ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1964 1/2 - 1965 => Topic started by: Brant on July 28, 2010, 04:49:28 PM
-
I just posted a video of the progress on my '65 K Convertible. ...a lot has been done, but a lot yet to do.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
-
neat !!! we will be coming dangerously close to you on the way to virgina beach. we may stop by and take a look.
-
Can you detail how you achieved the galvanized finish appearance where the body jig was in contact with the chassis during paint?
-
neat !!! we will be coming dangerously close to you on the way to virgina beach. we may stop by and take a look.
Sure-just let me know as it gets closer. You can send me an email through the site.
-
Can you detail how you achieved the galvanized finish appearance where the body jig was in contact with the chassis during paint?
You have a good eye. Honestly, I cannot tell you...it is an Ancient Chinese Secret.
Seriously, though...I would have to have Jeremy at Maple Hill Restoration explain it in order to tell you accurately. He does that great work and does some pretty amazing stuff. I was really happy with that detail. He came up with that himself. I can tell you that it looks as good up close and in person as it does in the video.
Will you be going to the VA Beach show? Jeremy and I will be there (not with the car, of course.)
-
My body man cuts out triangle patterns on a piece of heavy paper and applies a few shades of silver to give the galvanized effect. It's a detail that not many folks have ever thought to duplicate! All the heavy metal under the car was galvanized. Too bad Ford didn't galvanize the sheet metal that the floor was made of. :(
BTW, cool video Brant, thanks for sharing!
-
Nice video! Isn't the Red Oxide underside a bit to shiny?
-
Nice video! Isn't the Red Oxide underside a bit to shiny?
Thanks!
This is an August '64 Dearborn Car. It was not the red color underneath. The (non-undercoated) cars with original paint underneath that we observed from this plant during this time period were painted black. Not only were they painted black, but we noticed that the black was pretty darn glossy.
I guess that the "red" that you are seeing is the Poppy Red (the body color of this car) overspray that was on top of the black.
I think that the "red oxide" is often mistaken as being "correct" for all 65-66 cars, because most of the 65-66 GT350's that may be "well photographed" are restored this way. They are all San Jose built cars though and most (can be exceptions to the rule) are pink or salmon color underneath. Even most of these cars with original paint that I have observed are rather glossy.
I think a common mistake made on these San Jose cars is that some are actually refinished with red oxide (kind of flat finish) primer on the underside.
-
Agree with Brant, originally would have been a semi-gloss primer, with regular gloss body color over spray. It's hard to achieve the proper gloss of the over spray with urethane paints, but can be done by an experienced painter.
We're also finding that there was a short time in production at San Jose where the undercarriage primer was black and red-oxide from a line vertical to the firewall forward. This is how the K convertible that I'm doing was done. Plenty of pics to prove this. Time period seems to be Nov-March.
-
We're also finding that there was a short time in production at San Jose where the undercarriage primer was black and red-oxide from a line vertical to the firewall forward. This is how the K convertible that I'm doing was done. Plenty of pics to prove this. Time period seems to be Nov-March.
We can probably go further back to October of 64 since mine has evidence of the black undercarriage...
-
I think that the "red oxide" is often mistaken as being "correct" for all 65-66 cars, because most of the 65-66 GT350's that may be "well photographed" are restored this way. They are all San Jose built cars though and most (can be exceptions to the rule) are pink or salmon color underneath. Even most of these cars with original paint that I have observed are rather glossy.
First great looking video
Would agree that the original finish was a fairly shinny finish due to the use of epoxy primer sealers rather than the flat primers.
Have not seen any pink or "salmon" colored 64-66 San Jose undercarriages (thousands of pictures and a big bag of sections cut from the floors of San Jose cars as examples ;) often white overspray over the brownish red oxide can produce a chalky lighter color is areas but have not see the pinkish till late 67 and or 68 at San Jose during some months
We can probably go further back to October of 64 since mine has evidence of the black undercarriage...
Would have to disagree the period of time that Charles is describing is surrounded by many hundreds of well documented red oxide cars
Did you cut through the paint drips to see if the original color was black or if it was black over red oxide. Not unusual at all for a prior owner during the 70-80's to repaint the floors black to clean them up
IF it was black all the way to the metal then we may have another period when black was used but I've not found any San Jose cars from that period with black undercarriages as of yet
-
Agree that red-oxide was the predominant undercarriage primer on SJ cars, but in the last few years that I've been studying the '65's built around that Nov-Feb time period, I keep finding more and more examples of black under the main floor pan and red-oxide up under the front.
The mixture of primer colors/shades and the stations where it was applied can throw a kink in what we think might be correct. Just because the primer color inside the interior side floor pans might be red-oxide does not mean the underside has to be the same, or even the same shade. We've talked about this subject several times and it's something that has been overlooked through the many decades that these cars have been being restored. I would bet that out of 100 restored cars, you'd be lucky to find one that didn't use the same color of primer throughout the car.
-
Did you cut through the paint drips to see if the original color was black or if it was black over red oxide. Not unusual at all for a prior owner during the 70-80's to repaint the floors black to clean them up
Yeah cut through a couple of drips when we discussed it back a couple of months ago...no red oxide found from the firewall back, but red oxide found from the firewall forward.
-
First great looking video
Would agree that the original finish was a fairly shinny finish due to the use of epoxy primer sealers rather than the flat primers.
Have not seen any pink or "salmon" colored 64-66 San Jose undercarriages (thousands of pictures and a big bag of sections cut from the floors of San Jose cars as examples ;) often white overspray over the brownish red oxide can produce a chalky lighter color is areas but have not see the pinkish till late 67 and or 68 at San Jose during some months
Thanks, Jeff.
I have seen quite a few, what I call, "pink" or "salmon" colored floor pans, particularly June and July '65 San Jose cars. Please keep in mind that this is not an area that has white overspray. It is a bit weathered, but it is most definitely what I would call pink or salmon. It was also very lightly covered. It is definitely not the more red or brown color that I have also seen on some cars. Frankly, I was a bit surprised it was so pink too, but after checking out some other cars built near this date, I found that it was not unusual.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TCUJ7Aizy3I/AAAAAAAAK2E/P1qikYRHf_w/s800/IMG_1896.JPG)
Here is a better example posted on the HiPo Forum:
http://www.hipomustang.com/hpmx/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10496
-
Here is a sample of what was probably one of the more typical shade of red-oxide at San Jose. This is a March '65 car. It's more of a 'chocolate' shade. I have seen the color that Brant posted, in addition to other variances.
http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/mike/red_65_vert/7_20_08/7_20_08%20015.jpg
-
Double checked my stuff and did find a couple of lighter shaded red cars in the June -early July period. Not sure why the variation from the typical dark muddy red we are use to seeing.
June -early July examples from San Jose
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Original%20Uni-body%20%20Pictures/5R08T237027floor.jpg)
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Original%20Uni-body%20%20Pictures/6S2Floorbeltanchor.jpg)
Late July - back to the more typical
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Original%20Uni-body%20%20Pictures/5R07C254787Firetofloor.jpg)
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/Original%20Uni-body%20%20Pictures/65mustangfastbackwhite-und6.jpg)
-
More evidence of the "pink" undercarriage primer found on SJ cars from July/Aug. of 65. First one is a 65 6 cyl. with a scheduled build of Aug. 03, 1965 and the second one is an unknown scheduled date due to no door tag.
Ken
-
There is another photo update today about the HiPo Convertible restoration.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
Most of the wiring is installed. Heater box is now actually in the car. The rear part of the car is getting there-rear end assembly, leaf springs, rear valance, although some of this stuff is not shown in this particular post.
-
Another update posted today.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
Rear end assembly and leaf springs are in. Rear valance is installed. Brake and fuel lines are installed. Dash is going together.
-
fantastic work there brant !! my compliments to all involved.
p.s. don't forget about our battery conversation please.
-
Dang, I have some catching up to do!
-
Another photo update has been posted:
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2010/09/early-1965-mustang-289-hipo-convertible.html
The doors are on, most of the wiring is in, and several other items installed. Loading the doors with the window parts and glass is next.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TIo-fIxprLI/AAAAAAAAOJk/5LkZ8rYZqS4/s400/IMG_1759.JPG)
-
I thought that car would be done by now?! ;D
-
I thought that car would be done by now?! ;D
We are not as fast as you-plus, we have to sleep at night! ;)
-
Here is another update on my '65 K Mustang Convertible project:
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2010/10/1965-mustang-k-code-convertible.html
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TKT3u9Ik1TI/AAAAAAAAOhw/mD8j7rUzNx8/s400/IMG_2758.JPG)
-
I just posted a new entry on our Blog about our HiPo Convertible project.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2010/12/1965-mustang-high-performance.html
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TPmBqKEA0jI/AAAAAAAARv4/92tkve5wdwo/s400/IMG_3336.JPG)
-
Here is another update on my '65 K Mustang Convertible project:
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2010/10/1965-mustang-k-code-convertible.html
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TKT3u9Ik1TI/AAAAAAAAOhw/mD8j7rUzNx8/s400/IMG_2758.JPG)
Does the wiper motor in this picture have over-spray from the dash?
-
Just as an observations - never found a pink mark on the end of an upper early A arm except for service replacement arms - have plenty of those.
Looks like your having allot of fun - keep us posted
Could you remind us (well really me ;) is this a Dearborn car your doing this time?
-
Just as an observations - never found a pink mark on the end of an upper early A arm except for service replacement arms - have plenty of those.
Looks like your having allot of fun - keep us posted
Could you remind us (well really me ;) is this a Dearborn car your doing this time?
Good eye, Jeff. We have already removed it!! As you mention, I have only seen it on a service replacement part.
-
I just posted several more pictures on the Blog of our 289 HiPo Mustang Convertible. The dash is pretty much together, and the engine and transmission will be going in soon.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TPv9k3PKXiI/AAAAAAAARqI/Pd5G28XhLsk/s400/IMG_2416.JPG)
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
-
looks like on your firewall pictures that your missing the screw that was once located on the firewall behind the firewall pad for your backup lights or console. this hole is normally not drilled thru and just a dimple on the firewall unless the car had backup or console. attach is the picture in reference. Also the hole that appears next to your power top lead shouldn't drilled out either and can be fixed pretty easy. And for everyones information a little known fact about 66 metuch cars the choke cable is located on the dimple on the right of the power top cable, not the common choke cable location.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TPmBnuFbMHI/AAAAAAAARlM/idGc7JBC5PI/s400/IMG_3333.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TPmBmO-e1eI/AAAAAAAARk8/IsVeEUJpE-s/s400/IMG_3331.JPG)
-
The dimple above and to the right of the plug in the previous picture would be for the AC wiring?
-
looks like on your firewall pictures that your missing the screw that was once located on the firewall behind the firewall pad for your backup lights or console. this hole is normally not drilled thru and just a dimple on the firewall unless the car had backup or console. attach is the picture in reference. Also the hole that appears next to your power top lead shouldn't drilled out either and can be fixed pretty easy. And for everyones information a little known fact about 66 metuch cars the choke cable is located on the dimple on the right of the power top cable, not the common choke cable location.
Good eye. Thanks for the comments.
It is unusual, but apparently someone made some mistakes when this car was built. I chose to leave them that way. The hole for the console/back-up wiring clip was punched, but upon close observation, one can tell that there was never a screw put in the hole. Same way with the ones below it-the six cylinder accelerator bracket holes-punched out, but no screws ever put in.
Concerning the holes where the power top lead comes through, it is pretty much the same story. The first hole is typically the power top lead feed hole, the next one is the Auto. Trans. Neutral Safety feed, and the last dimple is the AC. Both holes in this car are "clean punches" like factory. The original firewall mat still even has the "knock outs" in place for the other holes. The power top feed appears to have been originally put in the Neutal Safety feed hole (as pictured), so we decided to put it back that way.
-
It is unusual, but apparently someone made some mistakes when this car was built. I chose to leave them that way.
Good choice, I think unique items including factory mistakes should be preserved, especially when there is documentation/photos to back it up.
Thanks for the info...
-
I just posted another update on our Blog. The HiPo Convertible will be ready to fire up soon.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2011/03/1965-mustang-high-performance.html
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TWbbDmJnEmI/AAAAAAAAUbw/P0pQZbBAO3c/s640/IMG_3750.JPG)
-
Nice progress!
-
Very nice!! ;D
-
The HiPo Convertible is now running!!
Check out the video on our Blog.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
-
Sounds great!!
-
Sounds nice Brant... I think it was a tease though, I was waiting for at least one vroom-vroom! ;D
-
The front sheet metal is on the HiPo Mustang Convertible! Check out the Blog post for several more images.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TaoLMdCAZjI/AAAAAAAAV9I/7t6WvBeaVzk/s400/112%20%284%29.JPG)
-
Gettin' there!
-
More pictures of our Poppy Red HiPo Mustang Convertible were posted on our Blog today.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/TaoKwfe2YgI/AAAAAAAAV64/uQdfQvrRU48/s400/DSC_0262.JPG)
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/
-
Check out the latest post on the front area seam sealer application on the Mustang.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_FhFCoO_tIME/Tbbd12l3KMI/AAAAAAAAWIU/OEvQi_t1C8c/s400/DSC_0289.JPG)
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2011/04/early-1965-mustang-289-hipo-convertible_27.html
-
Here is a new post about our 65 Mustang HiPo Convertible Project.
http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/2011/06/1965-mustang-high-performance.html
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3eTNO-kQX8E/TfFHO4PLMRI/AAAAAAAAYTc/rbOc-4lQcf0/s640/IMG_0653.JPG)
-
Brant looks really nice - BTW the battery inspection decal is filled out correctly for a 69-70 Dearborn car rather than a 64-5. Just thought I should mention it ;)
-
Brant looks really nice - BTW the battery inspection decal is filled out correctly for a 69-70 Dearborn car rather than a 64-5. Just thought I should mention it ;)
Jeff,
Don't stop there...tell me what the '65 one looked like!! Dearborn and San Jose, if you have it.
-
Jeff,
Don't stop there...tell me what the '65 one looked like!! Dearborn and San Jose, if you have it.
The number of originals that have survived are few especially since they were uncoated paper unlike the air cleaner decals of the time or the plastic/vinyl ones today.
For 65 Dearborn it depends on when the car was built - earlier cars have been found with a hand written reading - a stamped full date (likely one of those rotational date stamps of the period) and a inspector number stamped through the sticker before it was applied. Later versions, it appears, did away with the inspector punching the sticker and instead writing their number in the space provided. Looks like writing was done in black ink.
San Jose's for 65-66 were typically filled out by hand (either pencil or black ink pen) with the date which lacked the year and initials for the inspector.
At both plants the stickers used black print on a rectangle shaped sticker with square corners and the lines intersected. Some of these features of the basic sticker changed in 67 then returned to this design in 69.