ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1966 Mustang => Topic started by: rrenz on February 27, 2017, 09:30:58 PM
-
Looking for the correct finish. Im assuming this washer is factory as I've seen it on a few other cars. First fender bolt near the cowl has a large washer under it. First of all is this supposed to be there and second of all would that of also been P/O? thanks
-
Yes, that is possible during the time your car was built. I can't give a definite answer on washer, but what I have seen looks like phosphate.
-
Looking for the correct finish. Im assuming this washer is factory as I've seen it on a few other cars. First fender bolt near the cowl has a large washer under it. First of all is this supposed to be there and second of all would that of also been P/O? thanks
It's a fender adjustment washer used to raise the fender to the level of the cowl. It's vague as to how many "might" be used, the most I've seen was two.
Jim
-
It's a fender adjustment washer used to raise the fender to the level of the cowl. It's vague as to how many "might" be used, the most I've seen was two.
Jim
I have seen 2 washers at the rear on several cars...including mine. One normal and one larger diameter. Both are on top of the fender and I don't recall there being any under it.
-
so whats the purpose of the washers ON TOP of the fender?
-
It's a fender adjustment washer used to raise the fender to the level of the cowl. It's vague as to how many "might" be used, the most I've seen was two.
Jim
He's referring to a washer at the bolt, not a shim.
-
so whats the purpose of the washers ON TOP of the fender?
Seems it was just something done during production around that time. Maybe a new guy that thought that's how it was supposed to be done? Or, maybe there were issues with the fenders at the time? Hard to say for sure.
-
He's referring to a washer at the bolt, not a shim.
First fender bolt near the cowl has a large washer under it. First of all is this supposed to be there and second of all would that of also been P/O? thanks
As far as I know, all "fender" bolts in the early Mustang era were of the assembled washer type, the washer was not easily removed, and were of two basic types, an external toothed type, and a disc washer with small "teeth" under the outer edge. A second washer under a fender bolt and above the fender was not normal. There were larger flat washers, 44725-S2 - 1 1/4in dia, under the fender at the last bolt used as shims. That what I based my initial statement on.
Seems it was just something done during production around that time. Maybe a new guy that thought that's how it was supposed to be done? Or, maybe there were issues with the fenders at the time? Hard to say for sure.
Several likely possibilities, and without factory documentation or the deviation noted in judging rules, all are incorrect.
If I were judging that area and saw this situation, I would note its location and deduct points accordantly with a note - not factory. Are judges supposed to judge cars to a standard, or judge undocumented exceptions?
Jim
-
It's an unusual item Jim, I can see the confusion... see attached pic.
-
It's an unusual item Jim, I can see the confusion... see attached pic.
that would be what I currently have. I removed that washer today. It appears as though it has definitely been on there since day one. The car has been repainted however all metal is still original. My bolts had been painted over. When i replaced them i never pulled those washers due to that fact and not knowing if they were supposed to be there or not. Under that washer was what appears to be original paint.
-
As far as I know, all "fender" bolts in the early Mustang era were of the assembled washer type, the washer was not easily removed, and were of two basic types, an external toothed type, and a disc washer with small "teeth" under the outer edge. A second washer under a fender bolt and above the fender was not normal. ........
Depends on the plant and time period - the double washer was very normal IMHO given the specific application which is different from the other two plants
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-280217173551-67981394.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-280217173553-6799203.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-280217173556-6800752.jpeg)
-
It almost appears as these were bare metal or zinc?
-
It almost appears as these were bare metal or zinc?
Doesn't look zinc to me but who can tell from pictures of exposed metal and surfaces after all these years. Would suggest that testing be done to confirm
-
The last pic in Jeff's post would support a phosphate finish. Note that the bolt is non-original...
-
Happen to have good close-ups of that particular car and the passenger side rear as well as the one of the center fender bolts
Not sure if that is paint on the larger washer or just angle and old finish
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-280217213327-68091135.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/6/6-280217213328-6810155.jpeg)
-
The owner of that car is a member here. It was somewhat 'refreshed' back in the 80's or so. The fender bolts most likely were replaced at that time.
Maybe the washer was also refreshed and wire wheeled during that time. Just a suggestion.
-
The last pic in Jeff's post would support a phosphate finish. Note that the bolt is non-original...
We have a "non-standard" bolt used with a "suspect" washer and you're trying to tell me it's factory. That's fine.
Jim
-
We have a "non-standard" bolt used with a "suspect" washer and you're trying to tell me it's factory. That's fine.
Jim
The washer is no doubt original to a time period of '66 production at the Metuchen plant. If you were paying attention to the entire discussion, there were 3 other examples shown. I haven't researched it enough to nail down a time period. It was definitely within at least Dec '65 through January '66. I had another '66 GT coupe example, but couldn't find the pics. I think Phill B. may have them as that car was built close in production to his car.
I'm sorry that this does not fit into your perfect assembly manual world. It's a great example of variances between assembly plants and those that strive to get the details right by paying attention.
-
As far as I know, .................
I think that is the limitation we all start from and one of the reasons we all participate here is to discover those things we don't or didn't know
We have a "non-standard" bolt used with a "suspect" washer and you're trying to tell me it's factory. That's fine.
That was the purpose of posting those pictures showing a number of cars with the same washer arrangement and now we have other examples noted so the washer has past our normal stated practice because of those multiple examples. I have no idea of why the factory appears to have tried this arrangement. Apparently it did not achieve the intended purpose since it was dropped and not repeated that I'm aware of.
I do believe that if this was an owners modification they would have placed washers under all of the fender bolts but instead we have multiple examples all with the same practice for all the same (positioned) bolts. That is enough for me to at least consider that it was possible and we need to continue to investigate and have an open mind about it. Not like 65-66 NJ cars have been widely available to me over the last 40 plus years. Maybe you've had more experience with them but still think the facts have reached the standard for consideration at this point.
-
This is from a picture I took in 1980 before any restoration occurred. The fender was original to the car so from this, Metuchen was using double washers as early as mid October 65.
-
Here is what I have on both sides of my Metuchen convertible. Never been restored or repainted. The fenders don't look to have ever been removed. Buck tag says K21.
-
Based on the pictures in Jeff's number 14 reply, the fender bolt appears to be of the assembled washer type, so is this discussion about two washers and a bolt, or one washer one regular fender bolt? So far, I see no measurements, just pictures. That would be a start. I expanded the picture in reply 20 (I have a 24 inch monitor) and measured the washer diameter, the "second" washer diameter and the hex drive of the fender bolt. Assuming the hex drive is 1/2 inch, the inner washer is around 0.800 inch - real close to the nominal 13/16, or 0.813, inch diameter of the regular fender bolt, and the outer washer is around 1.090 inch - real close to the nominal 1.125 inch of washer 44725-S2 which was used as a spacer. According to assembly line practices in San Jose, the first and last bolts of the top six fender bolts were "loosely" attached to allow fender adjustment to the hood and door (they were tightened and the remaining four were installed). Did Metuchen follow the same practice?
Using the previous as a guide, and the fender adjustment washer on the wrong side of the fender, the finish would be -S2, which was part of the original question.
My main point is that the objective of the forum is "concourse" restoration, and more and more "deviations" per plant and time period arise. In judging, how is this handled when judging is supposed to be against a standard? If deviations are noted (like the tire label on the glove box door) and included in a judging package, would that be advisable? Or does all this fall on deaf ears?
Jim
-
Here are some measurements. I Did paint these to make them a little more presentable due to some heavy rust, however Im fairly certain these are original to my car.
-
Here are some measurements. I Did paint these to make them a little more presentable due to some heavy rust, however Im fairly certain these are original to my car.
That one measurement, thank you, indicates that the washer is most likely 44725-S2 which was the one that was supposed to go between the apron and fender. It is available from AMK as either -S2 (phosphate) or -S8 (clear zinc).
Jim
-
............ In judging, how is this handled when judging is supposed to be against a standard? If deviations are noted (like the tire label on the glove box door) and included in a judging package, would that be advisable? ............
Though it does not always happen but with today's use of forums and the internet I believe we go through a process of discovery then followed by discussion, looking for other examples and patterns. If the deviation from norm appears to have merit then the judges who participate or view the information can introduce the new possibilities or facts to the judging community. Since there is not currently (so believe we will eventually have the ability) room on the printed forms for every detail we discover its falls on the shoulders of the judges and the owner.
As in other situations where there is a new detail I would counsel any owner to go prepared and introduce the detail during the introduction of the judging team. Hopefully they will provide the opportunity by asking the owner if there is anything unusual or different that they want to offer before judging starts. Its a smart practice IMHO for the team since it gets these out and in front so that the team is aware of the detail though it will still be with decision to accept or not the explanation.
By discussing the detail prior to the show on a forum such as ours it is hoped that one of the team members will recall the detail, discussion and the acceptance of the possibility or fact. If so the process should go much smoother.
Of course its not our purpose here to focus on the rules or how cars are judged, but discuss and attempt to discover the true parts, details, practices and methods our beloved cars were produced with
Just my opinion
-
That one measurement, thank you, indicates that the washer is most likely 44725-S2 which was the one that was supposed to go between the apron and fender. It is available from AMK as either -S2 (phosphate) or -S8 (clear zinc).
Jim
Thats interesting.Before painting these I tried to phosphate these washers and was pretty unsuccessful. As a matter of fact i Re-Phosphated that fender bolt along with the washer and the washer wouldn't Darken up on me. When I cleaned the rust up I was initially thinking that these were originally zinc.
-
Thats interesting.Before painting these I tried to phosphate these washers and was pretty unsuccessful. As a matter of fact i Re-Phosphated that fender bolt along with the washer and the washer wouldn't Darken up on me. ,,,,,,,,,,,
Would, to me, suggest that there is some remaining earlier applied plating or coating that kept the direct contact with the base metal
-
Thats interesting.Before painting these I tried to phosphate these washers and was pretty unsuccessful. As a matter of fact i Re-Phosphated that fender bolt along with the washer and the washer wouldn't Darken up on me. When I cleaned the rust up I was initially thinking that these were originally zinc.
That's a good sign that the washer was zinc plated. If you have a chance, go to the Processes, Products & Techniques section and look up Phosphating 101 (it's on the third page) for some hints.
Jim
-
The washer is no doubt original to a time period of '66 production at the Metuchen plant. If you were paying attention to the entire discussion, there were 3 other examples shown. I haven't researched it enough to nail down a time period. It was definitely within at least Dec '65 through January '66. I had another '66 GT coupe example, but couldn't find the pics. I think Phill B. may have them as that car was built close in production to his car.
I'm sorry that this does not fit into your perfect assembly manual world. It's a great example of variances between assembly plants and those that strive to get the details right by paying attention.
Charles.
I agree with your findings on the extra washer on the cowl fender bolt. I have examples from November 65 through to March 66 where this was the process for NJ built cars.
to give you a example which might refresh your mind of this process
blue parts coupe (both sides)
Franks GT (both sides)
reference blue coupe in Australia (left side only)
Lincolns green convertible (both sides)
in my opinion the extra washer is a different finish than the normal, most likely zinc
regards.
PHILL BERESFORD.
MELBOURNE.
AUSTRALIA.