
Thanks as always for your input.
Bob
-
Jeff : Although possible, highly unlikely. I can only say for sure that it hasn't since my Dad bought it in 1981. When I next talk with the original owner again (probably next week), I'll see if I can fill in the gap from 1967-81. He already told me that the car never was in a wreck, never changed the wheels (if you'll remember from a previous Post, I have 3-5" and 2-6"), and that the Wide Ovals were the worst tires he's ever had on any vehicle - "only got 12,000 miles out of them" he said. If when I removed the Alternator in July is any indication, I'd say it had never been removed. Can't tell you how long I rapped on the long bolt with the impact on high, shot it with PB, etc. before it finally broke loose. I thought I was going to shear it.
Isn't that little bracket/ support just taped to the harness ? My old harness sure had no indications that something had been there.
By the way, did you come up with any answers to the questions in my "Reply" that I Posted on October 14 ?
Thanks,
Bob
12,000 was typical for bias ply tires back in the 60's I remember going through 2 sets on my 69 Mach back in 70-73 when I owned it.
-
12,000 was typical for bias ply tires back in the 60's I remember going through 2 sets on my 69 Mach back in 70-73 when I owned it.
They just never seem to last very long when they are regularly over heated! And you were how old in 70? ;D ;D
-
They just never seem to last very long when they are regularly over heated!... ;D ;D
This was a common practice of the day, to help keep the rear tires from getting "out of round", and was regularly followed imediately after the manufacturer's suggested "tire rotation" guideline found in the owner's manual,, to compliment the definition of "tire rotation", since there was little effort required in getting them to "rotate".
-
This was a common practice of the day, to help keep the rear tires from getting "out of round", and was regularly followed imediately after the manufacturer's suggested "tire rotation" guideline found in the owner's manual,, to compliment the definition of "tire rotation", since there was little effort required in getting them to "rotate".
That was my rational too. I felt obligated to be in factory suggested compliance. I rotated mine often of course just to be on the safe side. ;) My way is more fun but I suspect however my technique wasn't what Ford had in mind . ;D
-
I dragged out some wiring and see that my alternator wiring had been neglected.
Car in question is my March 67 SJ Tach car.
[Note that the Motorcraft alternator was just what I had available that wasn't just a mountain of empty cases.]
Here it is installed on an alternator. [pics are: far away to see all and a closer view]
Both this bundle and another Tach harness I have utilize a plastic channel-clip that firmly anchors the wiring bundle to the alternator ground. [third pic is a reverse view of clip on another harness]
The last pic shows the battery wire eyelet's rounded plastic. All of the repops use a square plastic on this battery wire.
[edit to replace pic with version actually in focus]
-
I dragged out some wiring and see that my alternator wiring had been neglected.
Car in question is my March 67 SJ Tach car.
[Note that the Motorcraft alternator was just what I had available that wasn't just a mountain of empty cases.]
Here it is installed on an alternator. [pics are: far away to see all and a closer view]
Both this bundle and another Tach harness I have utilize a plastic channel-clip that firmly anchors the wiring bundle to the alternator ground. [third pic is a reverse view of clip on another harness]
The last pic shows the battery wire eyelet's rounded plastic. All of the repops use a square plastic on this battery wire.
[edit to replace pic with version actually in focus]
You have the harness clocked and wired incorrectly (ground). Look in the charging section of the 1967 shop manual for correct orientation and mounting of connections.
-
I placed the wires on the alternator in the direction POs have bent them. They just fell into place in that orientation.
I can't find my manual right now to validate how to do this correctly. but I moved the plastic tie down to the GRD stud nearest BAT. The ground wire stayed put. I think this is what you meant, Bob, and I will post another picture later to correct the pics above after I find my manual.
Meanwhile, does anyone sell the red, black and brown rubber stud insulators alone?
[On Edit -- I found the non-tach version of the alternator wire routing in the Osborne Electrical Manual, so I deleted some of the above. Interesting that the Osborne shows the molded battery/field wires with caps. Still working on finding my shop manual.]
-
Just so there is no confusion of those who might be reading this Topic "down the road", and since the Topic is noted "67 289 alternator harness connection", it should be noted that the pictures shown in Bossbill's Reply of February 5, are of a 390 (S Code), not a 289. The 1967, Mustang 390's were the only ones using an Alternator Harness with three rubber boots. The 289;s and 6 Cylinders both only had two rubber boots.
Bob
-
Just as I was ready to go cleanup some parts...
196667Bob -- The Osborne Electrical Manual, on page 33, shows '8 cyl 289 CID RPO 2-060' as having molded rubber. (one piece connector). The Osborne also shows the 390 with the molded one piece connector.
My 'Tach' (SJ Shelby) harness has been with the car for well over 30 years and has 3 rubber caps. Another harness from a 289 (coupe) w/Tach I parted out also has the 3 rubber caps.
Other than the one piece connector, if the harness has only two rubber caps, then it is a non-Tach harness and does not have a wire going to stator (STA). The Tach harness has to have the connectors to BAT, FLD and STA.
Using the Osborne nets me this (view pic)
-
Just as I was ready to go cleanup some parts...
196667Bob -- The Osborne Electrical Manual, on page 33, shows '8 cyl 289 CID RPO 2-060' as having molded rubber. (one piece connector). The Osborne also shows the 390 with the molded one piece connector.
My 'Tach' (SJ Shelby) harness has been with the car for well over 30 years and has 3 rubber caps. Another harness from a 289 (coupe) w/Tach I parted out also has the 3 rubber caps.
If the harness has only two rubber caps, then it is a non-Tach harness and does not have a wire going to stator (STA). The Tach harness has to have the connectors to BAT, FLD and STA.
Using the Osborne nets me this (view pic)
The picture looks like you have them clocked correctly now. That is the way I have seen them on the 67 GT 350/500 . I am not aware of anyone that just sells the boots. If you choose to reuse the old harness and want new boots you will have to get them from another donor harness.
-
Just as I was ready to go cleanup some parts...
196667Bob -- The Osborne Electrical Manual, on page 33, shows '8 cyl 289 CID RPO 2-060' as having molded rubber. (one piece connector). The Osborne also shows the 390 with the molded one piece connector.
My 'Tach' (SJ Shelby) harness has been with the car for well over 30 years and has 3 rubber caps. Another harness from a 289 (coupe) w/Tach I parted out also has the 3 rubber caps.
If the harness has only two rubber caps, then it is a non-Tach harness and does not have a wire going to stator (STA). The Tach harness has to have the connectors to BAT, FLD and STA.
Using the Osborne nets me this (view pic)
Bill : I had obviously forgotten all of the research I had done on this when I started this thread almost 4 years ago. The Osborne Manual does show what you have noted, however neither it nor the Shop Manual distinguish the "with tach Option". Having the Stator connection makes sense for the tach option. In addition, both John's (67gta289) and my car are early (his December San Jose, and mine January Dearborn), and both, without the tach option, had the individual rubber boot harness as opposed to the one-piece connector.
I need to go back and revise my earlier post from today to reflect the earlier versions having the non-one piece connector.
The above being said and noted, your last comment before the picture throws me ; shouldn't it say "other than the one piece connector" since yours has the 3 individual boots ?
Then, since the Osborne AM doesn't show the "with tach Option", was the later one piece connection then accompanied with a single boot connection for the Stator ?
It would be nice to get all of these major Variances straightened out so we could make a meaningful summary. Of course the question still remains ; when did the change from individual boots to the one piece connector occur ? Right now, it appears that yours is the latest with individual boots, at 3/2/67.
Bob
-
Bill : I had obviously forgotten all of the research I had done on this when I started this thread almost 4 years ago. The Osborne Manual does show what you have noted, however neither it nor the Shop Manual distinguish the "with tach Option". Having the Stator connection makes sense for the tach option. In addition, both John's (67gta289) and my car are early (his December San Jose, and mine January Dearborn), and both, without the tach option, had the individual rubber boot harness as opposed to the one-piece connector.
I need to go back and revise my earlier post from today to reflect the earlier versions having the non-one piece connector.
The above being said and noted, your last comment before the picture throws me ; shouldn't it say "other than the one piece connector" since yours has the 3 individual boots ?
Then, since the Osborne AM doesn't show the "with tach Option", was the later one piece connection then accompanied with a single boot connection for the Stator ?
It would be nice to get all of these major Variances straightened out so we could make a meaningful summary. Of course the question still remains ; when did the change from individual boots to the one piece connector occur ? Right now, it appears that yours is the latest with individual boots, at 3/2/67.
Bob
I believe it must be in late 67 production that the individual boots changed because every 67 Shelby that I have observed over the passed 40 + years that still had original wiring had the individual boots. That would seem to indicate the changed happened at least on SJ cars sometime in July 67 or after.
-
Save all the dialect and go to the 67 Electrical Assy manual, page 54 (E7-8617-1)
Whoever says there are no Ford drawings in the 67 assembly manual for the Tach type alternator (and cluster) could be incorrect.
-
Ok, I guess I didn't expect to find the correct picture 20 pages later!
Thanks!
196667Bob -- I think I fixed my reply 41 to read better.
It may be that early non-tach cars had the 2 boots (BAT and FLD) and later had the 1 piece connector with caps. Perhaps the latest 1 piece connector version is what is shown on page 33 of the Electrical Assembly Manual after it superseded the boot vertsion.
Page 54 shows only the Tach alternator wiring and 3 boots -- it does not show a 1 piece connector version.
Makes me wonder if a 1 piece (BAT and FLD) connector with a lone STA wire even exists?
-
I believe it must be in late 67 production that the individual boots changed because every 67 Shelby that I have observed over the passed 40 + years that still had original wiring had the individual boots. That would seem to indicate the changed happened at least on SJ cars sometime in July 67 or after.
Bob : This is good to know. It just shows another case where one cannot go by the dates on "superseded drawings" as being when they were actually put into effect. In this case, the date on the AM drawing (E7-8601-2) of 10/14/66, which shows the one piece rubber connector, clearly does not indicate that this change was made then, but at least after July of 1967, and possibly not until the 1968 Models. This same occurrence also seems to be the case in regard to the 1967 Low Fuel Proof Wire for the Safety Convenience system, which is shown on AM drawing E7-8618-3, dated 1/16/67, as going from the firewall, along the RH , firewall to fender support, and then to the starter solenoid. While the 68 Models did follow this routing, at least so far, we have no confirmation that 1967's after 1/16/67 had this routing.
Save all the dialect and go to the 67 Electrical Assy manual, page 54 (E7-8617-1)
Whoever says there are no Ford drawings for the Tach type alternator (and cluster) could be incorrect
Richard : Yes, I am the "whoever" (where is that foot in mouth emoji), as while I did look a few pages before and after page 33, I, like Bill, never thought to look 21 pages ahead ! Good find.
It may be that early non-tach cars had the 2 boots (BAT and FLD) and later had the 1 piece connector with caps. Perhaps the latest 1 piece connector version is what is shown on page 33 of the Electrical Assembly Manual after it superseded the boot vertsion.
Page 54 shows only the Tach alternator wiring and 3 boots -- it does not show a 1 piece connector version.
Makes me wonder if a 1 piece (BAT and FLD) connector with a lone STA wire even exists?
Bill : Yes, both John's and my original harnesses had the two boos plus a sinle wire with no boot for the stator.
As far as a single rubber two connector harness with a separate non-booted wire for the stator, I believe that that harness was what started me on this thread. I found a NOS C7ZZ-14305-B harness (pictures attached - you'll need to zoom in on the harness) was nothing like my original. It is my belief that it is a later Service Replacement harness, which was also used for 68's which is why we find this is what the Mustang Suppliers are getting from their Vendors. Which is why I had to end up having mine "custom made".
Thanks for bringing this back to "light" to add more "fuel to the fire".
Bob
-
Save all the dialect and go to the 67 Electrical Assy manual, page 54 (E7-8617-1)
Whoever says there are no Ford drawings for the Tach type alternator (and cluster) could be incorrect
Richard : Yes, I am the "whoever" (where is that foot in mouth emoji), as while I did look a few pages before and after page 33, I, like Bill, never thought to look 21 pages ahead ! Good find.
[/quote]
No problem. I added "tabs" to some of the manuals to find such things easier
-
Just when you thought it was safe to go into the water (don't grab the alternator output!)...
I found either a very late 67 or a 68 Tach harness. To compare, I've added the two pics here in the same same orientation.
First is my March 67.
Second is the late 67 (I believe, since I have never parted out a 68). If this is a 68 let me know ...
Most interesting to me is the third picture.
The round battery output end that normally goes to the starter solenoid (on Shelby it goes to a special insulated post for the ammeter) on the early harness (right) is not remotely the same as the later end (left).
The repops all --so far in my searches -- have the square rubber battery end but with early round boots!
My take is that even though my original harness needs help I may have to take the time to restore it rather than use the EASILY visibly incorrect repop -- which I gather would lose me points in concours.
-
Just when you thought it was safe to go into the water (don't grab the alternator output!)...
I found either a very late 67 or a 68 Tach harness. To compare, I've added the two pics here in the same same orientation.
First is my March 67.
Second is the late 67 (I believe, since I have never parted out a 68). If this is a 68 let me know ...
Most interesting to me is the third picture.
The round battery output end that normally goes to the starter solenoid (on Shelby it goes to a special insulated post for the ammeter) on the early harness (right) is not remotely the same as the later end (left).
The repops all --so far in my searches -- have the square rubber battery end but with early round boots!
My take is that even though my original harness needs help I may have to take the time to restore it rather than use the EASILY visibly incorrect repop -- which I gather would lose me points in concours.
Reusing the original vs using the repro is a personal decision that you will have to make. If you can make the original harness to look ads good as new then there will be no deduction however if the wiring shows age that might offset any advantage you might get over the repro. In MCA trailered concours or SAAC DIV II concours there is no deduction for "good" reproduction parts The repro harness may or may not receive a deduction depending on the judges, how much it stands out and or how far off the plug ends compared to genuine. FYI make sure you get the small block harness vs BB one. The difference is the ground terminal is larger diameter for the larger ground bolt on the BB.
-
Thanks for your insight, Bob.
It's all about choices, isn't it?
-
I'd like to also thank the other Bob (196667Bob) for his email making me really look at my routing and find that I had the field wire and stator installed visa-versa. A real Doh moment.
My stator wire is still too short due to a repair, but he has me thinking about other options.
Thanks Bob.
-
I had a custom wire assy done for my tach alternator set-up and I'm quite pleased.
My battery output wire is rounded like my original and the rest looks very nice!
-
I had a custom wire assy done for my tach alternator set-up and I'm quite pleased.
My battery output wire is rounded like my original and the rest looks very nice!
Looks good .I would cut the sheath on the block ground end off. They were more typically not covered like the alternator end ground. Just what I have seen. Where did you get that harness?
-
Sent you a PM, Bob.