ConcoursMustang Forums

Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Drivetrain => Topic started by: lathamjr on June 05, 2015, 11:13:48 PM

Title: 65 200 belt question
Post by: lathamjr on June 05, 2015, 11:13:48 PM
I recently purchased a 65 coupe with a 200 inline. I've seen repop belts with ink-stamped markings but not with the logo and number stamped into the belt. The part number stamped into the belt is C3DE-8620-B. Is this possibly an original, or at least very old, belt? Any idea when these belts were last made like this?
Title: Re: 65 200 belt question
Post by: J_Speegle on June 05, 2015, 11:49:24 PM
Stamped belts were produced well into the 70's depending on the style of the stamping and the construction of the belt.

Post a picture and we'll get a better idea of what you've got
Title: Re: 65 200 belt question
Post by: lathamjr on June 06, 2015, 01:48:26 AM
Everything in the pics but the radiator hose is probably original. The Fomoco is just before the C.
Title: Re: 65 200 belt question
Post by: J_Speegle on June 06, 2015, 05:42:53 AM
Don't have any with the Ford oval in pictures - Have ones with the rectangle FoMoCo that look to be dated, to the right of the part number in your picture - you might want to check. The style with the FoMoCo (inline with the belt printing, cut edges non-wrapped) seems to have been produced at least into the  appears to extend into the into 67 production at least from what I have.

IF yours has a date that would help connect to your cars time period.

We doing better than the other places you posted the question?  Just kidding :)
Title: Re: 65 200 belt question
Post by: lathamjr on August 05, 2015, 11:16:10 PM
I pulled the belt off the car to get a better look at the markings.
To me, it appears to be FOMOCO logo, C3DE-8620-B, MADE IN USA, AU 43
Does the AU 43 say anything about it?
Title: Re: 65 200 belt question
Post by: J_Speegle on August 06, 2015, 08:49:58 PM
........Does the AU 43 say anything about it?

My guess was it identified the maker (sub contractor) and the date.  Likely using the Julian calendar