ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Suspension => Topic started by: 67gta289 on May 04, 2015, 09:20:09 PM
-
In looking at spring saddles, I have found three variations for 67-68.
The first picture shows the three side by side.
The second picture shows one with a squared off FoMoCo stamp, and the other in the oval.
The third picture is the third variant with an "M S" stamp.
My Dec 66 SJ has the squared off FoMoCo stamps.
Any observations out there?
-
You should also be comparing the tab that the end of the coil comes to rest at and also the bolts and thread type.
-
Adding a little more information to Bob's point is that the tabs for the coil stop could be square or rounded and the mounting bolts were course and fine threaded.
I believe the different markings are the result of the third party supplier. I have seen the rectangular FoMoCo logo on 67-68 original mounts from San Jose and Metuchen cars.
Regards,
Pete Morgan
-
From what I have seen the square FoMoCo stamped spring saddles would genrally be pre 1970. The ones with the round oval stamp are later and service replacements as well. Hard to give an exact date when this change happened.
And I have seen early ones 65/66 with no Ford stamping at all.
The M-S is a vendor stamping. I have a few different vendor stampings I have seen on these spring saddles.
-
I picked up some round FoMoCo saddles that also have a manufacturers stamp from what was reported to be an original 50K mile San Jose 68 coupe.
-
The spring seat went from c4dz c7oz then d2 #s & the later service replacements had ford in circle & the rubber pads glued to top of spring seats on the d2 version. Marcus why you think the round fomoco is the later version & service replacement type. The service replacement type depends on what year you ordered them as in later 70s the spring seat had the long ears & was a different design. The spring seats I take off (Dearborn anyway) 69 cars have the round fomoco. The different vendor types could be plant related also.
-
The spring seat went from c4dz c7oz then d2 #s & the later service replacements had ford in circle & the rubber pads glued to top of spring seats on the d2 version. Marcus why you think the round fomoco is the later version & service replacement type. The service replacement type depends on what year you ordered them as in later 70s the spring seat had the long ears & was a different design. The spring seats I take off (Dearborn anyway) 69 cars have the round fomoco. The different vendor types could be plant related also.
Ed , I noticed that the fan shroud trademark went from FOMOCO in the rectangle and later in 67 production changed through at least 70 to the FOMOCO in script in the oval. I havn't paid attention if other parts trademarks changed in that way during those times or not. It may have been a company wide change at that time if other parts markings changed also during that time.
-
Well, I have a good 50 sets or so of spring perches now in my junkyard but mostly I am looking at the ones that are still bolted to the original riveted control arms. In general we know that the later service ones are round logo especially the ones with the rubber pads (which there is two different versions of the rubber pads).
But seems the round oval is on most of the 3 rivet 70 style control arms. I would look at those as valid references.
Before 1970 I would mostly see the square logo version. I cant say for sure exact date of the changeover but best I can see is in this time frame.
-
I just cleaned 10 used original (68 only) front disc brake rotor shields & 4 are fomoco rectangular & 6 are fomoco oval & 1 type has a triangle vendor id stamp & the other type don't & both types are a little different being 2 different vendor stampings & the 69-70 vented rotor shields are the same way marked 2 different vendors stamped & id. The 71 rotor shields I see ford oval & like most 71 & up parts the fomoco changes to ford oval id. So like the rotor shield &(other parts) the fomoco rectangular vs fomoco oval is more of 2 different vendor id stampings not an early late changeover. I have only seen fomoco oval spring seats on 69 shelbys & b9s from Dearborn
-
Like I said, its going to be hard to give an exact time frame of when you should have a square or round logo on the spring perches. And maybe its a difference in vendors too. Thats possible. Did all the different parts like fan shrouds and disc brake rotor shields change at the exact same time....hard to say.
All we know for sure is when talking about these spring perches for early cars (64/65/66/67) its not normal to have round logo and the later cars (71/72/73) not normal to have the square logos. In between that time period its a bit grey and something we can further document on original cars to look for patterns.
-
I went in the attic and pulled the saddles of my Shelby. 12/66 has square logo with FOMOCO. I believe them to be originals. I saved them for a future rebuild.
-Keith
-
My Dec 66 SJ also has the square FoMoCo shown in post #1. The other saddles in post #1 are unknown.
In post #4 I do know that they are from a 1968 SJ Mustang, but date unknown. That has the oval FoMoCo.
-
Digging up old thread to report another finding, this result taken from KNOWN originals from my 11/2/66 built San Jose example.
They BOTH are the "MS" stamped version. (like pictured in Reply #1) For what else it is worth, the bushing/shaft is spot welded in, not crimped AND has the yellow paint or dye obvious on one end of the rubber. This result is from the one spring perch or spring saddle, as the title of the thread calls it, that has never been restored to date. Unfortunately, for the other spring perch, I replaced that bushing back in '97 so those details are gone now. I re-used the original perch then, only replacing the bushing & shaft.
I've uploaded several pictures. I have take more that I did not upload so if some detail needs viewing that isn't seen in these, just ask.
-
That is the same style used in 65/66 also . This was a early late transition . The later 67 was crimped and had course thread. That style continued through 69 (where I lost track). The vast majority of the early style I have come across did not have the tack welds holding the bushing in place as seen in your picture.
-
Have also seen/experienced where the alignment shops tack welded the inserts after replacing them so that adds another twist/possibility when inspecting these items
-
That is the same style used in 65/66 also . This was a early late transition . The later 67 was crimped and had course thread. That style continued through 69 (where I lost track). The vast majority of the early style I have come across did not have the tack welds holding the bushing in place as seen in your picture.
Have also seen/experienced where the alignment shops tack welded the inserts after replacing them so that adds another twist/possibility when inspecting these items
I would side with the "vast majority" line of thinking but I wouldn't rule out any notion that the original provider, "MS"in this situation, didn't do the spot welding of these before sending them to the San Jose plant (in this time period, late October, '66) The example I am working on was as much "un-touched" when purchased at about 10-years old as I have ever seen. Obviously, that puts 10 years into the equation and anything is possible but I kinda doubt these would have been replaced during that period...evidence suggests this, such as nothing else in the front steering or suspension was replaced before I bought the car (such as lower arm inner bushings, strut rod bushings, idler arm, tie rods etc., these were ALL original when purchased and soon thereafter replaced)...but NOT these spring saddle bushings. These remained un-touched till I replaced only one side in '97 (had that arm out for a shock tower crack). Even the side I already replaced the perch bushing on, has evidence of the weld being there in the same spots as the un-touched one shown earlier in this thread. Obviously, memory can error and I have even proved my memory hasn't been 100% so we'll leave that in the equation too ::) Just my experience as I know it as on this date in time.
-
I would side with the "vast majority" line of thinking but I wouldn't rule out any notion that the original provider, "MS"in this situation, didn't do the spot welding of these before sending them to the San Jose plant (in this time period, late October, '66) The example I am working on was as much "un-touched" when purchased at about 10-years old as I have ever seen. Obviously, that puts 10 years into the equation and anything is possible but I kinda doubt these would have been replaced during that period...evidence suggests this, such as nothing else in the front steering or suspension was replaced before I bought the car (such as lower arm inner bushings, strut rod bushings, idler arm, tie rods etc., these were ALL original when purchased and soon thereafter replaced)...but NOT these spring saddle bushings. These remained un-touched till I replaced only one side in '97 (had that arm out for a shock tower crack). Even the side I already replaced the perch bushing on, has evidence of the weld being there in the same spots as the un-touched one shown earlier in this thread. Obviously, memory can error and I have even proved my memory hasn't been 100% so we'll leave that in the equation too ::) Just my experience as I know it as on this date in time.
you may be on to something . I pulled two choice MS marked spring perches and both had the the tack weld. They don't appear to ever been rebuilt or needing rebuilt from their condition of metal etc. Of course they could have but i don't think so. I also have a NOS aprox 50 Year old (from style of paper sticker tag) MS spring perch that does not have a tack weld.
-
you may be on to something . I pulled two choice MS marked spring perches and both had the the tack weld. They don't appear to ever been rebuilt or needing rebuilt from their condition of metal etc. Of course they could have but i don't think so. I also have a NOS aprox 50 Year old (from style of paper sticker tag) MS spring perch that does not have a tack weld.
Knowing the one spring perch (saddle) of my example wasn't ever restored till earlier this week and now re-doing the other bushing I replaced 20 years ago, (seeing evidence of the spot weld snapped off in the metal), I feel safe to say there should be many more MS coil spring perches or spring saddles out there with the tack welds or signs of having been tack welded prior to bushing replacement. Sure, this tack welding procedure could have been a select time frame only, but I feel confident it was done to original examples built in the same time period of my example (11/2/66).
FWIW, since the reproduction replacement bushings I have been able to locate ARE NOT the same as the original bushings, I'll not be tack welding them again. . My example will not ever be in any Thoroughbred Class and since the detail is obviously not well known or understood at this time, it makes little sense. Besides that, rubber sleeves welded into any suspension part is simply not a wise choice in my opinion...unless the bore is loose and no other replacement arm (or perch) is available, then...and only then, perhaps welding them in is an option.
Now if I wanted a "truly restored" pair of "MS spring saddles (perches) for my build date, a pair of "MS" saddles with the straight-tube bushings tack welded in, would be in my opinion 100% correct. By straight-tube bushings, I mean like what I pictured earlier ((and now again below) in this thread, ones without the "stop flange" on the one end, as it appears all replacements I have located to date have on them. (I have found NO replacement bushing shafts that are same or similar to what I found as original)
-
Knowing the one spring perch (saddle) of my example wasn't ever restored till earlier this week and now re-doing the other bushing I replaced 20 years ago, (seeing evidence of the spot weld snapped off in the metal), I feel safe to say there should be many more MS coil spring perches or spring saddles out there with the tack welds or signs of having been tack welded prior to bushing replacement. Sure, this tack welding procedure could have been a select time frame only, but I feel confident it was done to original examples built in the same time period of my example (11/2/66).
FWIW, since the reproduction replacement bushings I have been able to locate ARE NOT the same as the original bushings, I'll not be tack welding them again. . My example will not ever be in any Thoroughbred Class and since the detail is obviously not well known or understood at this time, it makes little sense. Besides that, rubber sleeves welded into any suspension part is simply not a wise choice in my opinion...unless the bore is loose and no other replacement arm (or perch) is available, then...and only then, perhaps welding them in is an option.
Now if I wanted a "truly restored" pair of "MS spring saddles (perches) for my build date, a pair of "MS" saddles with the straight-tube bushings tack welded in, would be in my opinion 100% correct. By straight-tube bushings, I mean like what I pictured earlier ((and now again below) in this thread, ones without the "stop flange" on the one end, as it appears all replacements I have located to date have on them. (I have found NO replacement bushing shafts that are same or similar to what I found as original)
The steel tube of the rubber bushing is not designed to move in any way. The rubber bushing is designed to cause the perch to snap back when twisted so I am unclear why you would be concerned about rubber sleeve welded in . The tack welds were just extra precaution IMO that the pressed in sleeve would not move. The interference fit of the pressed in sleeve is proven enough for all others without the tack weld so that is why it was probably discontinued IMO.
-
The steel tube of the rubber bushing is not designed to move in any way. The rubber bushing is designed to cause the perch to snap back when twisted so I am unclear why you would be concerned about rubber sleeve welded in . The tack welds were just extra precaution IMO that the pressed in sleeve would not move. The interference fit of the pressed in sleeve is proven enough for all others without the tack weld so that is why it was probably discontinued IMO.
Enough heat could burn the rubber a bit, perhaps beginning the imminent breakdown of the bond between the steel and rubber (of a driven car). As mentioned, if I were "restoring" a car found to be this way, wanting 100% of original details proven or known of a particular example, I wouldn't hesitate in putting the weld back. For my purposes in the example I am working on, this detail isn't significant enough to justify the tack weld. (as you said, I already figured the pressed fit would suffice ;) )
Essentially, my intentions of restoration will be accomplished to an extent far exceeding the value of my particular car's re-sale value. A "Labor of Love" of sorts ;) If I do minimal damage to such items as I possibly can, perhaps a future restorer (long after I am dead and gone) of another worthy candidate (such as a real Shelby) in such a future date, will appreciate such details as NOT welding this item :)
-
I'd like to rebuild my original perches but can't find a new cross shaft/insulator.
Are these cross shafts/insulators (alone, not the whole perch) available in either NOS or a very good reproduction?
-
I'd like to rebuild my original perches but can't find a new cross shaft/insulator.
Are these cross shafts/insulators (alone, not the whole perch) available in either NOS or a very good reproduction?
I recently went through the exercise of rebuilding a set of spring saddles. I searched for replacement (reproduction) cross shaft/insulator assemblies and was only able to find two sources for these parts that resembled the original units (at least in the pictures on their respective web pages). I purchased a set from one vendor and, upon inspection, quickly ruled out these units. They didn't resemble the pictured units or for that matter the originals. They had smaller shafts, were plated, and the tapered outer sleeve did not match the dimensions of the originals. In fact, they differed (dimensionally) from each other. The vendor pleaded ignorance about the above issues and could only replace the purchased units with more of the same.
Same story for vendor number 2. The only ones that made out on these two purchases was UPS for round trip shipments.
I finally purchased polyurethane bushings which could be used with the original pressed-in tapered sleeve and the cross shafts. I modified the bushings so that they looked like the originals and added a hidden retention clip on the shafts. Cosmetically, they are right on. Functionally, they do not have the "spring back" feature of the original rubber bushings. To date, they have not been road tested.
My recommendation would be to save your time/money by not buying reproduction assemblies from the traditional Mustang supply vendors. They're JUNK!
Buy only NOS Ford units-if you can find them.
I hope this helps.
Frank
-
if you drive much you may come to regret those poly bushings. expect a harsher ride.
-
I have a pair of NOS perches but they are different than assembly line ones. They possibly could be used for the original style bushings.
-
I just noticed that the Jan 67 MPC lists two different versions of the bushings;
C4DZ-5A305-A - Mustang 6 cyl and 289
C7OZ-5A305-A - Mustang 390 (plus all Falcon/Fairlane models)
Marty - perhaps this is behind your statement about your NOS part being different than factory - you might be looking comparing a used factory part for one and an NOS for the other. But it would be more likely that as suppliers and tooling changed over the years, the appearance changed slightly.
However, this piqued my interest so down the rabbit trail I go...
What is strange is that only one seat and bushing assembly is listed in the 67 MPC:
C7OZ-3388-A - no difference between 6 cyl to 390.
The 3388 assembly includes the 5A305 bushing, as well as 3389 and mounting hardware. If there are two different bushings, technically there should be two different assemblies.
The August 1967 MPC says this:
C7OZ-3388-B (note a change from revision A to B between January and August). The application includes a whole host of 1966 models ranging from the Mustang "from 2/1/66" to the Fairlane 427 standard transmission. Obviously a service replacement deal.
It also has two 67 Mustang listings; an unqualified 67 B/F/X (no mention of engine or date), and a second line for Mustang 289-4/B with 4/S/T or C4 "from 11/1/66"
Since the first line applies to all 67 Mustangs, the second line is unnecessary and confusing.
Like many 67 components, change was the word of the day.
Given the location of these parts (difficult to get good pictures), wear and tear, and maintenance over the years, I don't want to say that it would be impossible to figure out exactly what the factory did at various points in time, but this one would be very very difficult.
***revision - I just noticed in the Aug 67 MPC that the bolt 381792-S2 (BB429AA) is identified as "From 11/14/66"
-
One of the noticeable changes in the MPC would be the attaching bolts changed from 3/8-24 to 3/8-16.
As already pictured in the thread, my San Jose, 11-2-66 built example still used the 3/8-24.
-
Here is an early March example with course threads and the FoMoCo stamp.
The OD/Dia. of the pivot shell is approx 1.375".
On edit add staked side.
-
I just noticed that the Jan 67 MPC lists two different versions of the bushings;
C4DZ-5A305-A - Mustang 6 cyl and 289
C7OZ-5A305-A - Mustang 390 (plus all Falcon/Fairlane models)
Marty - perhaps this is behind your statement about your NOS part being different than factory - you might be looking comparing a used factory part for one and an NOS for the other. But it would be more likely that as suppliers and tooling changed over the years, the appearance changed slightly.
However, this piqued my interest so down the rabbit trail I go...
What is strange is that only one seat and bushing assembly is listed in the 67 MPC:
C7OZ-3388-A - no difference between 6 cyl to 390.
The 3388 assembly includes the 5A305 bushing, as well as 3389 and mounting hardware. If there are two different bushings, technically there should be two different assemblies.
The August 1967 MPC says this:
C7OZ-3388-B (note a change from revision A to B between January and August). The application includes a whole host of 1966 models ranging from the Mustang "from 2/1/66" to the Fairlane 427 standard transmission. Obviously a service replacement deal.
It also has two 67 Mustang listings; an unqualified 67 B/F/X (no mention of engine or date), and a second line for Mustang 289-4/B with 4/S/T or C4 "from 11/1/66"
Since the first line applies to all 67 Mustangs, the second line is unnecessary and confusing.
Like many 67 components, change was the word of the day.
Given the location of these parts (difficult to get good pictures), wear and tear, and maintenance over the years, I don't want to say that it would be impossible to figure out exactly what the factory did at various points in time, but this one would be very very difficult.
***revision - I just noticed in the Aug 67 MPC that the bolt 381792-S2 (BB429AA) is identified as "From 11/14/66"
Interesting Richard I have not found any different ones on the cars I have parted or built. The NOS ones I have are a latter service part #s. I will get some pictures of them latter as I am stuck at home we had a blizzard last night. I may try walking to the shop this afternoon.
Marty
-
Here is an early March example with course threads and the FoMoCo stamp.
The OD/Dia. of the pivot shell is approx 1.375".
On edit add staked side.
The FoMoCo in block letters stamp in the rectangle is different then the FoMoCo in cursive stamp in the oval seen on the later service replacements .
-
Here are the NOS perches I have. The Bushing diameter is the same as the assembly line ones, 1 3/8. I also took a picture of a early service perch with a aftermarket one to show the differences. The D7 ones have a taller spring stop and no center well. The after market one is close but has holes drilled for pads under the springs.
-
What is the best way of re-bushing an original set of spring saddles ?
-
I just found a source for the original (looking) bushings.
I won't know until I get them, but from the limited view on the picture, look ok:
https://www.larrystbird.com/product/coil-spring-saddle-bushing-6573/
(https://www.larrystbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/M-5305A.jpg)
Some not as good versions here:
https://www.kentuckymustang.com/Coil-Spring-Saddle-Bushing-Each-1964-1-2-1973-p/15508.htm
But if you want the later versions then you wouldn't be on this site, would you?
-
The NPD item -
https://www.npdlink.com/search/products?search_terms=5a305-1a&top_parent=200001&year=
It's $14.95, right between Larry and Kentucky. Virginia does not seem to sell the bushing, just the spring saddle complete.
Jim
-
These bushings arrived very quickly since they come from CA.
Although the others may look ok, these are actually FoMoCo numbered bushings. D7s.
I want the Shelby to have as many original assembly line (and original to the car) parts as possible. Since the rubber on even NOS saddles is sometimes not any better than the cracked rubber on 50 year originals, that's a problem.
So now I can have original to my car saddle metal and original Ford bushings! I also like the olive drab color of the shell. Wonder if that's correct?
On to build the sleeves necessary to keep the saddle from collapsing when I press these in and out.
[on edit]
Do note that the Ford Parts D7 Saddle Assemblies look close, but no cigar.
Not only is the lip for containing the spring pigtail different, so is the saddle configuration itself.
First pic has 65-67 saddle on top and D7 on bottom.
Second pic has D7 on left and original 65-67 on right.
I'll leave it to others to discuss for how long these configurations remained this way.
-
First, a word to the wise. Buy these, don't restore them. Or have someone else do it.
- - Use a ball burr and cut out the bottom of the bent over tabs. Can't find that pic right now.
- Medium grit media blast.
- 20 size glass ball media next.
- Build tool to keep saddle from collapsing (1/2 round of exhaust tubing) while pressing out rubber bushing.
- Tumble
- Buy new bushing
- Mark area to cut into new bushing that aligns with existing tabs in saddle.
- Press bushing back in using tool.
- Bend over bushing tabs and hope they align correctly
- Boeshield
- Wonder why you didn't pay someone to do this or buy NOS saddle.
-
Would like to replace the rubber bushing in the Spring Saddles, Would like to hear from some who have done it, and how it went. I
d like to remove the old ones and install new without destroying the part. Original Ford saddles with logo and reproduction bushing...
-
Have done it several times. You have to straighten the crimps on the spring perch, then press the old bushing out using a hydraulic press. Then re - apply the crimps after pressing in the new bushings.
I straighten the crimps by using a deep socket of the proper diameter held in place by the hydraulic press, then you can use a blunt punch to straighten the crimps. The same blunt punch is later used to re - apply the crimps. In that case the spring perch is in the vice with aluminum jaws.
-
https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11102.msg130228#msg130228
-
I knew it was probably in here somewhere, just couldn't find it. Thank you Bossbill and RoyceP. Very helpful.
-
You should also index precisely the angle at which these are supposed to be reinstalled.
I like Royce's idea of putting it in a press.
-
You should also index precisely the angle at which these are supposed to be reinstalled.
I like Royce's idea of putting it in a press.
Yes, I had to remove and reinstall the first set I did to re - index them properly so that is good advice. I also used the ones from Larry's. I forgot to mention I put grease all over the new bushings before installing them. It takes a lot of paper towels and wax & grease remover to degrease them afterwards.
I can't picture installing or removing them without a hydraulic press. How would you do that?
-
I put the saddle in a vice and removed the bent over tangs by chucking a small rotary burr in a die grinder and weakening the back side of the tang.
I did use a press, but I first took a piece of exhaust pipe that fit on the inside of the saddle frame to keep it from bending in and again when pressing the new one in.
I used a dremel to prep cut where the new tangs indexed on the saddle.
-
I gather that putting a socket on top of the bushing and using the press you were forcing the whole affair to be "solid" so you could hammer the tangs in?
-
I gather that putting a socket on top of the bushing and using the press you were forcing the whole affair to be "solid" so you could hammer the tangs in?
Right. When you have a press you find more and more ways to use it. I find deep sockets and regular sockets to be very useful too combined with the press. Blocks of steel too.