ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: Paperback Writer on January 30, 2018, 07:06:46 PM
-
I too have been studying 1967 Mustang Rear Leaf Spring Codes/Markings for a long, long time…
I was very fortunate to find the original Green and Silver markings on the C7ZA-5556-AC springs that were installed on my ’67 SJ 390 GTA Convertible (same springs as ruppstang's http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17316.msg109263#msg109263 (http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17316.msg109263#msg109263)) – so that’s a confirmed data point. Attached below is a ROUGH DRAFT of my findings/assumptions in chart form. Please do not consider this chart as 100% accurate - as there are a couple of known anomalies, and a few educated guesses in it – but I wanted to post it here merely to solicit feedback from the rest of the group, and maybe, hopefully, create a useful document in the future. The more eyes on this, the better!
My methodology…
Listings shown in bold black contain data pulled directly from Build Sheets (mostly from Metuchen, but a few from Dearborn and San Jose as well). It appears that all three plants used the same color coding system, but they may have applied the markings at different locations on the springs.
For the entries taken directly from the Build Sheets, I have entered the earliest and latest planned assembly dates shown on the sheets. As we all know, these do not necessarily reflect the actual assembly dates, but they’re all we have.
Next to the Build Sheet dates, I have entered the earliest and latest “effective” dates from the various Ford MPCs. It appears that the Build Sheet dates seem line up with the MPC effective dates, but I’m sure we’ll find some more anomalies as we go along.
Perhaps the biggest leap-of-faith is my attempt to align the Rear Spring Markings from the Build Sheets with the Part Numbers from the MPCs – and this is where I am looking for ALL of the experts here to poke holes in my theories, point out errors, typos, and/or provide additional confirmations of Markings and Part Number parings to add more clarity. For example, I’ve seen Part Number “C7ZA-5556-AE” mentioned on this forum a few times, and I still need to find a place for it in the chart (I suspect it is an "ORG PNK", and belongs with ‘5556-AU, and ‘5556-AV in the Part Numbers column) - can anybody confirm this?
Thanks in advance for your help!
-
I too have been studying 1967 Mustang Rear Leaf Spring Codes/Markings for a long, long time…
You have been busy given the twists and turns this subject provides.
Don't think the springs are marked differently based on plants but instead a result of the supplying sub contracted who supplied the particular plant. and should go hand in hand with time period and the stamping design/pattern of the spring. Another column for the spread sheet
Perhaps the biggest leap-of-faith is my attempt to align the Rear Spring Markings from the Build Sheets with the Part Numbers from the MPCs –...................
Agree this is a great leap given that the MPCs don't show what was originally used.
Would ask for a little clarification on a detail - sorry if you already covered it in your post
- In the spring part number column what is the importance of the different colors of text?
- You list a "E" in some columns in bold. Is this a code you found in the box on line B? IF so I think I have some exports with out that code
- Can I take it from the spread sheet that the spread sheet contains information from 26 buildsheets (of the 58) the rest is gleaned from different MPC's?
Sure there will be more questions and discussions as we start to go through it. May separate the discussion of all the rear spring marks out of this thread that is more about a specific application to keep it clean as well as we can anticipate this discussion to take flight :)
-
You have been busy given the twists and turns this subject provides.
Don't think the springs are marked differently based on plants but instead a result of the supplying sub contracted who supplied the particular plant. and should go hand in hand with time period and the stamping design/pattern of the spring. Another column for the spread sheet
Thanks - I'll make a note of that!
Agree this is a great leap given that the MPCs don't show what was originally used.
Would ask for a little clarification on a detail - sorry if you already covered it in your post
- In the spring part number column what is the importance of the different colors of text?
The part numbers shown in red are from the MPCs. The numbers shown in bold blue are confirmed assembly line part numbers. For example, the "C7ZA-5556-AC" entry came from my own 390 GTA Convertible, and it had Green and Silver markings on the bottom leaf.
- You list a "E" in some columns in bold. Is this a code you found in the box on line B? IF so I think I have some exports with out that code
The "E" call-outs in the H.D. Suspension column, and the "D" and "E" call-outs in the Handling Pkg Type column come directly from Section C, Columns 9 & 10 respectively from the Build Sheets - see attached image below...
- Can I take it from the spread sheet that the spread sheet contains information from 26 buildsheets (of the 58) the rest is gleaned from different MPC's?
It actually has data from 44 Build Sheets (plus the findings on my actual car). The column with the header "# of Data Points" has a tally of the number of Build Sheets with the same information. For example, on the "(63) Fastback / (S) 390-4V / "D" (Improved/GT)" entry, there were 7 Build Sheets for cars equipped this way (with the earliest Build Sheet date of 12/21/1966, and the latest of 8/1/1967). All of them listed "ORG WIT" in the rear spring section of the Build Sheet (Section H, Columns 8-14). I have also seen an example of an actual spring with Orange and White markings with the Part Number of "C7ZA-5556-AS", so as mentioned above, that's why that number is highlighted in bold blue text.
Sure there will be more questions and discussions as we start to go through it. May separate the discussion of all the rear spring marks out of this thread that is more about a specific application to keep it clean as well as we can anticipate this discussion to take flight :)
Sounds good - thanks Jeff!
-
Can't give you a color as I haven't done a dissection on them yet, but can confirm my 67 (see sig) has the C7ZA-AR springs.
-
I was going to make a Reply under Richard's thread "67 GTA 289 Coupe, Spring Codes and Markings, San Jose", that it appeared that we had exhausted all of the MPC's and OSI's, and still had questions, as well as bringing in all 1967 applications into the mix (which can hardly be avoided when researching a specific application).. I was going to suggest that the next step would be researching Marti Reports, Build Sheets, and cars themselves. Then I saw your Reply under Richard's Topic (since rightfully moved away on "its own" here), and saw that you had one heck of a start on that, to which I'm sure you would attest to has been no easy task, and you are definitely to be commended for that.
I think it is interesting that your sheet did not include the AE Spring that John posted a picture of, and that we could find no listing of either. Possibly because John's car has an earlier build date than any other of the 289-2V, GT Fastbacks that you have listed ?
Since going through all of the MPC's and OSI's, I have also gone through my 8/66 Sales Brochure, Showroom Options Book, Buyer's Digest, Preliminary Shop Manual, Shop Manual, Salesman's Price Book, Parts and Service Merchandising News, Shop Tips, and TSB's between August 1966 and August 1967, all to try to see if any more light could be shed on this subject. Result ; nothing eye-opening.
All that being said, before some of our readers will, hopefully, provide some documented information to help "fill in the blanks", I have a few questions/comments for your consideration :
1) While I "surmised" that the "improved handling" noted in the MPC's was actually the "Special Handling Package" furnished with GT's only, I could find nothing to confirm this. Did you use Marti Reports, Build Sheets or what in order to confirm ?
2) The above being the case, I find it odd that the only reference to GT's is in regard to the "Competition Handling Package".
3) I think it would be beneficial to add a column for "Spring Assembly Part Number (5560)".
4) Do the dashes (-) in the "H.D. Suspension" and "Handing Package Type" signify " "unknown" or "Standard" ? Possibly a "?", and "Std." ?
5) Finally,since besides "Standard Springs", Springs with the "Special Handling Package", and Springs with the "Competition Handling Package", different Springs were also available with the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option, I think the column you have noted "H.D.Suspension" is confusing. While you apparently haven't come across any with just the "Heavy Duty Suspension" yet, it was an Option and this could cause confusion "down the road". Possibly this could be noted "Type of Suspension", or something similar ?
Again, thanks for all of the work you have done on the document to this point. Hopefully, by Posting it mow, others will be able to furnish you additional information to reduce the burden on you, and get closer to a complete document.
Bob
-
Can't give you a color as I haven't done a dissection on them yet, but can confirm my 67 (see sig) has the C7ZA-AR springs.
Thanks Bill - please let me know if you find any additional information...
I was going to make a Reply under Richard's thread "67 GTA 289 Coupe, Spring Codes and Markings, San Jose", that it appeared that we had exhausted all of the MPC's and OSI's, and still had questions, as well as bringing in all 1967 applications into the mix (which can hardly be avoided when researching a specific application).. I was going to suggest that the next step would be researching Marti Reports, Build Sheets, and cars themselves. Then I saw your Reply under Richard's Topic (since rightfully moved away on "its own" here), and saw that you had one heck of a start on that, to which I'm sure you would attest to has been no easy task, and you are definitely to be commended for that.
Thanks Bob!
I think it is interesting that your sheet did not include the AE Spring that John posted a picture of, and that we could find no listing of either. Possibly because John's car has an earlier build date than any other of the 289-2V, GT Fastbacks that you have listed ?
I did see John's posting, but I wasn't sure how to interpret his comment that said that the markings had been sand blasted off back in 1981. As I said in my original posting, I think they are probably "ORG PNK" as well, but wanted to get a consensus from the group before I call it out as "Confirmed"...
Since going through all of the MPC's and OSI's, I have also gone through my 8/66 Sales Brochure, Showroom Options Book, Buyer's Digest, Preliminary Shop Manual, Shop Manual, Salesman's Price Book, Parts and Service Merchandising News, Shop Tips, and TSB's between August 1966 and August 1967, all to try to see if any more light could be shed on this subject. Result ; nothing eye-opening.
Thanks for checking!
All that being said, before some of our readers will, hopefully, provide some documented information to help "fill in the blanks", I have a few questions/comments for your consideration :
1) While I "surmised" that the "improved handling" noted in the MPC's was actually the "Special Handling Package" furnished with GT's only, I could find nothing to confirm this. Did you use Marti Reports, Build Sheets or what in order to confirm ?
When I was first putting the sheet together, I actually had a separate column for keeping track of the GT/GTA option, but it doesn't seem to be a determining factor - instead, it is the "Handling Pkg Type" field on the Build Sheets. The "D" indicator in this field on the Build Sheets (Section C, Column 10), is present for all GT/GTA vehicles, plus 4 additional cars that did not have the GT/GTA option. Since the GT/GTA package included the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option (which was also available as a separate option for all V8 cars without the GT/GTA package), I have to conclude that the "Improved Handling Package" mentioned in the MPCs refers to the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option.
2) The above being the case, I find it odd that the only reference to GT's is in regard to the "Competition Handling Package".
Yeah, it seems a little redundant, as the Competition Handling Package was only available on K-Code and S-Code cars, and they had to have the GT/GTA package as a mandatory option well. I don't have any Build Sheets for a Competition Handling Package vehicle, so I just made a "Competition" notation in both the "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Pkg Type" columns as a placeholder until the actual Build Sheet indicator is found...
3) I think it would be beneficial to add a column for "Spring Assembly Part Number (5560)".
Noted - I'll add a column!
4) Do the dashes (-) in the "H.D. Suspension" and "Handing Package Type" signify " "unknown" or "Standard" ? Possibly a "?", and "Std." ?
The dashes were meant to indicate blanks. I'll clear them out from future iterations of the sheet to avoid confusion.
5) Finally,since besides "Standard Springs", Springs with the "Special Handling Package", and Springs with the "Competition Handling Package", different Springs were also available with the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option, I think the column you have noted "H.D.Suspension" is confusing. While you apparently haven't come across any with just the "Heavy Duty Suspension" yet, it was an Option and this could cause confusion "down the road". Possibly this could be noted "Type of Suspension", or something similar ?
See my answer to question 1. The "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Pkg Type" headers on my columns come directly from Build Sheets (see below), but I agree they are confusing as the call-out for the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option seems to be called out by a "D" in the "Handling Pkg Type" column (C10), and the only data entries I've found in the "H.D. Suspension" column (C9) are "E"s for the Export vehicles. Now that I've explained the method to my madness, perhaps I could combine the two columns into a single one called "Suspension Type", and then just use the words "Standard", "Heavy Duty", "Competition" and "Export" to differentiate them...
-
First, thanks for all of your explanations and answers to my questions. Also for including a copy of one of the Build Sheets (I have the one for my '66, but haven't found the one for my '67 yet, which I would expect to be there since my Dad purchased it from the original Owner in 1981; hopefully when I remove the front buckets this summer, I'll find it there).
Based on what you have documented in regard to the "Improved Handling Package" being the same as the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, this now confirms what I had just suspected. The only question remaining on this issue is how did the 4 non-GT cars end up with the Special Handling Package ??
In the answer that you gave to my first question, " When I was first putting the sheet together, I actually had a separate column for keeping track of the GT/GTA option, but it doesn't seem to be a determining factor - instead, it is the "Handling Pkg Type" field on the Build Sheets. The "D" indicator in this field on the Build Sheets (Section C, Column 10), is present for all GT/GTA vehicles, plus 4 additional cars that did not have the GT/GTA option. Since the GT/GTA package included the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option (which was also available as a separate option for all V8 cars without the GT/GTA package),I have to conclude that the ["Improved Handling Package" mentioned in the MPCs refers to the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option.]", I agree that the HD Suspension Option was part of the Special Handling Package, but, initially, was going to take exception to the part of your answer that I have [bracketed], that they were the same. I was basing my "taking exception" on two things ; first, the description of the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option noted in the Showroom Options Book(that notes that the "Heavy Duty Suspension Option included "Springs and Shocks" no "larger diameter stabilizer bar" mentioned), and the fact that the Build Sheet you attached shows separate columns (9 and 10) for "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Package Type", thus implying they were separate. However, in looking further into my information, Specifically the Salesman's Price Book, it notes that the Heavy Duty Suspension Option, for $30.64, included Springs, Shocks, and a larger diameter stabilizer bar (possibly initially it wasn't to include this, and later determined that it should ?). Whatever the reason, I would now agree with your statement that the Special(Improved) Handling Package" and the "Heavy Duty Suspension" Option were one in the same. Thus the Heavy Duty Suspension Column (9) only being checked if the Heavy Duty Suspension Option were being ordered by itself (no GT Option), and both columns 9 and 10 being checked if the GT Option was selected.
That being said, I think it's interesting that in all you have looked at and documented, you have not come across any that had only the Heavy Duty Suspension (possibly owners thought, or were "directed" to think by Salesmen), that for only another $170, they could get the Heavy Duty Suspension, plus all of the other benefits in the GT Option ?).
Unfortunately, Kevin Marti does not list any of the Suspension Packages in the "Options" section of his "Mustang By the Numbers" book, but he may have the information, and might be worth checking with him.
Thanks again for all of your help and considerations of my comments. Hopefully now you'll be able to get some input from others to help solve the "Mysteries of the Springs".
Bob
-
Thanks for the additional information Bob!
Based upon the earlier feedback, attached below is "Version 2" of the chart. I've corrected a few data entry errors I made in the first sheet (like listing placeholders for A-Code and C-Code cars with the Competition suspension - duh, can't happen!), added additional columns, and labeled the rows and columns to make it a little easier to discuss specific items on the sheets...
I have also provided an alternate sorting by Paint Markings as well...
Kevin
PS - I added placeholders for the Shelby GT350/GT500 Fastbacks as well. Can anybody confirm that the BROWN (GT350) and ORANGE (GT500) paint markings are correct? This could be a key piece of information, as the only other entries I have for cars with these paint markings were Export cars. It may turn out that at least some of the Export cars, the Shelbys, and perhaps the Competition Handling cars were set-up similarly for their respective body style/engine options...
-
I did see John's posting, but I wasn't sure how to interpret his comment that said that the markings had been sand blasted off back in 1981. As I said in my original posting, I think they are probably "ORG PNK" as well, but wanted to get a consensus from the group before I call it out as "Confirmed"...
That is correct. I can say based on date stamps that the AE rear springs are original to my C code GTA, but they were sandblasted in 1981 and that evidence is long gone. Being an SJ car, with no build sheet found, I don't have codes from that source.
John
-
I used some Evaporust and a brush and found my paint code. As noted, car is 67 GT350.
The -AR springs are a Rusty/Red/Brown color as shown in the attached pic. According to your sheet this would most likely be "Brown".
Ignore the yellow grease paint, as I marked these springs to provide easy identification in the parts rack.
-
Thanks for the additional information Bob!
Based upon the earlier feedback, attached below is "Version 2" of the chart. I've corrected a few data entry errors I made in the first sheet (like listing placeholders for A-Code and C-Code cars with the Competition suspension - duh, can't happen!), added additional columns, and labeled the rows and columns to make it a little easier to discuss specific items on the sheets...
I have also provided an alternate sorting by Paint Markings as well...
Kevin
PS - I added placeholders for the Shelby GT350/GT500 Fastbacks as well. Can anybody confirm that the BROWN (GT350) and ORANGE (GT500) paint markings are correct? This could be a key piece of information, as the only other entries I have for cars with these paint markings were Export cars. It may turn out that at least some of the Export cars, the Shelbys, and perhaps the Competition Handling cars were set-up similarly for their respective body style/engine options...
I can confirm the our 68 GT350 has brown stripes for rear on it's build sheet.
I can also confirm that 68 AU springs have Pink/Orange stripes
Marty
-
PS - I added placeholders for the Shelby GT350/GT500 Fastbacks as well. Can anybody confirm that the BROWN (GT350) and ORANGE (GT500) paint markings are correct?
As a suggestion you might want to add a column as to what engineering numbers we can confirm for applications. Seems you have listed (may have missed it completely) only details from paperwork and documents. Also you might want to include a column to record box B 13 codes. This would help with cross referencing and when we only have the upper portion legible on a 67 buildsheet.
Never seen brown marks on a C7AZ-AR spring and not certain those were the springs used for the whole production year for the GT350 application. And the ones I have pictures of don't show colors similar to what BossBill posted.
Guess I seeing a possible problem tying colors directly to applications sort of side stepping the spring identification number/step
Shelby's received add/delete sheets that listed what springs they were to be equipped with on paper and what they were changed to (if changed) on paper and used to build the cars.
-
2) The above being the case, I find it odd that the only reference to GT's is in regard to the "Competition Handling Package".
The GT appears IMHO to refer to GT350's and 500's. Believe there are similar references in other sections of some MPC's
Based on what you have documented in regard to the "Improved Handling Package" being the same as the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, this now confirms what I had just suspected. The only question remaining on this issue is how did the 4 non-GT cars end up with the Special Handling Package ??
It was likely simply ordered. Have owned a number of cars were the owner apparently didn't want all the gingerbread just the suspension
... and the fact that the Build Sheet you attached shows separate columns (9 and 10) for "H.D. Suspension" and "Handling Package Type", thus implying they were separate.
Respectfully disagree. There are many boxes on the buildsheets that do not apply to Mustangs and their assembly. Assuming that two boxes are for use on the same car IMHO can't be done. You'll find boxes for tailgate, viscus fan, wide bumper, police & taxi package..... and other items on the sheets.
-
The "E" call-outs in the H.D. Suspension column, and the "D" and "E" call-outs in the Handling Pkg Type column come directly from Section C, Columns 9 & 10 respectively from the Build Sheets - see attached image below...
I have no digital copies of buildsheets with both boxes marked and none using the "E" coding in either of the boxes though I do have one export example it shows standard suspension which seems odd. Unfortunately we don't know where it was destined for. Have a few really odd balls but they will only muddy the waters
-
The GT appears IMHO to refer to GT350's and 500's. Believe there are similar references in other sections of some MPC's
It was likely simply ordered. Have owned a number of cars were the owner apparently didn't want all the gingerbread just the suspension
Respectfully disagree. There are many boxes on the buildsheets that do not apply to Mustangs and their assembly. Assuming that two boxes are for use on the same car IMHO can't be done. You'll find boxes for tailgate, viscus fan, wide bumper, police & taxi package..... and other items on the sheets.
Jeff : So your second response that "it was simply ordered", then supports my original statements that the Heavy Duty Suspension was a "stand alone" Option that could be ordered by any car with a V8, and thus only the "H.D." box on the Build Sheet checked (X'd). Correct ? Following this line of thinking, then the Build Sheets for the 4 non - GT cars in Kevin's Spreadsheet should have only the "H.D." box marked ; correct ?
On your comment in which you "Respectfully disagree", I based my comment on the Build Sheet that Kevin provided that shows the "E" in both the "H.D." box and in the "Handling Package" box. If I understand correctly, you are saying that those two boxes should never both be "X'd" on the same Build Sheet ; correct ?
It seems that as Kevin has found, a "D" under "Handling Package" signifies the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, that some other letter in this box should signify the "Competition Handling Package". Do you have any Build Sheets that show what this is ?
It seems, like, IMHO, before we go "full bore" into this "exercise", we need to reach mutual, substantiated agreements, as to what the parameters are, and should be.
Bob
-
I have no digital copies of buildsheets with both boxes marked and none using the "E" coding in either of the boxes though I do have one export example it shows standard suspension which seems odd. Unfortunately we don't know where it was destined for. Have a few really odd balls but they will only muddy the waters
Here are two examples Jeff...
(Both are DSO 92 export cars)
-
SNIP ...
Never seen brown marks on a C7AZ-AR spring and not certain those were the springs used for the whole production year for the GT350 application. And the ones I have pictures of don't show colors similar to what BossBill posted.
Guess I seeing a possible problem tying colors directly to applications sort of side stepping the spring identification number/step
Shelby's received add/delete sheets that listed what springs they were to be equipped with on paper and what they were changed to (if changed) on paper and used to build the cars.
At first I thought we could lump in Shelbys with the "Generic Competition Package."
But a review of add/deletes on "Special Vehicle Order and Parts Specification" dated 4/25/67 specifically notes the items to which Jeff refers. Noted that my car is about 2 months earlier than this document.
Instead of calling out the generic package (maybe there wasn't one?), the add/deletes refer to special front springs, special shocks, special front swaybar and special rear spring.
The document says that (in this run of Shelbys) the C7ZA-5556-AA rear springs are to be removed and C7ZA-5556-AR springs are to added at Ford.
As for color I found this same color on the other spring 2" from the end on the smallest of the 4.
-
Jeff : So your second response that "it was simply ordered", then supports my original statements that the Heavy Duty Suspension was a "stand alone" Option that could be ordered by any car with a V8, and thus only the "H.D." box on the Build Sheet checked (X'd). Correct ? Following this line of thinking, then the Build Sheets for the 4 non - GT cars in Kevin's Spreadsheet should have only the "H.D." box marked ; correct ?
Yes, the Heavy Duty Suspension option could be ordered with any V-8 separately from the GT package for $30.64. It is my opinion, that the Heavy Duty Suspension call-out was in box C10 of the Build Sheets (with the header of "HANDLING PKG TYPE") with a letter "D". The only entries I've ever found in the C9 box (with the header of "H.D. SUSPENSION") is the letter "E" (see Reply #15 above), which I believe stands for "Export"...
-
Jeff : So your second response that "it was simply ordered", then supports my original statements that the Heavy Duty Suspension was a "stand alone" Option that could be ordered by any car with a V8, and thus only the "H.D." box on the Build Sheet checked (X'd). Correct ?
Can't confirm that without other support info. I may have missed it somewhere in all that has been written so far - if so sorry. If you have a non-GT example marked that way that would help. I don't. What are you using on the buildsheet to indicate if the car was a GT or GTA and in turn a non-GT/GTA?
Following this line of thinking, then the Build Sheets for the 4 non - GT cars in Kevin's Spreadsheet should have only the "H.D." box marked ; correct ?
Same as the above
On your comment in which you "Respectfully disagree", I based my comment on the Build Sheet that Kevin provided that shows the "E" in both the "H.D." box and in the "Handling Package" box. If I understand correctly, you are saying that those two boxes should never both be "X'd" on the same Build Sheet ; correct ?
No I accept that you have examples of both boxes marked. I don't - just reporting and adding what I have to the discussion
It seems that as Kevin has found, a "D" under "Handling Package" signifies the "Special Handling Package" furnished with the GT's, that some other letter in this box should signify the "Competition Handling Package". Do you have any Build Sheets that show what this is ?
Comp cars are rare and we accept that at least one assembly plant didn't often include buildsheets in the finished cars. These two factors work against us having or finding such sheets. At this time I don't currently have any I can identify as Mustangs with comp suspension
It seems, like, IMHO, before we go "full bore" into this "exercise", we need to reach mutual, substantiated agreements, as to what the parameters are, and should be.
Agreed. There are allot of moving parts in this subject and we're working through an imperfect medium so if we work from those areas where we can agree and have supporting documentation that can be cross referenced this will leave us with a focus group of those that will challenge us or may have re remain unanswered for a time
-
Here are two examples Jeff...
(Both are DSO 92 export cars)
From these I can make out from your two examples
xx01C237979 Spring (B13): 5 HD Susp (C9): E Handling Pkg (C10): E
Note: Springs and shocks match Comp Suspension applications
7T02S214691 Spring (B13): 9 HD Susp (C9): E Handling Pkg (C10): E
Note: Springs and shocks match Comp Suspension applications
...............The only entries I've ever found in the C9 box (with the header of "H.D. SUSPENSION") is the letter "E" (see Reply #15 above), which I believe stands for "Export"...
My two export examples have different markings but both suggest GT style /Handling Package rather than Comp Suspension
7T01A1187xx Spring (B13): 6 HD Susp (C9): (Blank) Handling Pkg (C10): D
Note: Springs and shocks match GT applications
7T03S1753xx Spring (B13): 5 HD Susp (C9): (Blank)? Handling Pkg (C10): ? though other info suggests it was a D
Note: Springs and shocks match GT applications
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-020218190457.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-020218190515.jpeg)
One difference off the top is that your two examples are from later in the year (Post Jan 67) and both of mine are earlier (Pre Jan 67)
-
Thanks Jeff,
Yes, it could be a simple case of "early vs. late" on the export cars...
Attached below is an updated chart with new columns for the B13, C9, and C10 boxes from the build sheets. I was able to clear up my two "anomaly" cars from the earlier sheets as well. The hardtop anomaly was actually an export car, and the convertible anomaly was a typo on my part (I had entered the spring markings as "SILVER" when it was actually "2SILVER").
I've also included a summary comparison chart of the B13 and H8-H13 boxes.
-
My methodology…
Listings shown in bold black contain data pulled directly from Build Sheets (mostly from Metuchen, but a few from Dearborn and San Jose as well). It appears that all three plants used the same color coding system, but they may have applied the markings at different locations on the springs.
Think this needs adjustment or correction since the car assembly plants did not mark the springs but instead the providers did and that may have been different sources or in the case of the rear springs different plants from the same company marking them differently though my study of paint marks suggest that thy were pretty consistent during the same periods of time though the stamping are different (horizontal and vertical for example)
For the entries taken directly from the Build Sheets, I have entered the earliest and latest planned assembly dates shown on the sheets. As we all know, these do not necessarily reflect the actual assembly dates, but they're all we have.
To continue the discussion how are you confirming (using buildsheet data) that are particular color marking listed on a buildsheet is a specific (stamping) spring? Is this solely based on the service replacement info from the MPC's?
On Rough Draft #3 where did the assembly line numbers (Line P) come from?
Just continuing the discussion.
-
Think this needs adjustment or correction since the car assembly plants did not mark the springs but instead the providers did and that may have been different sources or in the case of the rear springs different plants from the same company marking them differently though my study of paint marks suggest that thy were pretty consistent during the same periods of time though the stamping are different (horizontal and vertical for example)
Fair point about the suppliers doing the marking the springs, and not the actual assembly plants. However, while I've only seen a few non-Metuchen buildsheets (2 each for both Dearborn and SJ), they do indicate the same color-coding system was used for the markings at those plants as well. So I think we can at least say that colors used by the spring suppliers were consistent (and therefore consistent at all three assembly plants), but the actual paint marking location on the springs or method of application of the paint (bottom leaf splotches vs long leaf stripes, etc.) was not consistent between suppliers...
To continue the discussion how are you confirming (using buildsheet data) that are particular color marking listed on a buildsheet is a specific (stamping) spring? Is this solely based on the service replacement info from the MPC's?
On Rough Draft #3 where did the assembly line numbers (Line P) come from?
Just continuing the discussion.
The "assembly line part numbers" are from confirmed reports where people have found paint markings on their springs and they have provided the number on the lower leaf of the spring as well. For example, the C7ZA-5556-AC number was (and still is) on the springs of my own car, and I also found Silver and Green paint splotches as well. So far, we only have four of these, but hopefully others on this forum will be able to contribute additional data points.
-
............. So I think we can at least say that colors used by the spring suppliers were consistent (and therefore consistent all three assembly plants),
Would agree to this point - we will see what addition documentation brings
but the actual paint marking location on the springs or method of application of the paint (bottom leaf splotches vs long leaf stripes, etc.) was not consistent between suppliers...The "assembly line part numbers" are from confirmed reports where people have found paint markings on their springs and they have provided the number on the lower leaf of the spring as well. For example, the C7ZA-5556-AC number was (and still is) on the springs of my own car, and I also found Silver and Green paint splotches as well. So far, we only have four of these, but hopefully others on this forum will be able to contribute additional data points.
Haven't really seen that much difference from all the ones I've seen. Could these differences be related (my guess) to the supplying plant for the specific spring , time of year or simply a worker doing something different for one batch? Not counting marking applied to restored cars or projects a rough estimate of what I have is 93% stripes on the first/short leaf, 2% on the second leaf (might be worker just being off) and 5% being dots/daubs on the first/short leaf
Haven't gone through any of my early hand written records since that takes more time that looking through the more organized pictures
I too have a Silver green marked with the dots/daubs. We likely both got one from the same posting
-
Spring data update.
Usual disclaimer -- Car is a SJ Mar 67 Competition Spring GT350.
Springs appear to be original and have factory stampings of C7ZA-AR.
Plant code: E; date: 040
Here are the markings and pic of same after a more substantial cleanup.
Due to monitor differences, I'll qualify the paint color using the industry standard Pantone color chart.
This was in direct sunlight and is an approximation of a 50 year old color.
Pantone 1525 PC
C:1
M:75
Y:100
K:8
-
Spring data update.
Usual disclaimer -- Car is a SJ Mar 67 Competition Spring GT350.
Springs appear to be original and have factory stampings of C7ZA-AR.
Plant code: E; date: 040
Here are the markings and pic of same after a more substantial cleanup.
Due to monitor differences, I'll qualify the paint color using the industry standard Pantone color chart.
This was in direct sunlight and is an approximation of a 50 year old color.
Pantone 1525 PC
C:1
M:75
Y:100
K:8
The orange markings are what would be expected on a AR or AM spring however the square hole strap is a little strange . The round hole strap is more typical on these springs . Is there any evidence that they have ever been changed?
-
Bob,
These appear original including having to use a Sawzall to get the spring out some years ago.
This car has been in my possession for over 30 years and was not changed during that time.
Also, the date of 040 works well for this early March car.
Maybe we need to compare other 'E' vendors during this time period?
-
Spring data update.
Usual disclaimer -- Car is a SJ Mar 67 Competition Spring GT350.
Springs appear to be original and have factory stampings of C7ZA-AR.
Plant code: E; date: 040
Front the picture realizing that the digital pictures often show differently than true colors would offer than the AR springs I have pictures of are more yellow while the AM are more orange. Closer to what I'm seeing with yours as shown.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-090318232112.jpeg)
-
Interesting how wide those paint marks are. Agree on the colors.
Thanks for the pics.
I included the graphics industry standard Pantone info as the best approximation I could make of the color. I don't mean to imply this is what the factory originally used. It's only what mine has morphed into today.
I've seen various threads here and elsewhere of "mixing a bit of this color with this color", but that doesn't account for monitors, cameras or printers.
But Pantone is a color standard and could be useful for describing what we are supposed to use to replicate the factory colors.
-
I included the graphics industry standard Pantone info as the best approximation I could make of the color. I don't mean to imply this is what the factory originally used. It's only what mine has morphed into today.....
Completely understand and think that a standard such as Pantone is a standard that could be applied often to things like that. Not always easy to travel and use in some of the conditions, we don't always make our observations at home or in our shops. Looking at notes back into the early 80's I've got observations of a lighter yellow or off white on the AR springs. not sure why you found what you did. Always the possibility that the worker made a mistake or mismark just like we see oddly (different from the "norm") place marks some times.
Also if observed on other cars we don't always have the opportunity to clean off the top layer of the mark to unveil the truer original color below Same can be said of the pictures I posted - other that the one owner did at least "wet" the marking to help a bit
-
Completely understand and think that a standard such as Pantone is a standard that could be applied often to things like that. Not always easy to travel and use in some of the conditions, we don't always make our observations at home or in our shops. Looking at notes back into the early 80's I've got observations of a lighter yellow or off white on the AR springs. not sure why you found what you did. Always the possibility that the worker made a mistake or mismark just like we see oddly (different from the "norm") place marks some times.
Also if observed on other cars we don't always have the opportunity to clean off the top layer of the mark to unveil the truer original color below Same can be said of the pictures I posted - other that the one owner did at least "wet" the marking to help a bit
I hate to disagree about the color but I have found orange is the more typical color found on the competition springs. Maybe fading has something to do with identification of a presumed other color (easy to do) . Orange is what I have found with a high confidence level .
-
I hate to disagree about the color but I have found orange is the more typical color found on the competition springs. Maybe fading has something to do with identification of a presumed other color (easy to do) . Orange is what I have found with a high confidence level .
That's OK and isn't the first time nor possibly the last. Feel confident with what I've found and seen also. The car in one of the two pictures I posted I know you have seen a fair umber of times though not certain you have looked at the rear springs since its never been available on a lift like other examples at some shows. Maybe there is another explanation for the difference in findings that we have not uncovered at this point
-
That's OK and isn't the first time nor possibly the last. Feel confident with what I've found and seen also. The car in one of the two pictures I posted I know you have seen a fair umber of times though not certain you have looked at the rear springs since its never been available on a lift like other examples at some shows. Maybe there is another explanation for the difference in findings that we have not uncovered at this point
We agree way more times then disagree is what is important to remember.
-
I was trying hard to get to Brown (like the Paperback Writer's sheet says) but I think Orange is a better fit for what I found.
I did get from SAAC the SVO Parts Spec sheet for my block of Shelbys (280 of them) (schedule date of 2/6) and find that:
"Items to be deleted" is C7ZA-AA Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
"Items to install" is C7ZA-AR Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
On another front, Richard (67gtasanjose) wanted to know the spring code on my son's GTA fastback and here is some data on it from the 999 report:
7R02A149xxx
Date: 12/6/66
GT (incl heavy duty suspension)
XP automatic
Power Steering
Exterior decor
Styled wheels
No A/C
The spring code on the GTA (it took over 2 dozen pics at various angles to find the code) is "AE". There is no way I could find a color on this extremely weathered spring.
-
We agree way more times then disagree is what is important to remember.
Yes - would guess we're around 96% in that matter
I was trying hard to get to Brown (like the Paperback Writer's sheet says) but I think Orange is a better fit for what I found.
I did get from SAAC the SVO Parts Spec sheet for my block of Shelbys (280 of them) (schedule date of 2/6) and find that:
"Items to be deleted" is C7ZA-AA Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
"Items to install" is C7ZA-AR Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
Some may thing of the more recent SVO program when you use the initials for Special Vehicle Order and Parts Specification sheets - often referred to as the Add/Delete sheets by many. Doesn't look I have copies of the one for your DSO group but each lists the rear spring change
and its one way to track the AR and AM applications for these specific cars but that's getting off thread a little ;)
-
That is correct. I can say based on date stamps that the AE rear springs are original to my C code GTA, but they were sandblasted in 1981 and that evidence is long gone. Being an SJ car, with no build sheet found, I don't have codes from that source.
John
...On another front, Richard (67gtasanjose) wanted to know the spring code on my son's GTA fastback and here is some data on it from the 999 report:
7R02A149xxx
Date: 12/6/66
GT (incl heavy duty suspension)
XP automatic
Power Steering
Exterior decor
Styled wheels
No A/C
The spring code on the GTA (it took over 2 dozen pics at various angles to find the code) is "AE". There is no way I could find a color on this extremely weathered spring.
So "AE" seems to be a typical find for at least 2 examples, John's 12/20/66 built C-code fastback GTA (reply #8) and Bill's 12/6/66 projected build date, fastback GTA (reply# 33) so we deduce when combining the information found in the MPC's that a Coupe and fastback would typically get the same replacement springs at least...we seem to be pinning down the likelihood of some of the EARLY BUILD Spring assemblyline leaf spring stamping codes. It would be nice to go about a month further back into November '66, and a huge bonus to find a GTA coupe in the October/December time frame (San Jose built being a huge PLUS)
*updated for clarity
-
Doesn't look I have copies of the one for your DSO group but each lists the rear spring change
and its one way to track the AR and AM applications for these specific cars but that's getting off thread a little ;)
I'll send you a copy.
Note that the GTA has been in family for more than 35 years, so I believe its springs are original. Poor thing needs a restoration.
-
So "AE" seems to be a typical find for at least 1st few weeks in December, used on fastback GTA's and we deduce from the MPC's that a Coupe and fastback would get the same replacement springs at least we seem to be pinning down the likelihood of codes.
Agreed we just need to determine if originally they used the same since that is the end goal
It would be nice to go about a month further back into November '66, and a huge bonus to find a GTA coupe in the October/December time frame (San Jose a huge PLUS)
So as to not post misleading information and take us off in a different direction would a A code San Jose Coupe, 4 speed, with the HD suspension (likely a GT) likely built first week Nov, be on target for this request?
By Spring time the rear springs changed to another version
In addition have a A code coupe with suspension package ( again likely GT) 4 speed built first week Dec
-
Agreed we just need to determine if originally they used the same since that is the end goal
So as to not post misleading information and take us off in a different direction would a A code San Jose Coupe, 4 speed, with the HD suspension (likely a GT) likely built first week Nov, be on target for this request?
By Spring time the rear springs changed to another version
In addition have a A code coupe with suspension package ( again likely GT) 4 speed built first week Dec
Yes, any samples in this late-1966 time frame would be "on target" for my search of original examples. The springtime of 67 examples, I wouldn't personally have any interest in but it may help other readers (to see a trend of usage)
~Thanks
-
Ok as referenced above here is some more information taken from buildsheets and other sources for cross referencing. Please study carefully before applying any of these markings or information :) Closest matching of cars for the survey I could find
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7T01A118xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C10 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 03K.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red
7R01A13xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C10 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 08L.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red
7T01A260xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C10 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 05F.
Rear Springs listed as Orange & Pink
Long shot but this (Orange & Pink) maybe the C7ZA-AS spring. If so the earliest date I have on one is the 40th day of the year
This same color marking was used on mid Jan 67 S codes and earlier with the Handling/GT package according to buildsheets then replaced. So it appears that this spring was "down graded" to small block GT applications and replaced by a different spring.
That would match up with the buildsheets I have so far and the date I have for the earliest example I have sort of falls into place also.
-
Ok as referenced above here is some more information taken from buildsheets and other sources for cross referencing. Please study carefully before applying any of these markings or information :) Closest matching of cars for the survey I could find
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7T01A118xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C9 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 03K.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red
7R01A13xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C9 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 08L.
Rear Springs listed as Silver & Red
7T01A260xxx. 4 speed, handling package (C9 marked "D" and matching shock numbers and color) No AC or PS
Projected build date of 05F.
Rear Springs listed as Orange & Pink
Long shot but this (Orange & Pink) maybe the C7ZA-AS spring. If so the earliest date I have on one is the 40th day of the year
This same color marking was used on mid Jan 67 S codes and earlier with the Handling/GT package according to buildsheets then replaced. So it appears that this spring was "down graded" to small block GT applications and replaced by a different spring.
That would match up with the buildsheets I have so far and the date I have for the earliest example I have sort of falls into place also.
VERY helpful information. Thank you!
Maybe a bit of a reach, but this information leans hard towards the two small block GTA's both of them December built "AE" examples mentioned within this thread so far, (John's 12/20/66 example mentioned in reply #8, Bill's estimated 12/6/66 build date mentioned in reply # 33, NOTE: each of these examples are without having their original color markings, build sheets or other info available) that both of their sets of "AE" springs were very likely marked Silver/Red.
Everything else shared so far leads one to believe that the Orange/Pink would be later-built 67 GT or GTA fastbacks/coupes (like on or around the middle/end of January, '67).
Is this what others are reading from these results Jeff posted? Certainly, the more examples we can find, the better we could hone-in on the results.
NOTE ON EDIT: Trying to keep things tidied up, easier to follow. Connecting references to reply numbers and including as much information known to date as possible within the text.
-
As part of this ongoing discussion, questions have been brought up in regard to both the Heavy Duty Suspension Option and the Competition Handling Package Option. In particular, if the HD Suspension Package could be. and was ordered on any non-GT's, and if the Competition Handling Package was ordered as a separate Option on GT's.
In order to try to get answers to these questions, I contacted Kevin Marti. I have contacted Kevin before in regard to Options which are not listed in his "Mustangs by the Numbers" book. From our previous discussions, I knew that Kevin had data on other Options, but was reluctant to provide actual numbers since much of the information that he provided in "Mustangs by the Numbers" had "found its way" all over the place "for free", thus reducing the importance of having his book. Knowing this, I proposed the following two questions to him :
1) Can you confirm that any non-GT Mustangs were ordered with the "Heavy Duty Suspension Package" ?
2) Can you confirm that any GT Mustangs were ordered with the "Competition Handling Package" ?
Kevin's answer to both questions was "Yes".
Now, knowing those two items as "fact", it should stand to reason (?) that boxes on the build sheets should have been "X'd" when they were ordered. Thus, more items to be aware of when trying to decipher Spring questions.
Bob
-
Now, knowing those two items as "fact", it should stand to reason (?) that boxes on the build sheets should have been "X'd" when they were ordered. Thus, more items to be aware of when trying to decipher Spring questions.
Guess your really stating that the boxes should be marked to indicated since an "X" is not always used but a code was inserted to indicate the choice
All of the examples in the later posts (the three car examples) had a "D" in the box as written
-
Jeff : Bad choice on my part using an "X" to designate some kind of marking in C9, since an "X" is used in many of the other columns. While it could be an "X" on non-GT cars to designate that the Heavy Duty Suspension Option was included, it could have been some other letter. The point I was trying to make was that if a non-GT car was ordered with the HD Suspension Option, something should be in the C9 box.
That being said, there are still some items of confusion, at least to me. The way I see it, as far as suspension goes, there were four choices :
1) Standard (C9 and C10 left Blank).
2) A non-GT ordered with HD Suspension (C9 marked with some letter, C10 left Blank).
3) A GT ordered that, by definition, comes with the Special Handling Package (C10 marked, probably
with a "D", C9 marked or unmarked ?). Since HD Suspension is part of Special Handling Package,
C9 could have been marked same as C10. Related question ; in examples in your Reply # 39 are all
GT's ? Also, what, if anything, is marked in C10 ?
4) A GT ordered with the Competition Handling Package (C10 marked with possibly an "E", C9
presumably would be left blank since the Competition Handling Package would seem to override
the HD Suspension Option, yet the two examples shown have an "E" in both C9 and C10 ??
Once these are resolved, I will feel more comfortable in trying to place specific spring leaves into the categories in which they belong.
Bob
-
Hi Bob,
No disrespect to Jeff, but of the 50+ 1967 Mustang build sheets I've seen, the C9, "HD Suspension" field was rarely used. I've only seen the letter "E" used in C9 (on three build sheets), and these were all export cars. Coincidentally, all three of them were also GT's - but one was a C-Code car - so this cannot be an indicator of the Competition Handling Package, as that was not available the C-Code engine...
For the C10 "Handling Type" field, the same three build sheets that have an "E" in C9, also have an "E" in field C10. I posted two of these "double E" examples here: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17385.msg109688#msg109688 (http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17385.msg109688#msg109688)
I have cataloged another 27 build sheets with a "D" in field C10, and these are all cars with the Heavy Duty suspension option (which was part of the GT package as well, but note that not all cars with the Heavy Duty suspension were GT's - see my earlier post: http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17385.msg109693#msg109693 (http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17385.msg109693#msg109693)
To date, I have not seen any build sheets for a Competition Handling Car (which was only available with K-Code and S-Code Mustangs, and required the purchase of the GT option as well), so I do not know how these build sheets were marked...
Kevin
-
No disrespect to Jeff, but of the 50+ 1967 Mustang build sheets I've seen, the C9, "HD Suspension" field
Kevin double checked my post (reply #39) and the C9 was simply a typo on my part and I've gone back and corrected that in that response
Sorry for any confusion
Though I've looked at over a dozen comp suspension cars none of them had with them a buildsheet. So as of right now can't answer how those were marked either
-
Been a while, but I was in a position to paint my rear leaf and went back to the best picture I have of my (Shelby) competition suspension rear leaf in order verify color.
I had to sand a little bit to get through the first layer of paint and I find a brighter color than first noted. It is definitely orange, albeit a bit more on the yellow side of things.
Pic attached.
-
Been a while, but I was in a position to paint my rear leaf and went back to the best picture I have of my (Shelby) competition suspension rear leaf in order verify color.
I had to sand a little bit to get through the first layer of paint and I find a brighter color than first noted. It is definitely orange, albeit a bit more on the yellow side of things.
Pic attached.
Thanks for sharing - For others viewing the picture above is from a March 2 67 built Shelby with C7ZA-AR rear springs dated 040 E
-
Here is a picture of the bottom leaf out of the 67 Shelby GT350 we are working on. One picture wet, the other dry after being derusted. Definitely look orange when wet. Build date 05/02/67.
-
I was trying hard to get to Brown (like the Paperback Writer's sheet says) but I think Orange is a better fit for what I found.
I did get from SAAC the SVO Parts Spec sheet for my block of Shelbys (280 of them) (schedule date of 2/6) and find that:
"Items to be deleted" is C7ZA-AA Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
"Items to install" is C7ZA-AR Spring and Bushing Assy - Rear
On another front, Richard (67gtasanjose) wanted to know the spring code on my son's GTA fastback and here is some data on it from the 999 report:
7R02A149xxx
Date: 12/6/66
GT (incl heavy duty suspension)
XP automatic
Power Steering
Exterior decor
Styled wheels
No A/C
The spring code on the GTA (it took over 2 dozen pics at various angles to find the code) is "AE". There is no way I could find a color on this extremely weathered spring.
I looked and didn't find the -AA mentioned in the list. It is in my SVO add/delete list as being deleted for Shelby use.
While looking through a swap meet table I actually found a set but what is the application?
-
I know it?s been a while, but was this subject resolved in this forum or another forum? I have a 1967 Mustang export car that has the D marked under the Handling package column and nothing marked for the HD column on the build sheet. It is a GT so am I to assume that it is simply referencing the GT special handling package only or did it have the competition handling package? Let me know. Thanks.
-
I know it?s been a while, but was this subject resolved in this forum or another forum? I have a 1967 Mustang export car that has the D marked under the Handling package column and nothing marked for the HD column on the build sheet. It is a GT so am I to assume that it is simply referencing the GT special handling package only or did it have the competition handling package? Let me know. Thanks.
Sounds like, based on your report, that your car is marked as other non-export GT's were marked on their buildsheet
What are the spring and shock letters? That would help confirm also IMHO
Do you happen to know where your car was suppose to be shipped to and the DSO? To help others
-
Hi Guys,
My Google search led me here. Very hard to find much out there on leaf spring stampings. I have a pair that came off of a 1970 H-code Mach I and was surprised to see a C7 part number. This car had a rough life passing through several drag racers so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to find something unusual. I haven't been able to reference the stamped numbers anywhere:
C7ZAAT
252 88
I counted and I could swear they are five-leaf issues. There are also faint yellow painted numbers on the topside right next to the eyes. They were four digits, followed by a space or hyphen and two more numbers. They were dim and I didn't want to rub them off, so maybe homework for me to decipher or photograph if important. Thanks for any help you can offer.
dave
-
The spring codes are listed in the post 1 attachment.
It appears you have an AT spring listed for a 67 390 GT
-
Thanks Bill. I looked at that sheet and missed it somehow.
-
Hi Guys,
My Google search led me here. Very hard to find much out there on leaf spring stampings. I have a pair that came off of a 1970 H-code Mach I and was surprised to see a C7 part number. This car had a rough life passing through several drag racers so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to find something unusual. I haven't been able to reference the stamped numbers anywhere:
C7ZAAT
252 88
I counted and I could swear they are five-leaf issues. There are also faint yellow painted numbers on the topside right next to the eyes. They were four digits, followed by a space or hyphen and two more numbers. They were dim and I didn't want to rub them off, so maybe homework for me to decipher or photograph if important. Thanks for any help you can offer.
dave
If your springs show evidence of a stenciled yellow part number that identifies them as replacements. Comparing your cars real build date and the date on the springs will likely confirm that
If so they are likely not the original markings (stamped engineering number on the short leaf) but simply what Ford carried at the time when they were replaced. Applications and all the variations were minimized to help reduce needed inventory over time. For best reference we would need to look at a 70 or early 71 MPC to see what may have been the original rear springs for your application. And of course, if available to unrestored examples equipped the same as your car.
I invite you to start a new thread in the 70 sections if you want to dive into a look as to what your springs would have been originally. Or we can split your post and the responses or just let it die at this point here :)
-
I was going to ask for a pic of both the small leaf stamping number and the yellow one, but I was on my tablet and virtual keyboards suck.
-
Yes Jeff, let me go back to the shed to photograph the markings and make sure of an accurate leaf count. I will take your advice and start a new 70 thread.
We met a number of years ago when you were examining a half-and-half 67 or 68 notch. I think it was at COTA when the HTA bunch came.
Thanks for the wisdom,
dave
-
One more update before I try to post with photos. These are 5 leaf springs with yellow stenciled 42-435 on top of the big spring.
-
One more update before I try to post with photos. These are 5 leaf springs with yellow stenciled 42-435 on top of the big spring.
As described is not a aseemblyline spring for your Mustang .
-
As described is not a aseemblyline spring for your Mustang .
+1 as mentioned earlier. The stenciled numbers and such would vary depending on what decade they were made and the company and plant that provided them to Ford for use as replacements
-
And factory leaf springs have 4 spring plates not 5.