ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1964 1/2 - 1965 => Topic started by: Murf on September 18, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
-
Is it possible to install rivets in the upper and lower control arms that look as if they are original? The Ford rivets have a "knurled" look to one side of the rivet that looks as if they were struck with a meat tenderizer or some such tool. Anyone come up with a home brewed tool that can duplicate this appearance? The rivets are available but how does one go about duplicating the Ford process for peening?
-
There's a few places that can do it. You could call Ken Bramblett in Indiana.... his # is 765-482-7069.
I can send you photos of how mine turned out.
-
Yes, I would love to see the photos of the redone arms.
-
Keep in mind that there were at least 2 methods of pressing the rivets. Some with the waffle pattern, some without.
-
Here are a set that we stamped at Rare Parts In Stockton CA. Believe they remachined another "waffle" die after this as suggested
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/69%20GT350%20Restoration/9F02M481897upperAarm.jpg)
-
Had a local machine shop make this tool for me, works fine.
-
With that tool, did you press them in or just pound them in? I pounded mine in and used a chisel to make the marks, after looking at Jeff pics, I may redo mine...
-
A friend of mine has a press. I get the arms ready in the finish I want and give him the tool to use.
-
These are my originals that were restored by Ken Bramblett. I hesitated putting them on my car they looked so good.
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/astat1/IMG_9479.jpg)
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/astat1/IMG_9481.jpg)
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/astat1/IMG_9487.jpg)
-
Those control arms look nice. Is that a C7OZ number on the boots?
Does anyone know if Ken can do the domed style pattern for the top of the rivets like used on the earlier cars? Anyone have an e-mail address for him?
-
I don't think he had or used email when I had these done a couple years ago, strictly a phone guy. Yes they are C7 boots.
-
I've got his phone # Charles if you want to call him. He did mine too and they look the same.
-
I am in the process of taking my 69 Boss 429 apart. The suspension appears to be original, and the rivets on the upprt ball joints is not waffled parterned.
Thoughts? They do appear to original.
-
Pics would probably help best to see exactly what you have.
-
I'm now in the position of making the decision on how to proceed with my lower control arms. Referring to the pictures below, I've got no waffles - I've got mushrooms. Two completely different food groups. The dust covers are marked as "LOWER ED C5OA-3A105-A" and it all smells original. Both left and right side identical. On the lower side, one rivet is untouched, the second was lightly scuffed, and the third was hit with some 120 grit. These look pretty much like the ones in a previous post in this thread, no pattern. But the top side is rounded like a mushroom, no waffling.
Has anyone seen these before? Any idea where to get replacement ball joints and/or dust covers? I looked at the Scott Drake model at NPD but the differences are too stark for my tastes (yet another food reference...must be time for dinner).
Thanks, John
-
Most people buy the Moog ball joints from places like VA Mustang, you can find NOS dust boots on ebay or someone on here might have some, maybe try a want ad.
-
Most people buy the Moog ball joints from places like VA Mustang, you can find NOS dust boots on ebay or someone on here might have some, maybe try a want ad.
The earlier C2OA or the later C5OA molded characters are tough to find. I'd like to get my hands on a pair of C2's!
The C7's are very common and Ford actually did service just the boots. I heard there were some reproductions being made of the C7 ones, but not sure what the status of those are.
-
Most people buy the Moog ball joints from places like VA Mustang
Charles - I have not been able to find a Moog # for just the lower ball joint; only the complete lower arm with the BJ installed. Maybe that is the only way to get a new Moog BJ to refurbish an original lower control arm?? If you have the Moog lower BJ only number I would like to know it.
The early (NORS??) Moog LCAs were flat on the bottom and could be "faked" by the addition of jacking tabs to look fairly original. The later ones I have seen have a "bump" in the metal along the lower edge of the arm which makes them pretty much impossible to modify to look original.
-
The service replacement lowers are a hodge-podge of details. I've found that the later service parts with the dark electro-coating are actually closer in detail than the earlier service arms. The only way I have found to do it 100% correct is to restore original factory line control arms.
-
I used my original lower ball joints, I think most people do also. The Moog ones were for the upper arms.
-
It is not very common to have to replace the lower ball joints due to wear (the uppers are a completely different story!). Replacing the boot, boot retainer, and rivets is sufficient. Of course, this does not apply to buggered up ball joint threads or ball joint that are sloppy loose.
I was able to re-use my 148k mile lower ball joints and LCAs on my previous concours trailered 67 convertible. The ball joints were still tight!
Regards,
Pete Morgan
-
Where would one find a replacement boot and retainer is there a substitute out there or do you need to find NOS.
-
These are my originals that were restored by Ken Bramblett. I hesitated putting them on my car they looked so good.
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/astat1/IMG_9479.jpg)
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/astat1/IMG_9481.jpg)
(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/astat1/IMG_9487.jpg)
Would a 68 SJ car built 7-17-68 have the yellow threads and the orange dab on the end like these?
-
Yellow on the ball joint threads was pretty typical, but have not seen the orange mark. Might have been something done on service control arms which some folks like to copy. Too bad the lower boots have a service part number instead of the correct engineering number.
-
I've seen the orange mark only on a couple of restored cars - not sure where its from originally. Haven't seen it on any San Jose cars for sure.
Looks like a nice job Ken has been doing these for a long time
-
Would anyone know if the rivets are installed hot or cold ?. I would like to try to do this myself as it is not really practical to ship my arms back to the USA.
I am working on the upper arms.
Also what diameter would the waffle area need to be ? I am going to make up a dolly.
Anyone done it at home ?
Thanks
-
I've seen the yellow on the ball joint threads on a couple cars. Is that just paint or the rubberized dip to protect the threads? Would that typically apply to an Oct 64 San Jose car?
Thanks,
Rich
-
I've seen the yellow on the ball joint threads on a couple cars. Is that just paint or the rubberized dip to protect the threads? Would that typically apply to an Oct 64 San Jose car?
Thanks,
Rich
I believe the yellow is a paint and not a rubberized thread protecting substance. It is the current understanding that it had to do with identifying a safety related part that need to be torqued a specific amount . I have seen remnants of the yellow on many 65 GT350 tie rods and upper and lower control arms . I do not have any direct observations on as early of a date as you mentioned but would be surprised if their wasn't the yellow then. Maybe others.
-
+1 on the paint - applied by brush and much of it knocked/ scrapped off after the items are assembled
Have seen yellow used in a number of areas (have plenty of examples of the yellow ball joint studs) - believe it was not so much as an identifier but instead the bright color on these parts made it quicker and easier to assemble the a arms to the spindle in this example. Believe that was the purpose.
For torquing Ford used red normally to indicate that it was needed (for the dyed red parts) or was completed (with the swipes or lines we see. Big push for this practice was the 68 production year - have a workers pamphlet around here that was handed out to them to explain the importance and identification of these items
Have seen what appears to be yellow to indicate "filled" but would suggest to everyone not to take this and run with it since these practices were specific to certain times and plants - not all the across the board for all IMHO
-
I have seen yellow on the ball joint threads/studs on both Mustang and Cougar original control arms (1967-73). Seems to have been done before the arms were assembled as I have found it under the control arm boots. On the control arms I am restoring I just swipe some yellow on the threads sloppy and do not completely cover the threads.
-
Reviving this thread as I'm about to purchase some NOS control arms for my 64 1/2 convertible and want to make sure they are correct. Here are a couple of pictures of "NOS" service replacement lower and upper control arms for sale at John's Mustang.
I noticed that the Ford Service part for the lower control arm lacked a number of features on factory original lower arms, such as the black/gray two-tone paint, waffle pattern rivets, and engineering number on the boots. The jack tabs are there but the rivets are smooth and no numbers on the boots.
The upper control arm has the correct waffle rivets but one paint color and no engineering numbers on the boots.
Can anyone list the correct features for factory original control arms and correct engineering number on the boots for 641/2 cars? I have 1) jack tabs, 2) two-tone paint, 3) waffle style rivets, boots with engineering number.
-
Reviving this thread as I'm about to purchase some NOS control arms for my 64 1/2 convertible and want to make sure they are correct. Here are a couple of pictures of "NOS" service replacement lower and upper control arms for sale at John's Mustang.
I noticed that the Ford Service part for the lower control arm lacked a number of features on factory original lower arms, such as the black/gray two-tone paint, waffle pattern rivets, and engineering number on the boots. The jack tabs are there but the rivets are smooth and no numbers on the boots.
The upper control arm has the correct waffle rivets but one paint color and no engineering numbers on the boots.
Can anyone list the correct features for factory original control arms and correct engineering number on the boots for 641/2 cars? I have 1) jack tabs, 2) two-tone paint, 3) waffle style rivets, boots with engineering number.
You can't tell what kind of boot you have unless you take the cover off that is under the nut. you can strip the plating and re dip the uppers and lowers for more correct appearance but the boots on the later service a distinct different design compared to originals or even the repros available.
-
It looks to me like both the upper and the lower control arms would need to be taken apart detailed and put together with correct boots (assuming these are not correct) and the correct style rivets. Otherwise its a little hard to tell from the photos.
-
I have a question on the dipping process on the lower control arms, I see some that are dipped evenly and others dipped on an angle (like the pics on the first page of this thread), I assume both are correct but which aplly at which plants?
I always thought they should be dipped evenly like the uppers as I have never seen any uppers dipped on an angle.
I'd like to know which type of finish would be correct for an early 64 1/2...
-
I have a question on the dipping process on the lower control arms, I see some that are dipped evenly and others dipped on an angle (like the pics on the first page of this thread), I assume both are correct but which aplly at which plants?....
Its not a car plant detail since these were painted by the sub contractor who supplied them to Ford. The depth and angle is a result of the level of paint in the vat and how the item was hung on the hook. Uppers can be found at a slight angle while IMO lowers sometimes had a greater angle.
Depth IMHO is more important than getting the dip like exactly straight
-
DOM.
also something to keep in mind, not all upper control arms where dipped some where left bare metal. my observations are from 66 Dearborn only examples to date. but believe NJ assembly plant may have also used bare uppers at some stage through the 66 production year as well. presently Im slowly cleaning 2 sets of original upper and lowers from unrestored cars and from the early findings uppers are bare and lowers are half/half,
SJ assembly plant IMHO constantly seem to be half/half when I look at unrestored cars from that plant, though I do have a all black set of original lowers that came off a July 65 car. problem with that was I could not with 100% certainty say they where original to that particular car
regards.
PHILL BERESFORD.
MELBOURNE.
AUSTRALIA.
-
John - pictures and links aren't working for me
-
...The depth and angle is a result of the level of paint in the vat and how the item was hung on the hook. Uppers can be found at a slight angle while IMO lowers sometimes had a greater angle.
Depth IMHO is more important than getting the dip like exactly straight
Jeff, in relation to your comments, here are my lowers...
They're a little less dipped (about half inch less) and dipped at more of an angle compared to the pics on the first page of this post.
also something to keep in mind, not all upper control arms where dipped some where left bare metal. my observations are from 66 Dearborn only examples to date. but believe NJ assembly plant may have also used bare uppers at some stage through the 66 production year as well. presently Im slowly cleaning 2 sets of original upper and lowers from unrestored cars and from the early findings uppers are bare and lowers are half/half,
Thanks for your input Phill, I'm just not sure what's correct for early 64 Dearborn cars, the ones off my car showed no signs of paint, but I can't even be sure they're original, maybe the arm but upper and lower ball joints had definitely been replaced...
-
For 64.5-65 and probably a good amount of '66, should expect uppers to be black dipped.
The lowers typically have the black up to around the strut rod holes. There is no need to create a wide angle dip line, most originals I have seen were relatively straight. Obviously you don't want it to be a laser perfect line.
-
The lowers typically have the black up to around the strut rod holes. There is no need to create a wide angle dip line, most originals I have seen were relatively straight. Obviously you don't want it to be a laser perfect line.
Thanks Charles, that clarifies it and it was what I was expecting, any tips to refinishing them properly as I'm thinking if I redip them you see the existing dip line. I'm suspecting taking as much paint off before re dipping them.
-
If you don't have a bucket of paint, probably best to tape a line and paint them. There is info on the web on how to dip with suspending paint on top of water. I tried it once with mixed results.
-
The upper "A Arm" painting is discussed here - http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=3704.msg20096#msg20096
Jim