ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 67gtasanjose on September 08, 2016, 02:40:31 PM
-
Any pictures of unrestored starters would be great. Details I wish to see include the small block ink stamp for Auto Trans car, paint transition or fade to the aluminum nose cone to try and duplicate factory details (maybe make an ink stamp too?)
Build date of 11/2/1966
Somehow I get the feeling this ink stamped version (below) is generic, not correct
-
Ok - lets deal with the finish/paint detail first Some examples that have been posted in other threads
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/8/6-300817184948-8604565.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-300615145712.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/2/6-280514201847.jpeg)
-
Any pictures of unrestored starters would be great. Details I wish to see include the small block ink stamp for Auto Trans car, paint transition or fade to the aluminum nose cone to try and duplicate factory details (maybe make an ink stamp too?)
Build date of 11/2/1966
Somehow I get the feeling this ink stamped version (below) is generic, not correct
The stamp on the starter in your picture looks like someone took the current reproduction sticker and had a stamp made from that. IMHO not even close in many ways.
From earlier discussions we see that the ink stamp and stamping into the metal case likely overlapped for a number of months - different plants doing different practices for a while. Latest AUTOLITE ink stamp examples I've seen was May 67. Those starter likely were installed on cars during June and possibly into July or later.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11000.msg66530#msg66530 (http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11000.msg66530#msg66530)
For your application I do have a Oct 66 stamped starter picture which indicates that by that date the supplier had moved from the FoMoCO stamp design to the AUTOLITE design.
-
Digging up bones:
Trying to determine what engineering number is correct for a Nov. '66 built 289 Auto Trans Mustang.
C7AF-11001-A
C7AF-11001-B
I want to say it is the 11001-B number based on my 1975 Master Parts Catalog.
According to what I find through a quick research, it looks as though I should have the AUTOLITE logo ink stamp, NOT the FoMoCo version.
I would also think that lead time for a date code should be about 3-4 weeks for the starter, given other dates throughout my 11/2/1966 built San Jose exaple. Does anyone else have information that can help prove or disprove any of these theories? Maybe the 67 MPC manual has more help? (I only have an illustrated 67 MPC to use and din't find help in it)
-
Trying to determine what engineering number is correct for a Nov. '66 built 289 Auto Trans Mustang.
From an April 68 MPC page (interesting since it has caused tons of issues for owner) They don't list different starters for different transmissions for Mustangs as they do for other models. Since this is likely an oversight I offer the following possibility
67 289 w/Automatic - C4OF-1101-A or C7AF1101-B
67 289 w/3 & 4 Spd - C6AF-1101-B or C7AF-1101-D
These are listed as identification numbers - different from part numbers or replacement part numbers
For others - other years have different identification numbers that those listed above though the same issue of no difference for Mustang applications but different ones for other Ford models remain. And we thought all those wrong starters we got from parts houses was they fault - now it appears that it may have started with Ford
I would also think that lead time for a date code should be about 3-4 weeks for the starter, given other dates throughout my 11/2/1966 built San Jose example...........
Have a couple 66 San Jose example where the starter was dated same month as the projected build date assigned to the car.
Can't determine weeks (could be sure even if I could with just a projected date) since the stamping style didn't always include the day of month on the starter
-
That's real weird Jeff, as I just received an old C3 nose without the later reinforcements and looked up the part numbers on the 60-68 MPC. I wanted to know what ink stamp it would eventually have.
In the pic, yellow denotes starter identification numbers (the ink stamp?) for 1967 289 vehicles.
The C6AF-11001-B shows up for 289 3/4 speeds on other car lines, but not the F (Mustang).
The C7AF-11001-D shows up for 289 3/4 speeds on other car lines, but not the F.
The C4OF-11001-A shows up for 289s (No trans stated) for the F car line.
The C7AF-11001-B is also shown for the F car line.
Second picture is of the nose with the reinforcements.
Third is of the part number cast into the nose. I hope this nose is correct for the Shelby.
-
What we've found on unrestored original cars does not always match up in the books showing what parts were used to service the originals. See a number of numbers not represented on that chart. Often allot of cross confusion when using the MPC to determine things. Sometimes it helps to have OS & Y books (think that is the right letters) also when doing the exercise since those (published every few months) showing what part numbers were dropped, replaced and so on.
Looks like that chart does not show your application - 289 4 speed in a Mustang
-
I agree that the MPC is not the be-all.
Anyway, I'm not sure everyone is aware of the differences between the very common (and incorrect) D2AF starter nose and the earlier C3OE version.
The pic I have above of the C3 is dark -- the housing was very dirty.
Here it is cleaned up and compared to D2.
In all pictures the C3 is on the left and D2 on the right.
Once you notice the externally visible reinforcement bumps on the D2 you cannot unsee it. This incorrect nose could be worth up to 2 points in concours (according to MCA)! I'll let the judges chime in if I've misstated the point value.
-
where do you see the 2 pt. deduction in the mca rules?? that part of the nose is buried and cannot be seen. no see---no deductee.
-
where do you see the 2 pt. deduction in the mca rules?? that part of the nose is buried and cannot be seen. no see---no deductee.
The "ribs" or reinforcements are visible especially on 6 cylinder and small block applications. Other details related to the nose itself would be hidden from view
68 Small block install picture - starter detail.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/11/6-280319162924.jpeg)
As far as "rules" (likely better discussed in those sections ) 2 points would be likely the deduction if allot more than just this detail was different from original since 2 is for the complete starter for originality. Its a weighted deduction based from the total.
-
The reinforcements are shown in blue and are highly visible.
Of course, you do not see the area in red.
A wrong nose = a wrong starter. I'm not sure what the deduct would be. Maybe one would get a break for correct paint?
-
A wrong nose = a wrong starter. I'm not sure what the deduct would be. Maybe one would get a break for correct paint?
Not really a "break" but rewarded for getting things like original :)
-
i stand corrected again....thanks jeff!
-
1st Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1967 Starters, does not show A/T or ST though.
2nd Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1968 starters, shows A/T and S/T, on the S/T for 1968 we know that the 289 used a 157 tooth flywheel and the 302 used 16 tooth flywheels.
-
1st Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1967 Starters, does not show A/T or ST though.
2nd Picture from my Mercury MPC for 1968 starters, shows A/T and S/T, on the S/T for 1968 we know that the 289 used a 157 tooth flywheel and the 302 used 16 tooth flywheels.
Always wondered where the mess up of applications of which starter number is correct for which application started. Ford or the aftermarket side. One of the most repeated question and issue it seems across the board for decades. Sorry shouldn't get this off in a new direction
-
Just when you thought it was safe to put that starter in your concours car ...
Although we are wandering a little off the topic of ink stamp type, this does pertain to 289 starters in the first half of the 67 model year.
So far I have identified the correct C3 starter nose.
The barrel should have no stamps.
I believe pic 1 is the correct shape of an early cover as it came off the C3 starter.
The rear cover band is the style that does not have a hole near the top cover cutout (pic 2).
The band nut is square and the screw is slotted.
And then on to the brush holder, pic 3.
Top left is an oval circled FoMoCo branded cover. A rebuilder changed the brush holders and insulators and used pop rivets. Note how few of the stamped in alignment tabs there are. This might be very early (guess).
Middle top is also an oval circled FoMoCO (very faint) that had two of the insulated holders changed out (4:00 o'clock).
Top right appears to be a FoMoCo version, although I can't find a stamp. The rivets appear to be original and look exactly like the rivets at the 10:00 o'clock position of top middle holder.
Bottom is a badly made generic brush holder that has little in common with the top three.
I'm suspecting that the only correct style in this bunch is top right, due to cover design and the use of solid rivets. I suspect pop rivets are only used in re-manufactured starters and are easily spotted as incorrect (I believe).
Comments?
-
Always wondered where the mess up of applications of which starter number is correct for which application started. Ford or the aftermarket side. One of the most repeated question and issue it seems across the board for decades. Sorry shouldn't get this off in a new direction
Didn't think that I was going in a new direction.
1968 numbers are repeats of 1967, but with explanations.
C7AF-11001-B is for 289/302 with automatic
C7AF-11001-D is for 289 with M/T
C7AF-11001-F is for 302 with M/T
-
Didn't think that I was going in a new direction.
No - I was starting down that path
-
I took some pics of original starter stamps using the nut on the positive post as a guide (9/16") and scaled it in my drawing program and came up with a 3" x 1" stamp.
Can anyone verify this size?
-
I took some pics of original starter stamps using the nut on the positive post as a guide (9/16") and scaled it in my drawing program and came up with a 3" x 1" stamp.
Can anyone verify this size?
Away for a day or so but could measure when I return home. Never found scaling to be very accurate for me. Eyeballing it (printing examples at steps of 1/32 or 16th and inch ) always worked better for me.
-
With the help of many here at the forum -- you know who you are -- I have finally completed the starter!
Here are the tools and paint I used:
*Custom rubber stamp
* Vintage Hunt Speedball - No.64 Brayer Soft Rubber 4" Roller 4126 PrintMaster
* Magazine page
* White paint of your choice
As Jeff has stated previously, a few drops on a magazine page (to give the paint some texture).
I rolled the paint flat with the soft rubber brayer spreading it thin.
Roll the paint that's on the brayer onto the stamp making sure all areas are covered.
Roll the stamp onto the starter barrel.
You need to practice to get the timing right between rolling the paint on the brayer and rolling it onto the part. I tried not to line up the stamp with the starter perfectly as that would look odd. These things were pumped out by the thousands, so neatness is not a virtue.
Please note that acrylic is great since you you can water wash it off with a rag if you goof.
But it's not real hardy (like the original) and if you use this paint type you might want to opt for some "Dead Flat" or "Satin" clear over the top.
Because of the discussions to be had with paint properties, etc I'll remove the paint I used and leave that to you.
[edit: s/tired/tried/]
-
Nice work!
-
Nice work!
Thanks. You guys set some really high standards here.
There are some ridiculous hours into this thing.
-
Thanks. You guys set some really high standards here.
And now they are your standards also. Would have been so much easier to just slap on a Chinese or other starter from some online parts site, corner parts house or Ebay but you would not be so proud of the outcome and the accomplishment. Because of the commitment and involvement you are now part of the car not just an owner with a credit car.
Looks good. Now on to the next challenge :)
-
That looks great but I think the round cover was only used through 65 maybe early 66 . Sorry I didn't see it before but after reviewing the thread saw where you had posted it previously. Those round covers are very hard to find. The ribbed type is much more common.
-
Parts of this starter came from an early starter -- big Ford I think.
I have two of the round nose covers in case anyone is interested (hint, hint). One from this starter and another not quite so nice.
From this thread I believe this bulbous cover was mentioned:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=18166.0
I have this cover, which might be more appropriate (see pics).
-
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/12/6-160519152301.jpeg)
-
Thanks, Jeff.
I have a lot of different covers. Just not that one. Close, but ...
Off to the Monroe swap meet this Saturday!
-
I've been conversing with another user offline about his starter.
That lead me to look again at two detail items about early (65-68) starters. I included 68 since they appear to have the nose cone and other details in common with earlier starter, but differ in the barrel encoding and drive cover.
After viewing the starter, that appears original, from my 65 A-code it appears I've made a few assumptions that may or may not be true. See first two pics of this filthy beast.
First, the long bolts that go through the bush holder to the nose cone.
My 65 has flat, no name or physical marking bolts with built-in washers/shoulders.
Later bolts have the inverted cone or look like the ends have been drilled.
The early Ford starter (somewhere in the 62-65 time frame) I used as the basis for a lot of parts in my 67 starter have the drill style bolts.
Any old stock starters out there that validate a date change or perhaps this is simply a different vendor? Maybe the drilled bolts are rebuilder-only bolts and I have this wrong?
Second, the brush holder. Both examples shown here are FoMoCo/oval circle holders. Never mind the rebuilder pop rivets in these examples. My 65 version, top, has only 6 tabs for holding the brush holder securely centered in the barrel. The other example shows 8.
Any old stock starters out there that validate a date change or perhaps this is simply a different vendor?
-
I bought a core to build mine, no idea what it came from but it does have the "drilled" style bolts. The brushes cover has original style rivets and block letter FoMoCo logo.
-
I have started a new thread that deals with details spanning across many years.
Please go here: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=20494.msg129250#msg129250
to further discuss starter parts that changed across the years (65-69).
[Grammar edit.]