ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Suspension => Topic started by: Anghelrestorations on September 02, 2019, 07:37:45 PM
-
Starting a new thread here just on the lower control arms to make it easier to stay on topic. The Suspension Guide will include everything but this thread is just for the lower control arms.
http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf (http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf)
Have you ever found and examples of lower control arms with the version A jack tabs with C5 marked boots? If there are they are in the minority . I typically find more of that combination with a later engineering number boots. The version B jack tab style that you have marked is the more prevalent on 65/66 cars from what I have seen at least on the SJ cars . Maybe it is just the survivor and unmolested cars that I have paid attention to .These details make me skeptical of your conclusions. Of course I haven't seen them all but It seems that the pattern at least what I perceive is that the the tabs marked type A were later production 66 model year control arms and of course 67-70. I have not seen a different vendor style as you refer to it version A tab for instance on any later 67-70 arm that are not later service or repros. Has anyone else ? With that said it seemed logical to conclude that the type A style tab was more likely the newer evolution of tab style instead of different vendor. Type B tab seems to be early type. Just what I have observed others my have a different opinion . Your articles always end up being great so regardless hopefully the discussion will make for the most accurate article it can be.
Quote from: Anghelrestorations on Today at 02:29:40 AM
Bob...let me make sure I understand your question/comment first.
Are you asking on the C4DZ control arms if I have seen version A jacking tabs and the C5 boots? Or are you asking about the C7OZ control arms?
And you are saying you have not seen version A jacking tabs from 67 to 70?
Marcus....Yes on if you have seen the C4DZ arms with the your A jacking tabs and with the C5 boot. Have you seen the C7OZ control arms with the B tabs and the C7 boots?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48668094756_d56db5940c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h9CH11)2019-09-02_15-40-38 (https://flic.kr/p/2h9CH11) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
-
Bob...answer to your first question is easy. I have never seen C7 lower control arms for Mustang (or Cougar) with the square jacking tabs.
For the C4 lower control arms I have pictures here what I pulled from my inventory today that actually still has C5 boots. Of these one is with a square jacking tab and the other two are with the rounded style.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48668062008_4ca333408b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h9Cxgo)20190902_164510 (https://flic.kr/p/2h9Cxgo) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48668560732_5a69ca4f3d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h9F6w5)20190902_164525 (https://flic.kr/p/2h9F6w5) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48668407561_1498436331_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h9EiZc)20190902_164529 (https://flic.kr/p/2h9EiZc) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48668560557_979ac6826b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h9F6t4)20190902_164540 (https://flic.kr/p/2h9F6t4) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48668407606_884553d993_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h9EiZY)20190902_164655 (https://flic.kr/p/2h9EiZY) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
-
Bob...answer to your first question is easy. I have never seen C7 lower control arms for Mustang (or Cougar) with the square jacking tabs.
For the C4 lower control arms I have pictures here what I pulled from my inventory today that actually still has C5 boots. Of these one is with a square jacking tab and the other two are with the rounded style.
The 67 lower control arm tab style observation is not a surprise. That supports my observations and theory that the style of squared off jacking tab being the early style used on 65's and it evolved to the rounded tab style with the side nubs . The change from one to another with no sign of the square style being used in the C7 arm supports a progression or evolution of the tabs rather then a vendor difference. I believe the rounded style tab with side nubs started sometime in later 66 production . I think you should reconsider saying that the tab style is a vendor difference . At least until or unless documentation presents itself to the contrary. This is meant as a positive contribution to your article.
-
Another question is what are the nubs coming out of the side of the jack tab for ? Why the need to change from a more simple square design to a more involved rounded design with the nubs coming out the sides? Anybody know?
-
i realize this question is a bit off-topic, but:What is the purpose of the jack tabs? How are they used?
Thanks for indulging my ignorance.
-
On the jacking tabs I tried to find what I could on these and see what Ford actually called them. The official name for them is "Plate, Front Suspension Lower Arm". So they were not called jacking tabs, but thats been the common name for years everyone has been using.
One thing that seems for sure is the owner was not expected to crawl under the car and put the trunk jack under there to raise the car. So if these were used for jacking purposes it would have been with a floor jack or a shop lift.
As far as the shape of them cant say for sure why they had different shapes. Makes more sense to me that the square tabs came on the earlier cars like Bob is saying especially since the drawing I attached in my first post here shows the rounded style with a C6 engineering number.
-
MARCUS and BOB
images from a unrestored 66 that I own.
i hope this is what you are looking for
regards
PHILL BERESFORD
MELBOURNE.
AUSTRALIA.
-
Thanks Phil. Makes perfect sense.
In my opinion.... what I think we are seeing here is that the square jacking tabs came on earlier cars (1965?) with no clear date or time period when it went to the rounded style but those came second.
As for the boots I think the C2 boots came first, followed by the boots with no engineering numbers, and then the C5 boots during this time period. Especially since you see the C5 boots still being used in the 1967 model year seems they were the last version being used.
-
Thanks Phil. Makes perfect sense.
In my opinion.... what I think we are seeing here is that the square jacking tabs came on earlier cars (1965?) with no clear date or time period when it went to the rounded style but those came second.
As for the boots I think the C2 boots came first, followed by the boots with no engineering numbers, and then the C5 boots during this time period. Especially since you see the C5 boots still being used in the 1967 model year seems they were the last version being used.
I agree that there is no clear transition line from the squared style to the other but with that said at the very least the Square tab was used not only in 65 but into 66 . Hopefully we have put to bed the thought that the rounded tab version (C6 in the engineering drawings) was used in 65 as the rough draft article seemed to imply. How far into 66 production is still a question. I would be careful not to give the impression that the rounded tab style started from the beginning of 66 production. I have observed the majority of 66 production cars with the square tab vs. the rounded tab. This how soon transition may also be relative to the different plants. I would also note that some repros have a rounded tab but not the tabs ,nubs whatever coming out sideways as in Phill's picture . That detail is very important in identifying a genuine looking rounded jack tab vs. a repro regardless of on a 66 or the later 67 up lower arm.
-
Also note the retainer plate for the ball joint boot, there's an early flat style and the later curved up edge style.
-
Bob...I will change the language on the 65/ 66 jacking tabs and then we can take another look and see what makes sense.
Charles..I added the two different style boot retainers in the article already. You see that.
The one thing I was hoping someone would comment is the "date codes". The stampings I see on the lower control arms do not appear to be date codes. Doesnt make sense from what I have seen during all these years.
-
MARCUS.
the infamous "date codes" on lower and upper arms. for many years I was under the impression the number and letter sequence would match what we see on other parts and labels for our cars but as I began to look further at my unrestored cars I hit a brick wall. It didn't and still doesn't make sense to me the sequence I am seeing.
the lower arms in my picture have a M6 stamp on both, car in question is a July 66 example
upper arms from the same car are F4???
I have other examples where the lower arms are stamped L5 and the car in question is February 65 and although the stamps arent always crips and legible i have upper arms with a barely 6 visible and nothing else
Mike Murray could be a person to get involved in this matter as well with his 3 unrestored 65 cars
boot retainers like Charles has mentioned was something i only recently discovered as i have been mainly looking at 66 parts. think Charles has a belief the early retainer where flat and the next version was raised like what we still see on NOS control arms with the C7 boots.
another topic we could work our way into is the waffle pattern rivets V's the doom squashed examples. think this could be a 65 V's 66 thing and up but its nice to try and expand our knowledge on such details
regards
PHILL BERESFORD
MELBOURNE.
AUSTRALIA.
-
When I took my original assy line LCAs apart on my 3/2/67 control arms on the Shelby I took a pic of the boots.
Marcus had a pic of the boot part numbers (mine are duplicated here) but here are the other marks.
Great article!
Is the boot changeover another 67 running change?
[edit add date and car of control arm]
-
Phil...from what I see now and my research the domed rivets are what was originally on the 65/66 cars.
If you look at that closer the actual rivets are all the same from 65 to 73. The only thing that changed is the tooling to compress the rivets. They started using a different tooling to compress the rivets starting in 1968 time frame and then all the service parts that Ford was selling had the same waffle pattern on them as well. Thats why you find the C4 service control arms now with a waffle pattern and C7 boots.
Bill...pictures you posed are the C4 (65/66) control arm?
-
MARCUS
ohh how we love the little details
I had a understanding that 65 cars had the squashed domed rivet on the LCA's and this design changed some time in the 66 production year to the waffle pattern and that continues into the c4dz ford service with C7 boots.
The earliest service arm i have with a Yellow ford shipping label is dated 1971 and that also has the waffle pattern rivet
let see what further posts we get
regards
PHILL BERESFORD
MELBOURNE.
AUSTRALIA.
-
Concerning the "date codes" on the lower control arms...
My Aug 65 coupes lower arms are stamped 64. Both of my June 65 built cars are marked F5 . This is a pattern that I have seen on the unrestored cars that I have actively looked for the marks. I was unable to see them on either of the unrestored cars I judged in Fredericksburg this weekend as they were to dirty .
My take is the 64 is a year code and was changed later to a month/year code.
-
Phil...from what I see now and my research the domed rivets are what was originally on the 65/66 cars.
If you look at that closer the actual rivets are all the same from 65 to 73. The only thing that changed is the tooling to compress the rivets. They started using a different tooling to compress the rivets starting in 1968 time frame and then all the service parts that Ford was selling had the same waffle pattern on them as well. Thats why you find the C4 service control arms now with a waffle pattern and C7 boots.
Bill...pictures you posed are the C4 (65/66) control arm?
Marcus -- sorry I should have been clearer so I updated my post to add that this is my 3/2/67 Shelby.
-
Phil...from what I see now and my research the domed rivets are what was originally on the 65/66 cars.
If you look at that closer the actual rivets are all the same from 65 to 73. The only thing that changed is the tooling to compress the rivets. They started using a different tooling to compress the rivets starting in 1968 time frame and then all the service parts that Ford was selling had the same waffle pattern on them as well. Thats why you find the C4 service control arms now with a waffle pattern and C7 boots.
Bill...pictures you posed are the C4 (65/66) control arm?
The 65-67 typically used the domed rivet on the assemblyline from what i have observed over the years. Later service replacement LCA had the waffle pattern on the 65-67 arms.
-
Mike - Its hard to say that the stampings on the lower control arms are really date codes especially in the later years. Havent seen anything that makes sense. Maybe the early years you were looking at makes more sense but I see the same stampings in later years as well.
Bill - thanks those pictures match up to exactly what we are seeing.
Bob - agree and see the same thing.
-
Predominately you see the rounded rivet on the 68 lower arms as well. The majority of the 68 arms I did had the smooth domed rivet. I know there was a transition at some time late 68 because I have yet to see a 69 original lower arm with the smooth dome. Have only seen the waffle pattern on 69 arms. If you look closely there is a difference in the 65/66 smooth dome versus the 67/68 smooth dome as well. The jack tabs on 67/70 arms also vary a little. Some have the small tit sticking out & some have a less predominant wider section sticking out is the best I can explain it. Seems like the skinny tit is more 67 from what I remember, Just my observations.
-
Thanks...good input David.
I did look at the unrestored June 68 built car I have here and it has rounded rivets on it so I will make an edit in what I wrote to accommodate a later transition.
Also, I suppose I can add pictures of small tits and skinny tits as you say in your description....seems people may enjoy that. :o
-
Took me a few days to get back to this thread. I did a Google image search on "small tits" and just realized there is alot of photos not related to automotive.
For the sake of not having others go down the same dark path will just call these tabs. Photo here I think is what we are talking about. Its hard to include these in the write up I have done because there is no clear time I can nail down when one or the other was used but there is two versions. This photo here shows two original control arms and both are the 67 Mustang version.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48766153278_21422147da_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiihob)20190919_163823 (https://flic.kr/p/2hiihob) by Marcus Anghel (https://www.flickr.com/photos/154714213@N02/), on Flickr
-
Uploaded a new version here with a link at the beginning of the thread, and below as well.
Version 1.3
Progressions of jacking tabs in 65/66.
Ball joint retainers for 65/66 - made it more clear the flat style came on earlier cars.
Correct part number for 68/69.
http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf (http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf)
-
What a great job. Do you have evidence to support the use of the red safety dye on the grease plugs used prior to 1968? I ask because the numerous early service NOS 65-67 arms that I have had over the years did not have the red safety dye used on the grease plugs of those years.I have not seen any evidence of that on survivor examples that I have seen over the years even though that dye wasn't meant to last long . Sometimes I have found the dye on the threads of the later year control arm that confirmed its existence on those later versions years after the dye had disappeared on the outside surface. I have not found any on the threads of early arms. Maybe others have?. FYI there are various other fasteners that used the safety dye in later 68 up that were not used on similar areas in 65-67. Maybe some later made service arms had the red dye but I don't think the assemblyline 65-67 ones did. Let me know your thoughts.
-
I haven't seen any evidence of the red dye on the earlier years. Agree that 68 was the year they expanded (greatly) the toque checks on so many things. Even published a flyer/booklet that was given to the workers to support than expectations and the changes. Believe a picture of the cover at least was posted earlier in another thread
-
Thanks Bob for the input. I will need to look thru my photos....but from what I remember I restored a set of original control arms from a 65 K code convertible and those were all original and had red dye on the plugs. The red dye you can see when you unscrew them and see it on the threads and back side of the plug. I will need to confirm, and can post pictures when I find it. Im traveling now so when I get back will look for that.
Jeff - what flyer/booklet are you referencing exactly? Do we have that thread here somewhere on the forum?
-
Thanks Bob for the input. I will need to look thru my photos....but from what I remember I restored a set of original control arms from a 65 K code convertible and those were all original and had red dye on the plugs. The red dye you can see when you unscrew them and see it on the threads and back side of the plug. I will need to confirm, and can post pictures when I find it. Im traveling now so when I get back will look for that.
Jeff - what flyer/booklet are you referencing exactly? Do we have that thread here somewhere on the forum?
Marcus
Is there a small error on page 8? Read the text in the lower right corner.
John
-
Jeff - what flyer/booklet are you referencing exactly? Do we have that thread here somewhere on the forum?
Believe it was a in house "news" thing they produced at each plant. Believe it was a special edition and it was related to some new standards/expectations including some new markings on the assembly manuals and inspection forms used in each plant.
Don't think we've posted copies or had a specific discussion about the changes or push for 68 production
-
John - Your right page 8 is a mistake. i will correct that on the next version as I add more material.
Jeff - The 68 changes we are talking about here would be interesting to expand on if we have enough information...maybe in a different thread. Would like to explore that a bit more espcially how it relates to this discussion here.
-
Found this today. Not seen these types before! Came from a 66 Shelby, but do not know if they are originals or not. Both have the C5 rubber.
-
Found this today. Not seen these types before! Came from a 66 Shelby, but do not know if they are originals or not. Both have the C5 rubber.
Those would be the earlier style squared off tabs ,65 until the later part of 66 Mustang /Shelby IMO. Notice the end link hole . It looks like the rubber failed and the bolt walked over and over time wore a notch into the side of the hole.
-
Those would be the earlier style squared off tabs ,65 until the later part of 66 Mustang /Shelby IMO. Notice the end link hole . It looks like the rubber failed and the bolt walked over and over time wore a notch into the side of the hole.
Maybe, but they do have the later style retainer plate!
-
Maybe, but they do have the later style retainer plate!
Picture shows two different lower arms based on the two different tab. More likely one or the other is not original to the car rather then both original.
-
Totally agree with Bob here.
John, what exactly are you saying you have not seen before? Clearly the hole in the center is from the sway bar links failing - I havent ever seen that before either like that. You can actually see the witness marks where the rubber has moved.
-
Totally agree with Bob here.
John, what exactly are you saying you have not seen before? Clearly the hole in the center is from the sway bar links failing - I havent ever seen that before either like that. You can actually see the witness marks where the rubber has moved.
Just wish I could hear that at least once from Spec Ed . :D :D
-
Totally agree with Bob here.
John, what exactly are you saying you have not seen before? Clearly the hole in the center is from the sway bar links failing - I havent ever seen that before either like that. You can actually see the witness marks where the rubber has moved.
Marcus
Was thinking about the holes for the sway bar links. They are so nice and even! Would look at them again later this week.
Thanks
John
-
Ok...yes. Those holes are not original.
-
Ok...yes. Those holes are not original.
Ok. Thanks
John
-
Ok bob i totally agree to disagree (now u heard it). I think the tabs tits nubs whatever u want to call them came about from when the metal was first stamped flat and the tabs were left on both sides of the rectangular shaped jack tabs to hold them together then they were stamped into the U shape and then tabs sheared off. Kinda like the eyelets on battery cable & ground straps and wireing eyelets ends all held together then break them off as they are used. I have a roll of wiring end eyelets that all have the little tabs still holding them all together yet. On the c7wy lower arm the 4 hole pattern is different because of the unique 1 year only 2 part strut rod system used on 67 cougars only. Also the 70 & up change in the sway bar end link hole big washer being used on the top side may have something to do with the 8 new bigger washers being used on the 1970 & up comp suspension cars end link kits because of new 14x7'' & 15x7''wider rims and tires being used. I had these unique Bigger washers made for the 70 & up comp suspension strut rod kits since they were never serviced by ford only used on the assembly line but they are a very slow seller because most restorers never noticed this little detail but there is a note about this in 70 assembly manual. Also the new 70 bigger upper sway bar hole washer has 2 side tabs that disappeared late on the 70 lower arms and not on 71 & up d1oz arm big upper washer. Back 20 years ago or so i had 400 upper & lower a-arms here we hauled back from the rustfree southwest on many trips back when u could find them stacked up in junkyards before the big metal crush began and nobody was buying them.
-
Made some changes based on previous comments and some mistakes I found....now version 1.4a There is a separate thread now on the upper control arm section so if you have any comments or questions go to that one.
http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf (http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf)
-
Marcus,
Nice. Tomorrow I'll have to look at my 65-66 lower arms.
I did get an Adobe error message on page 16, some of the pictures on page 18 "blinked" in and out, and page 23 was blank. I assume that's a download problem on my part, so I'll download it again.
Jim
-
All the pages should work.....I would try again. And yes, page 23 is blank as this is still a work in progress and not done so there will be more pages added as it grows.
-
An excellent technical write-up.
I do have a question regarding 67 and 68 interchangeability as noted on page 5.
Although a 68 LCA will not interchange Into a 67 due to strut rod changes, I thought that 67 LCAs would fit 68s.
It's not concours, but I thought it bolted up correctly.
-
An excellent technical write-up.
I do have a question regarding 67 and 68 interchangeability as noted on page 5.
Although a 68 LCA will not interchange Into a 67 due to strut rod changes, I thought that 67 LCAs would fit 68s.
It's not concours, but I thought it bolted up correctly.
Only if using the same year strut rods for arms used.
-
Yes...I dont get into any of those hypothetical cases of can you make this or that work on this or that year. The answer is you can make anything work Im sure.
Im just focusing on what is correct and original for that year and people can take it from there.
-
I had to go out into the shop and dig out a set of 68 strut rods I had and a 67 arm.
I thought the bolt distance on the two holes of the 68 match the distance on the 67s.
As the picture shows, they do not.