ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 67gtasanjose on January 23, 2018, 09:17:15 AM
-
Since GTA COUPES are an anomaly in their own right, and without having original springs in place, what would we be looking for in Rear Leaf engineering number stampings, plus rear leaf paint stripes?
...and while we are at, we might as well answer what the 289 front coils would be most likely marked. (I believe there was another thread on front springs ~on fastbacks though)
*related options that could affect answers:
~COUPE GTA
~289
~C4 Trans
~WITH Select-Aire
~without Competition Suspension
(I recently saw an image of an unrestored GTA Coupe in this thread: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17310.0;topicseen
I'm hoping such details may have been noticed ;)
-
A couple of questions that might narrow it down before I look through the data
AC - non AC?
When was the car built? (Marks and parts can change during the production year)
If you had your original rear springs it would help since I have records of springs with marks out of cars (no VIN or car info attached) but with marks so that is another was to relate marks to vehicles
-
A couple of questions that might narrow it down before I look through the data
AC - non AC?
When was the car built? (Marks and parts can change during the production year)
If you had your original rear springs it would help since I have records of springs with marks out of cars (no VIN or car info attached) but with marks so that is another was to relate marks to vehicles
Yes AC (in my specs as "Select-Aire", so factory air), Car built 11/2/66 (in signature) and no, do not have original rear springs, which is why I ask ;)
-
Yes AC (in my specs as "Select-Aire", so factory air), Car built 11/2/66 (in signature) and no, do not have original rear springs, which is why I ask ;)
Sorry wasn't sure that this was for the car in your signature since it didn't mention the GTA and some of the other details. No problem
So looked through what I have - starting from easier with stronger proof to less
- No buildsheets that match your cars options and time period :(
- No pictures of paint marks identified as matching your cars options and time period :(
- Went to a 67 MPC to see what they had. It shows that your car may have been equipped with front springs marked with a Violet and an Orange stripe. Rear springs identified (Ford change the type of rear spring 13 days later) as a C7AZ-AJ. Unfortunately cross referencing that number with my other pictures came up with no matches.
Best I have right now. No idea if we will get lucky tomorrow and find something that would help
-
All I can offer is this, acknowledging up front that San Jose data is the most elusive, and the other assembly plant colors may not cross over. But since there is a lack of data...
1. Front springs, 7T01A260xxx, GT coupe (manual trans), no air, YELLOW VIOLET - same as what I found on my San Jose GTA C code fastback. Copy of Jan 67 MPC attached.
2. Rear springs, 7T01A260xxx, GT coupe (manual trans), no air, ORANGE PINK - unfortunately my originals (C7ZA-5556-AE) were sand blasted off in 1981.
Unfortunately that's all I have.
-
All I can offer is this, acknowledging up front that San Jose data is the most elusive, and the other assembly plant colors may not cross over. But since there is a lack of data...
Have a handful of GT's also - just no GTAs. Richards car also is a thermactor car with make it different from the NJ examples you and I have also :(
Thought we might get lucky but appears timing is off this time
-
At the risk of adding to the "spring confusion", I am attaching copies from the 1960-68 MPC of the 1967 Rear Leaf Springs (1 sheet) and of the front coil springs (5 sheets). It appears to me that these listings are more detailed and easier to follow than those in the 1967 only MPC, and definitely more appropriate than those in the 1965-72 MPC.
Admittedly, there is no differentiation as to what one Factory might have done compared to another, Therefore, treat the attached as what Ford intended.
Bob
-
Sorry wasn't sure that this was for the car in your signature since it didn't mention the GTA and some of the other details. No problem
So looked through what I have - starting from easier with stronger proof to less
- No buildsheets that match your cars options and time period :(
- No pictures of paint marks identified as matching your cars options and time period :(
- Went to a 67 MPC to see what they had. It shows that your car may have been equipped with front springs marked with a Violet and an Orange stripe. Rear springs identified (Ford change the type of rear spring 13 days later) as a C7AZ-AJ. Unfortunately cross referencing that number with my other pictures came up with no matches.
Best I have right now. No idea if we will get lucky tomorrow and find something that would help
I always appreciate everyone's help in such matters. Thanks everyone. I see the front springs do match what the 68 MPC show but Jeff, I have to wonder if perhaps you mis-read the MPC on the rear springs after seeing Bobs image from the 68 MPC. (see attachment image ~I do not have "Competition Handling").
Presumably, by what the 68 MPC is showing, a 65 Body Type GTA or GT (coupe) would have "Improved Handling"??...am I reading things correctly? If I am reading things correctly, then it looks as though a Fastback ought to have had the same FRONT & REAR SPRINGS as a coupe would have had on it?
If this is true, then it boils down to just the "other options", not so much "Coupe Only"...again, this can be a "research-changer" on looking at other unrestored examples.
Thanks also John & Bob, mostly the images from the 68 MPC that seem to help tremendously with this discussion.
Below I have attached the images of what looks to be the correct findings in that 68 MPC. Again, check my findings please. I know all of the various options can add to the load requirements for the springs. Perhaps we can find other vehicles such as fastbacks that may have the correct paint stripes on them that ought to be found on my Coupe, that is according to the build date and location.
-
I always appreciate everyone's help in such matters. Thanks everyone. I see the front springs do match what the 68 MPC show but Jeff, I have to wonder if perhaps you mis-read the MPC on the rear springs after seeing Bobs image from the 68 MPC........................
Went back and cross referenced known cars, paint markings, spring numbers and the MPC and I can see where this got a bit jumbled for me.
Here is a picture of a page from April 68 MPC. You will notice that the ordered that the info is presented is standard, for competition handling GT only then & improved handling only. Its interesting that the and sign was inserted between the engine size and the suspension description in the improved section but not in the other two. This difference in order may have added to my confusion.
Now to confirm the applications I took spring numbers from know cars (taking into consideration options and accessories) and they seem to match in all but a couple of examples. Apparently one set of data may have come from a comp suspension car that I and the owner did not realize. Seems a bit strange to have located a fair number of these very rare cars.
There are a couple of springs used in 67 production that are not included in any of the MPC's and there is no mention of the substitution or replacement but realize that the real guide to this is a separate/book book that shows casting numbers and conversion (new) part number that was published often. Right now can't find anything that shows application for C7AZ-Y and C7AZ-AY
Another thing that added a twist is export cars with the improved or standard suspension parts.
So as right now my understanding that for this exercise and for rear springs
"improved" equals GT and GTA application in 67 while & competition handling GT equals Shelby's and cars ordered with competition suspension.
Here is a picture of the April 68 page for rear springs
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-250118191922.jpeg)
So in an attempt to find an answer to your first question would you agree that your car likely/possibly came equipped with rear springs marked C7ZA-5556-AU or AV?
Believe the "C7ZZ" is just a typo
-
For what it's worth, my original date coded rear springs, 67 GTA 289 fastback, have the AE springs, and those are not listed in the 67 or 68 MPC.
-
For what it's worth, my original date coded rear springs, 67 GTA 289 fastback, have the AE springs, and those are not listed in the 67 or 68 MPC.
Yes one issue with using the MPC for info over the year is that it appears that it does not always show the original parts but only what was available to the parts counter workers at the time of printing to sell so there are gaps and holes in the info. Because of this practice Richards are may have originally had a different spring that what is listed on the page and in turn different markings (paint marks)
Thanks for another data point for the old spreadsheet ;)
-
For what it's worth, my original date coded rear springs, 67 GTA 289 fastback, have the AE springs, and those are not listed in the 67 or 68 MPC.
Yes one issue with using the MPC for info over the year is that it appears that it does not always show the original parts but only what was available to the parts counter workers at the time of printing to sell so there are gaps and holes in the info. Because of this practice Richards are may have originally had a different spring that what is listed on the page and in turn different markings (paint marks)
Thanks for another data point for the old spreadsheet ;)
These two points (John's original example and the fact that not all springs are listed in the MPC) are exactly what have me baffled at the moment. If I am reading the 68 MPC (pictured previously) correctly, it would seem the "load rate" for fastbacks and coupes would essentially be the same as long as the options stack up to achieve the same load.
This may end up going into the old "educated guess" category.
If (and I emphasize "IF") the load rate of a 'similarly equipped fastback' is essentially the same, it would SEEM (and I emphasize the word "seem") that a GTA coupe would likely have been issued the same rear spring as a GTA fastback. Would others agree or have an opinion along this train of thought? (basing the decision/opinion using 'current known research', since original examples are all but impossible to locate).
-
This may end up going into the old "educated guess" category.
A second choice , since the end goal is the correct paint marking, is to choose not to apply a mark until you have better info to base the choice on. Just a consideration.
If (and I emphasize "IF") the load rate of a 'similarly equipped fastback' is essentially the same, it would SEEM (and I emphasize the word "seem") that a GTA coupe would likely have been issued the same rear spring as a GTA fastback. ......................
[/quote]
- So I guess that your (going by the MPCs) looking at -AV or -AU rear springs. Who's rating (625 lb) matches 4 other spring groups -S, -AF, -AJ, -AN, -AR,
A few thoughts
- First if those were the original springs we don't currently know if both had the same paint marks. Your original focus and purpose for the thread
- Comparing other cars and springs (in this example S code GT and GTA) with more documentation that we have for the small block GT and GTAs conflicts appear. The posted MPC pages and buildsheets show/suggest that the coupe and fastback built at the same time, equipped the same way would have received different rear springs.
For example all from about the same time period - After the date listed as the change date in the MPC
GT fastback - projected build date (PBD) of Dec 6 - One set of colors
GTA fastback - projected build date (PBD) of Jan 24 - Different set of colors
- Another twist. Looking at 67 small block GTs without AC I have two different paint markings but the changeover does not align with the MPC date unless the car was built two weeks earlier or its an example of the listed date being a soft date.
- Did anyone else notice - or maybe I'm missing it on the MPCs, where is the section listing 67 with improved suspension (as we're accepting represent GT and GTA) built before 10/26/66?
As mentioned before been here before and it becomes a circular exercise at points but maybe we can figure something out.
-
Thanks again for your input Jeff.
Yeah, I suppose I should just wait it out, not likely ever to be doing this example Thorobreds, just trying to get as much as I can, correct as possible as I move through these segments of the project. I get the feeling that if I leave it "unmarked", I'll never get back to marking them.
-
Yeah, I suppose I should just wait it out, not likely ever to be doing this example Thorobreds, just trying to get as much as I can, correct as possible as I move through these segments of the project. I get the feeling that if I leave it "unmarked", I'll never get back to marking them.
Not really about some made up class but instead the goal of restoring and your need/wish to return the car as close and complete as possible to how the car was originally built. Once we find the answer it will feel so much better to have something you can fell confident applying - and the info will pop up. By posting and having this discussion you have allot more eyes keeping a look out for you :)
-
Probably not much help but here are the springs on our 11-04-66 GTA convertible.
-
Marty, to be clear is that a 289 convertible? AC? Thermactor? Just in case we put a document together. Thanks, John
-
Yes a convertible 289 w/ AC no thermactor.
-
Before we get any deeper into "what spring goes with what package (Option)", I believe that in order to avoid any further confusion, at least for me, we need to get "availabilities" straightened out (while right now we are concentrating on the rear leaf springs, the comments also apply to the front coil springs).
For 1967, I see 4 different choices :
1) "Standard", Regular Production Springs for each Body Style.
2) "Heavy Duty" Springs that were part of the "Special Handling Package" that was
included with the GT Option.
3) "Extra Stiff" Springs that were included with the "Competition Package" , which
could only be ordered if the GT Option were ordered.
4) "Springs" that were part of the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option, which apparently
could be ordered for any car, regardless of engine.
These four choices bring with them, a couple of questions :
1) Were the "Heavy Duty" Springs furnished with the GT Option, the same as the "Springs" furnished with the Heavy Duty Suspension" Option ?
2) Does the "Improved Handling" designation noted in the MPC's refer to the Springs
furnished with the GT Option or those furnished with the Heavy Duty Suspension
Option, or to both ?
It seems like the only way to get the answers to these questions is by using both the Marti Report and the Build Sheets from a vehicle being "investigated". I say this because my "guess" (since I do not have any of the three suspension Options), is that the Marti Report would only list the Option, not its specific contents. Has this been done before ?
If not, doing it in itself may be a challenge. As Jeff noted, many changes were made between the printings of the MPC's ; 1967 Only (January 1967), 1960-68 MPC (April or August 1968), and 1965-72 MPC (May of 1975). While I have at least one OSI (Obsolete-Superceded-Interchange) Book from every year from 1961-1974, plus 76,77,79 and 81, they only reference Part Numbers,. not Casting/Marking Numbers. So, as long as the Part Number changed along with the specific contents (which is usually, but not always the case), we can track the changes that occurred between the MPC printings. Although I have never seen one, it would be helpful if there existed a chart, like those shown in the MPC's, that related the Spring Part Numbers to their marked contents, for the changes that occurred between MPC's.
Any documented help in resolving these questions will surely help in our further pursuit of the Spring applications.
Bob
-
In my searches over the weekend, I came across these REAR Springs that look to have the correct date code on them. They are claimed to be off of a coupe and the car they were removed from is from Southern California, but no other details known at this time. Looking at the charts, I do not find the C7ZA-Y Springs listed. I noticed the numbers are stamped into the Springs sideways when compared to other examples shown so far.
-
So I did look at my front springs and I think we are on the right track with them. Both have orange and a light purple (violet) daubs down them. ( photos of violet is rather unpronounced).
This to say, I believe I already have the original front Springs in place and it looks to match what is shown in the chart posted earlier in the MPC.
Still looking to see if anybody can find any information about those C7-Y Springs I posted in my previous reply to this one.
Another thing I was noticing while looking at some of the MPC pages that have been posted on the coil springs, in the footnotes at the bottom of each page there indicates a daimond symbol, and an open diamond indicates "improved handling" while a closed or filled in Diamond indicates "racing only". For the rear leaf springs, it is spelled out if it is improved handing or competition suspension. Further, there looks to be NO front coils for SMALL BLOCKS with "Improved or Competition" (unless I am missing something)
-
So I did look at my front springs and I think we are on the right track with them. Both have orange and a light purple (violet) daubs down them. ( photos of violet is rather unpronounced).
Great
Still looking to see if anybody can find any information about those C7-Y Springs I posted in my previous reply to this one.
I have examples of the -Y being used on standard suspension (non-GT) small block auto applications. The details on the spring match buildsheets of the matching time period so believe that is what they were originally install on so it does not look like they were the original ones for your application
Another thing I was noticing while looking at the MPC pages that have been posted, in the footnotes at the bottom of each page there indicates a daimond symbol, and an open diamond indicates "improved handling" while a closed or filled in Diamond indicates "racing only". For whatever it is worth, neither of these appear to have been used in any of the listings of the MPC for any small block applications for a 1967.
Guess your referring back to the front spring section now. Yes not sure why Ford choose to do that since we know they built and sold parts for those applications. Will take a look at the earlier 68 version to see what they have there related to this specific detail
Have also found where the symbols shown at the bottom of the page (in other sections and versions) do not always exactly match what is used in the charts but they are sometimes similar. Guess they expected the counter workers to figure it all out
-
Richard : This one took a little digging. In looking at the 1965-72 MPC (copy attached), I found that the C7ZA-5556-Y Spring was replaced by Springs C4DA-5556-U, C7ZA-5556-M, and/or C7ZA-5556-Z, the whole Spring Assembly now being noted C4DZ-5560-J (this assembly was originally shown for a 1964 Falcon with either 6 cylinder or 260 V8 ; it obviously would have only included the C4DA-5556-U Spring). While this shows the disposition of the C7ZA-5556-Y Spring, it doesn't show from where it came.
Time for a little "Reverse Engineering". I started with the 1966 OSI to see if the C4DZ-5560-J replaced a C7ZZ Spring Assembly. Nothing in the 1966,67 or 1968 OSI's. But in the July 1969 OSI, it shows that the C7ZZ-5560-B was "Replaced By" the C4DZ-5560-J. So it can be said that sometime between July 1968 and July 1969, this occurred. At this point, I went back to the 1960-68 MPC to see what it noted for the C7ZZ-5560-B Spring Assembly ; lo and behold, it shows that Springs that made up the Spring Assembly were C7ZA-5556-M and or -Z. I then went to my 1967 "Only" MPC, and it also shows that the C7ZZ-5560-B included the C7ZA-5556-M and/or -Z Springs. Based on these findings, since the "-M and -Z" are shown as replacing the "-Y", one can now make an "educated guess" that the "-Y" preceded them ; specifically, sometime between the initial production of 1967 Mustangs, and January of 1967.
To continue this "exercise", I decided to check the OSI's that followed, up through 1974, to see if any other changes occurred prior to the May 1975 printing of the 1965-72 MPC.
Below is listed what I found in each year OSI that was checked :
JULY 1970 - C7ZZ-5560-B r/b C4DZ-5560-J
C7ZZ-5560-C r/b C7ZZ-5560-M
C7ZZ-5560-D r/b C7ZZ-5560-N
C7ZZ-5560-K r/b C7ZZ-5560-T
C7ZZ-5560-N r/b C7ZZ-5560-M
C7ZZ-5560-U r/b C7ZZ-5560-T
C7ZZ-5560-L NR
JULY 1971 - Same as 1970
JANUARY 1972 - Same as 1971 PLUS
C7ZZ-5560-J r/b C7ZZ-5560-M
JULY 1974 - Same as 1972 PLUS the following :
C7ZZ-5560-G NR
C7ZZ-5560-H NR
C7ZZ-5560-R NR
From here, the 1965-72 MPC "takes over". I did not continue beyond it.
So Richard, I hope this explains where the C7ZA-5556-Y fits into the picture.
As I mentioned in a previous Reply, OSI books only include Part Numbers, not marking or casting numbers. Thus trying to track the existence of a certain part can be laborious. In this "exercise", I used the 1967 Only MPC, the 1960-68 MPC, the 1965-72 MPC, and 8 different OSI's. In this case, I was able to relate the Part Numbers to the Spring marking numbers as they were actually noted under the different Part Numbers in the MPC's. Many times they mat be listed in one source, but not in another, and sometimes, not at all.
Personal Note to "67gta289" - John : This is a perfect example of the use and benefit (at least in this case) of the OSI's.
Bob
-
Interesting Bob and thanks for taking all that time (been there done that) going through the books.
It is interesting that Ford took 5 years before they saw a need to include the -Y in a MPC. Kind of odd nut its there. Since the M 7 Z marked springs were being used to replace the Y spring we can guess that the original rating of the Y spring was the same or similar and in turn supports the other finding that it was the low or standard rear spring - not one that was installed on GT, GTA or comp suspension cars. So we have a three way match from documentation.
Unfortunately that puts the OP back searching again
-
Went back and cross referenced known cars, paint markings, spring numbers and the MPC and I can see where this got a bit jumbled for me.
Here is a picture of a page from April 68 MPC. You will notice that the ordered that the info is presented is standard, for competition handling GT only then & improved handling only. Its interesting that the and sign was inserted between the engine size and the suspension description in the improved section but not in the other two. This difference in order may have added to my confusion.
Now to confirm the applications I took spring numbers from know cars (taking into consideration options and accessories) and they seem to match in all but a couple of examples. Apparently one set of data may have come from a comp suspension car that I and the owner did not realize. Seems a bit strange to have located a fair number of these very rare cars.
There are a couple of springs used in 67 production that are not included in any of the MPC's and there is no mention of the substitution or replacement but realize that the real guide to this is a separate/book book that shows casting numbers and conversion (new) part number that was published often. Right now can't find anything that shows application for C7AZ-Y and C7AZ-AY
Another thing that added a twist is export cars with the improved or standard suspension parts.
So as right now my understanding that for this exercise and for rear springs
"improved" equals GT and GTA application in 67 while & competition handling GT equals Shelby's and cars ordered with competition suspension.
Here is a picture of the April 68 page for rear springs
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-250118191922.jpeg)
So in an attempt to find an answer to your first question would you agree that your car likely/possibly came equipped with rear springs marked C7ZA-5556-AU or AV?
Believe the "C7ZZ" is just a typo
So, (Re: Rear Springs), can we assume that "Improved Handling" springs should be found on ALL GT's & GTA"s?
...WHY SO MANY DANG CODES?
I understand the goal would be the "desired ride height" (particularly in rear) more than how the springs "jounce" since the shock absorbers handle that aspect more than the springs would. (excepting Competition Suspension, no doubt a much stiffer ride).
-
IMHO this is why it is so much easier to restore a car back to what it was instead of what you want it to be if you want it to be correct. I understand you goals, just a tough road.
-
Marty, I'm pretty sure that Richard's car is an original 289 GTA coupe, but the original rear springs are gone, so he is looking to make it correct. The original front springs, due to lack of stamped part numbers, might be right, might be wrong, so he is looking for evidence to make sure it is right. I don't think he is restoring the car to something it wasn't.
I do agree it is easiest to restore a complete vehicle back to original. Next up would be restoring a car back to original that is missing some key pieces. Making up a car as a tribute or something would be painful to do right, if there is such a thing as right in that regard.
-
Marty, I'm pretty sure that Richard's car is an original 289 GTA coupe, but the original rear springs are gone, so he is looking to make it correct. The original front springs, due to lack of stamped part numbers, might be right, might be wrong, so he is looking for evidence to make sure it is right. I don't think he is restoring the car to something it wasn't.
I do agree it is easiest to restore a complete vehicle back to original. Next up would be restoring a car back to original that is missing some key pieces. Making up a car as a tribute or something would be painful to do right, if there is such a thing as right in that regard.
Both of you are correct in general understanding as I have shared with both of you the desires of my goals.
I had been researching the springs I had on hand, I was pretty sure the fronts were original and the rears were not. The front coil springs were confirmed because of information shared in this thread. They DO HAVE the the violet & orange markings.
The REAR springs have been the last issue to resolve. I cannot un-do the decision years ago to replace them if I do not understand what was at least INTENDED to be there. So far, best match I have located is the correct dated C7-Y springs. It would be nicer to find ones date correct, confirmed through similar build info and with codes that can be confirmed through the charts provided within this thread as 665lb.? load ratings (codes: AS, AT, AU, AV). Obviously, the springs installed at the assemblylines varied (e.g. running changes) over the model year making this search (as Jeff put it earlier) going in circles.
-
I found that I have a pair of these Y springs from a coupe and I also have a AU.
-
I found that I have a pair of these Y springs from a coupe and I also have a AU.
Dated May '67 so the suggestion Bob had about being obsoleted by January has "issues".
Marty, the "AU" you have, just one?
-
Yes I just have one of the AU springs
Here are some pictures The orange/ pink AU are on the 68 J code GT HCS coupe. You can see this pair was side by side when marked.
-
I had been researching the springs I had on hand, I was pretty sure the fronts were original and the rears were not. The front coil springs were confirmed because of information shared in this thread. They DO HAVE the the violet & orange markings.
The REAR springs have been the last issue to resolve. I cannot un-do the decision years ago to replace them if I do not understand what was at least INTENDED to be there....
It would be nicer to find ones date correct, confirmed through similar build info and with codes that can be confirmed through the charts provided within this thread as 665lb.? load ratings (codes: AS, AT, AU, AV).
Regarding the front Springs, I have those restored and ready to go back in when the car is ready. It sure is nice confirming the original front springs under the car, and the car being from Southern California... essentially, rust - free. A quick dip in Rust 911 rust remover and I wipe down with a little oil and they are ready to go back in! Orange & Violet paint daubs are the originals and look very nice without touching up!
NOW, if anyone can help me find some Sept. '66 thru mid October rear GT lower springs, I could be set! (-AS -AT -AU or -AV seem to be good candidates)
-
Would GTA fastback codes be at all helpful?
-
Would GTA fastback codes be at all helpful?
Are these coming from an original example or from a buildsheet?
Depends. For fronts its likely that they would be different
If for rear then it would need to match the time period options and engine type. Of course if these are coming from an original example engineering numbers would tell us if they were the same
The info might be of help with Bob and his spreadsheet project in the other thread. Could always PM him directly
-
Would GTA fastback codes be at all helpful?
The car was my daily driver in the 1990s and is now owned by my son. It is a 7R02A149xxx GTA Fastback (w/GT equipment group),...
...It makes me want to run a Marti on this car!
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=16751.15
Assuming the fastback GTA you mention is the same car you speak of in the other thread (on dual exhaust), it is a bit later build...quite possibly using different -suffix codes than my example would have come with. Regardless, fitment/function-wise, they would be the same. Concours-wise, not as likely given the investigation and findings we have done to this date (Feb. 2018). I believe the date stampings combined with the suffix's of such original examples are the key.
In any event, as Jeff mentioned, it would be helpful to get the date code and suffix codes from those springs. Even better if you had the Marti report to add actual build date to perhaps only a scheduled build date (using data plate and/or vin# as our only clue of the car's date).
For reference only in this comment, consecutive number of my build is mid-127XXX (earlier than the 149XXX I assume is your son's car)
On a seperate thought, I seriously wonder (speculate) if the running changes mentioned in the MPC's (shown earlier within this thread), had anything to do with the tire clearance issue they were having with the Wide Oval tires. Just spit-balling an answer as to "why a running change" on the springs.
-
I found the spring code on 7R01C189340 (no a/c, C4, not a GT) and it's a -Y.
-
I found the spring code on 7R01C189340 (no a/c, C4, not a GT) and it's a -Y.
Base model coupe, what I would now expect to find. Now if we could look at that December built GTA fastback...
-
Since mine is an SJ car, as expected, no build sheet, so no code. But I did uncover Yellow Violet color as stated in reply #4. Also with detailed pictures in a post that is a couple years old now, my how time flies:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?msg=2556;topic=511.0
modified and fixed link - sorry about that
-
You have the words 'action=post' in the url you list.
That won't work.
Try this:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?msg=2556;topic=511.0
-
Ruppstang, do you still have the AU Spring? Please let me know. Thanks.