ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: mikeljgt500kr on November 30, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
-
In working on my '67's tilt-away unit, it was working fine before the nipple on the vacuum release valve broke. Then I notice the '67 is supposed to have a single port vacuum can under the battery tray, as I have, for the tilt-away, but how does a single port one work with the tilt-away? Where does the vacuum line come from to get it's engine vacuum and how does it hook up to the vacuum release valve? I am really not sure now where my unit was getting it's vacuum from (maybe the A/C can?) to the input of the vacuum release valve, but I am trying to find out.
-
Mike, there has been a lot of discussion about this in other threads recently. There is also differences in resevoirs for early and late built cars. I seem to remember your 67 as a later version (maybe include your build data again here). The LATER version without the oblong A/C canister, ought to have two canisters if yours has Air Conditioning (also with or without A/C seems to be pertinant) . If yours IS the later version, there ought to be a canister mounted under the fender well for the AC and the canister under the battery that you are asking about, for the tilt-away column. The under battery tray ought to have two lines going to it, not just one AND both nipples on that canister ought to be the same size.
PLEASE OTHERS verify what I just wrote above. I'll include a link to the other discussion in this forum.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=5644.msg58118#msg58118
Richard
-
Thanks, yes mine is an April, 27, '67 built Jersey car, with A/C. There is the usual two ports on the vacuum can on the passenger side fender well near the firewall. I am now thinking the previous owner may have hooked the tilt-away to that can, and that the vacuum for the A/C, heat, etc. maybe be plugged off or weakened perhaps. Still checking on it, but the defroster doesn't seem to open, so I am suspicious.
OK, after reading through the last thread, my S code April 27, '67 build, with A/C, has the round cans, and both are mounted through the apron, so that the can is on the back side of the engine compartment. The one under the battery tray has one port (looks to be brass?) and has a "T" on the vacuum line coming in from the manifold, with a downstream check valve on the end going into the firewall (tilt?), and the other has two ports, both have the same diameter.
-
Please add pictures. Thanks John
-
OK, the first two are of the tilt can under the battery tray, single port.
The second two are of the A/C-Heat dual port can, with the unequal port sizes, mounted on the passenger side upper apron near the hood hinges just in front of the firewall.
Warning, this car was taken apart and nut and bolt restored about a year ago, so I can't vouch for any originality.
-
Yeah, the one under the battery does not look to be consistant to anything previously discussed or any I have seen there before. The one at the hood hinge would seem to be correct for that location/build date on an A/C car.
Everything I have seen and read indicates that you would need a two port canister mounted on a bracket and that bracket then mounts under the battery, onto the battery tray support.
Other pictures available at the Library section of this site, listed under 1967 Mustang Cruise Control Installation instructions, I believe it was on page 12 of those instructions.
Richard
-
OK, thanks, I was not clear on the previous thread, did there used to be a single port vacuum can for the tilt up until a certain date in the '67 model year? Several vendors sell '67 single port vacuum cans they advertise for tilt. The "T" in the vacuum line from the manifold (one side goes to the vacuum can, the other through the firewall to the vacuum release valve), and the downstream to through the firewall line that has a check valve in it to the vacuum release valve, seems to work great for my tilt. I hate to mess that up with a dual port one if I don't need it for judging.
-
A single port can would receive a deduction if I were judging it. I would not even be correct on a 68.
-
A single port can would receive a deduction if I were judging it. I would not even be correct on a 68.
So I guess Brant should quit selling these then?
http://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/67-SINGLE-PORT-TILT-STEERING-VACUUM-CANISTER-P3324.aspx
-
So I guess Brant should quit selling these then?
http://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/67-SINGLE-PORT-TILT-STEERING-VACUUM-CANISTER-P3324.aspx
I would not use parts catalogues as a guide to what is concours correct on your car.
-
A single port can would receive a deduction if I were judging it. I would not even be correct on a 68.
I have a '68 tilt that uses the single port vacuum can mounted under the battery...seems to be original. The car also has the A/C vacuum can mounted on the passenger fender under the hood hinge. Both vacuum cans are mounted inside the fender. This corresponds to the vacuum schematic I have.
The single port tilt can uses a single engine vacuum line with a check valve....the engine draws vacuum into the can. The though-line in the check valve has the vacuum line directly to the under dash vacuum motor/actuator.
When the tilt operates, it draws vacuum from the can as the check valve prevents and ambient air from being drawn from the manifold when the engine is not on.
Don't know if this helps, but this is how my 68 works and it appears to match the 68 manuals I have.
If this is not correct, please provide documentation as I'd like to fix whatever may have been changed by PO.
-
Here is a page from a original 67 Ford vacuum service manual that I have. I also have the 68 and will check it today. I have a very original 68 GT 350 that has two lines to the tilt can under the battery.
-
I would not use parts catalogues as a guide to what is concours correct on your car.
Agreed, but my point was that why would someone go to such expense and financial risk to make something that is so glaringly incorrect? Surely they had some info that it was not incorrect before they undertook the venture. I'm just looking for what would have made people think a '67 could have had a single port can for the tilt steering. Assembly manuals are fine, but I have also found them to be incorrect for all plants, time periods, and applications they purportedly cover.
-
Agreed, but my point was that why would someone go to such expense and financial risk to make something that is so glaringly incorrect?
My guess?...In my opinion, & based upon my research up to today, I wouldn't swear it NEVER fit any 67 with Tilt-Away...I can swear it sure doesn't fit many if not most 67's with tilt, I am absolutely sure it will not work on my early '67 with A/C (mine has the oblong, non-friut-can-looking canister) and reasonably sure, based again on research, it didn't ever fit under your battery on your '67.
The '68 vacuum system is another whole can of worms, (though at least the '68's design seemed to be the same across the board) we might wish to stay away from for the purpose of the O.P.'s original question.
Richard
-
I realize that these systems can work in different configurations but concours is as it was delivered off the assembly line. Here are the 68 service diagrams not from the assembly manuals. If some one has a real Ford diagram of a single line system for 67-68 I would like to see it.
Marty
-
Having had many '68s and been involved with them for many years, I do not think the '68s had a single port one, but I am just interested in the '67s. I do know the '69s had single port ones, but I also understand that prior to a few years ago, the repops were only available as dual ports. Just wondering why so many vendors have presented the '67s as single port, they must have had some info on this, didn't they? I guess I will just give up and put a dual port one in, that seems to be easier than trying to research this……... :'(
I think I will just contact Brant and see what he knows about what he is selling as the '67.
-
The parts companies are in business to sell parts. Not all of there customers are concours restorers. As noted the single port canister will work. I would like to hear what Brant has to say about this.
Marty
-
Brant says that the specs all came from info acquired by Classic Auto Air Manufacturing, who builds these units for the vendors who sell them. I plan to contact them to find out more.
-
After reading all the posts in this thread, and doing some additional research, I'm convinced the two-port tilt vacuum canister found under the battery on the inside fender wheel-well is most common...and likely most correct, not withstanding all the aftermarket cans that ended up on our prized possessions. Once again, I'm in the market for something that I once thought was original. Oh well, we all can learn something new if we're willing to accept in our own fallibility.
So if I return to a dual port tilt canister, how does the check valve get installed in the vacuum hose system?
-
The dual port coffee can style can has a built in check valve. This is located in the bump out area where the ports are located. Note that the most common style you see on eBay has one port smaller than the other, and this is not proper for the tilt application. You want them the same size.
Also regarding location I think the correct location is mounted to the battery tray
-
The dual port coffee can style can has a built in check valve. This is located in the bump out area where the ports are located. Note that the most common style you see on eBay has one port smaller than the other, and this is not proper for the tilt application. You want them the same size.
Also regarding location I think the correct location is mounted to the battery tray
And for that item with equal size ports, it is listed as a '68-'69 vacuum can:
http://www.virginiaclassicmustang.com/68-69-DUAL-PORT-TILT-STEERING-VACUUM-CANISTER-P3325.aspx
-
That is close from 20 feet. Incorrect items include (1) the check valve is offset from center, (2) the end caps are flat, no indentation, (3) the brackets are designed for mounting to and stick through the face of the fender aprons, not on the battery tray.
Some pictures of originals:
-
I've never seen one like that, where would you find it?
-
Here are some pictures of 67 unrestored car.
-
Here are some pictures of 67 unrestored car.
That is close from 20 feet. Incorrect items include (1) the check valve is offset from center, (2) the end caps are flat, no indentation, (3) the brackets are designed for mounting to and stick through the face of the fender aprons, not on the battery tray.
Some pictures of originals:
We have seen these examples in other threads and it is very helpful to have them here also.
John & Marty, it might add some depth to the understanding of "concours correctness" if your examples also include their production data. Even if you do not have the build data (assembly date and plant) please state what is known or is NOT known about the build data. (known accessories & options a huge +PLUS+)
The reasoning I ask about build data is there seems to be a few early production examples (in the previously mentioned thread) with both Tilt Away AND with factory AC that did NOT seem to use the 2nd canister mounted under the battery tray (as pictured, these examples seem to ONLY use the oblong canister up by the hood hinge, under the hood) The general understanding on these EARLY cars is that the battery mounted location (the type pictured in these two examples) would have been used ONLY if the car had either factory speed control or a dealer installed speed control system AND also the Tilt-Away w/AC. Running changes in the 67 model year and the specific changeover dates haven't been narrowed down enough, so I hope asking questions on the build data will help out.
CLEARLY, as stated before, the LATER production 67's would have the type pictured in both John & Marty's examples above.
We have also seen a couple examples WITHOUT Air Conditioning that had the Tilt Canister up by the hood hinge area, but that is another topic for NON-A/C cars.
Richard
-
I only have data on one of the two that I found. It is a Dearborn car built March 27th 1967. I think it may have had AC, I'll have to check when I can.
Marty
-
I have an answer form Classic Auto Air, who manufactures many of these cans for different applications. For the '67, they state the single port can was manufactured using original Ford specs and pictures, and the applications are for mid-late '67 Mustangs and Cougars with tilt and A/C. So now you know. On the pictures of the ones just preceding here, has anyone seen any of these exact ones on eBay for sale, or anywhere else? Since tilt and A/C was not a rare option on '67s, I am wondering about where they all are.
-
I have an answer form Classic Auto Air, who manufactures many of these cans for different applications. For the '67, they state the single port can was manufactured using original Ford specs and pictures, and the applications are for mid-late '67 Mustangs and Cougars with tilt and A/C. So now you know. On the pictures of the ones just preceding here, has anyone seen any of these exact ones on eBay for sale, or anywhere else? Since tilt and A/C was not a rare option on '67s, I am wondering about where they all are.
The 69 are the only single ones I have seen and the OEM 69 cans were not as long or tall as the repro can. If made to Ford spec it is interesting that both the 67 illustration and the 68 illustrations in the various manuals only show the double vacuum hose style. It would seem that with evolution in mind that a double version early and then a single "mid-late" and then back to the double version for 68 doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
I agree Bob, that sequence doesn't sound too logical, but as you know, Ford was not always logical about parts…. ;D
But, as a follow-up to my own question, I contacted a good Shelby/Cougar parts supplier I have used often over the years, to see if they knew anything about this. He told me he had a good used one just like the one in the pictures here of the offset dual port with a side bracket, but that he sells many more of the repro single and dual units for the '67s. I told him I would take it, so I guess there are some out there, just not common and not something the manufacturers want to make.
-
I agree Bob, that sequence doesn't sound too logical, but as you know, Ford was not always logical about parts…. ;D
But, as a follow-up to my own question, I contacted a good Shelby/Cougar parts supplier I have used often over the years, to see if they knew anything about this. He told me he had a good used one just like the one in the pictures here of the offset dual port with a side bracket, but that he sells many more of the repro single and dual units for the '67s. I told him I would take it, so I guess there are some out there, just not common and not something the manufacturers want to make.
FYI 69 single inlet cans have the straps on the side also. Those came on a lot of cougars too (probably more then 67). Just wanted to clarify because it wouldn't be the first time that the Shelby/Cougar parts supplier added to the confusion also by just giving you what you asked for regardless of where he got it. Just sayin.
-
He made no representations of the application, just that it fit the descriptions and pictures shown by ruppstang and 67gtasanjose. He said he believed it to be a '67 part.
-
I agree Bob, that sequence doesn't sound too logical, but as you know, Ford was not always logical about parts…. ;D
But, as a follow-up to my own question, I contacted a good Shelby/Cougar parts supplier I have used often over the years, to see if they knew anything about this. He told me he had a good used one just like the one in the pictures here of the offset dual port with a side bracket, but that he sells many more of the repro single and dual units for the '67s. I told him I would take it, so I guess there are some out there, just not common and not something the manufacturers want to make.
Mike, you might ask him for a picture of what you are getting & if this set up had the TWO brackets, keeping in mind that there is a bracket crimped to the side of the can (resevoir) assembly and the bracket that attaches to the crimped on bracket using two nuts.
Reason I mention it is they may have been sourced from a location OTHER than from under the battery. The same resevoir WITHOUT the 2nd bracket have been reported as being used for tilt wheel applications on some of the non-AC and w/o Speed Control, they were mounted up by the hood hinge, under the hood. (refer to the other thread again for pictures)
Richard
-
It has the crimped on bracket with the two nuts, but it did not have the extra bracket that attaches to the apron. Guess I would have to try and find that bracket separately, they were separate, right, not just one bracket crimped on to the can and the long wing to attach to the apron?
-
It has the crimped on bracket with the two nuts, but it did not have the extra bracket that attaches to the apron. Guess I would have to try and find that bracket separately, they were separate, right, not just one bracket crimped on to the can and the long wing to attach to the apron?
"did not have the extra bracket that attaches to the apron" The bracket attaches to the support for the battery tray, not onto the apron. Going by the pictures you provided, you will need to fill any and ALL holes in the apron that had anything to do with the canister mounting.
On the battery tray support bracket, if your battery tray is original, you should find a series of (4) holes up high, nearer to the battery tray, for 390 & 289 engine vehicles, as you have, you would bolt that (other) bracket to the REAR set of (2) holes. For inline 6 cylinders, the canister mounting bracket would use the FRONT set of (2) holes. If your battery tray does not have these particular holes, it may be because the tray has been replaced with an aftermarket battery tray or the tray is out of an early production '67. In that case, to locate the holes, refer to the LIBRARY section on 1967's, in the Speed Control installation PDF, http://concoursmustang.com/speegle/Instructions/67/Article-67CrusiseCntrl.pdf I believe it was on page 13 where the relocation instructions show the intended locations to drill the holes on the early production style battery tray support braces. Later production trays, as I said, already would have the holes regardless what options the car has or does not have, all 4 holes would be pre-punched for locating the canister there.
It has the crimped on bracket with the two nuts, but it did not have the extra bracket that attaches to the apron. Guess I would have to try and find that bracket separately, they were separate, right, not just one bracket crimped on to the can and the long wing to attach to the apron?
Yes, they were seperate
Richard
Richard
-
"did not have the extra bracket that attaches to the apron" The bracket attaches to the support for the battery tray, not onto the apron. Going by the pictures you provided, you will need to fill any and ALL holes in the apron that had anything to do with the canister mounting.
On the battery tray support bracket, if your battery tray is original, you should find a series of (4) holes up high, nearer to the battery tray, for 390 & 289 engine vehicles, as you have, you would bolt that (other) bracket to the REAR set of (2) holes. For inline 6 cylinders, the canister mounting bracket would use the FRONT set of (2) holes. If your battery tray does not have these particular holes, it may be because the tray has been replaced with an aftermarket battery tray or the tray is out of an early production '67. In that case, to locate the holes, refer to the LIBRARY section on 1967's, in the Speed Control installation PDF, http://concoursmustang.com/speegle/Instructions/67/Article-67CrusiseCntrl.pdf I believe it was on page 13 where the relocation instructions show the intended locations to drill the holes on the early production style battery tray support braces. Later production trays, as I said, already would have the holes regardless what options the car has or does not have, all 4 holes would be pre-punched for locating the canister there.
Yes, they were seperate
Richard
This vacuum can business gets more and more confusing the deeper we dig into it! Richard and Marty (ruppstang), thank you both for continuing to dig into the vacuum can variations. I participated in the other vacuum can thread, and I've been watching this one with interest too. I don't know if we will ever figure out all of the early-late-67-68 variations. Just when I think I'm starting to wrap my head about the correct components for a certain production period, someone posts something that doesn't appear to follow the pattern.
-
This vacuum can business gets more and more confusing the deeper we dig into it!
It might just be easier to start a thread with PHOTOGRAPHS of all the various vacuum canisters or combination of canisters that are KNOWN as original equipment for 67's and 68's...label them "Example #1", "Example #2", "Example #3" and so on.
From that point have every member with a 67-68 Mustang "TAG" the one that best represents their example followed with a "VIN, minus 3 consecutive digits" and at very least, a scheduled or actual build date, then include a check box style questionaire with "yes" or "no" answers including "Restored", "Unrestored", "Original Owner", "Factory installed Air Conditioning", "Tilt-Away Column", "Factory Installed Speed Control", "Dealer Installed Speed Control", "Other Than What Is Pictured Canister(s) present", etc. thus assembling a compilation of Data.
May be possible to do, and maybe we would then find out even more examples of alterations, thus helping to steer the "alterations" back on course, or more apropriately worded, back on Concours!
Richard
It might be possibly to nail down a few grey areas with such a document...but maybe I am dreaming
-
OK, thanks 67gtasanjose, I could not tell from the picture if that was the apron or the battery tray support it was attached to, mine does have the 4 holes alright. I do find this issue pretty daunting. With the '68s I was always involved with, it is a piece of cake, and in the Corvette world, nobody makes incorrect repro parts for very long, the judges make sure of that, this one is really different for me, very strange.
-
It might just be easier to start a thread with PHOTOGRAPHS of all the various vacuum canisters or combination of canisters that are KNOWN as original equipment for 67's and 68's...label them "Example #1", "Example #2", "Example #3" and so on.
Believe it might be better to separate and do 67 and 68 in their own thread and include assembly plant so that we pick up a supplier variation if there is one - always better to collect too much info than not enough in these surveys IMHO
Just went through this over on SAAC with style of rear spring clamps for 67 San Jose Shebly's. Once we got input a clear pattern (after excluding all restored or altered cars) did appear though we continue to narrow down when (as best we can) the change may have taken place.
Nothing wrong with trying - answers may not be immediate but it will put members, with interest in the subject, on the look out for additional information & input. I've not thrown a bunch of pictures up in this tread only because I was afraid it would just muddy the waters if they were randomly inserted into the discussion
-
It might just be easier to start a thread with PHOTOGRAPHS of all the various vacuum canisters or combination of canisters that are KNOWN as original equipment for 67's and 68's...label them "Example #1", "Example #2", "Example #3" and so on.
From that point have every member with a 67-68 Mustang "TAG" the one that best represents their example followed with a "VIN, minus 3 consecutive digits" and at very least, a scheduled or actual build date, then include a check box style questionaire with "yes" or "no" answers including "Restored", "Unrestored", "Original Owner", "Factory installed Air Conditioning", "Tilt-Away Column", "Factory Installed Speed Control", "Dealer Installed Speed Control", "Other Than What Is Pictured Canister(s) present", etc. thus assembling a compilation of Data.
May be possible to do, and maybe we would then find out even more examples of alterations, thus helping to steer the "alterations" back on course, or more apropriately worded, back on Concours!
Richard
It might be possibly to nail down a few grey areas with such a document...but maybe I am dreaming
I think that's an excellent idea. That seems to be one of the only ways we're going to nail down any kind of pattern or consistency.
-
Would even suggest or entertain zdding Cougars to the list of data points to help fill out a more complete look at production if we find any
Just a thought
-
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=9931.msg58810#msg58810
I started the thread on the 67's last night. I did not exclude Cougars because I called it out as 67's in the subject line
-
I found one of the same-size-double-nipple cans in my parts stash.
How do I test it? Never owned a Tilt-Away.
The center nipple holds 15" of vacuum when I stopped pumping the MightyVac. I got tired of pumping. It held.
So what does the outside do?
Pic from a previous post that's identical in size and shape to mine:
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9888.0;attach=17139;image)
-
Here is a page from a original 67 Ford vacuum service manual that I have. I also have the 68 and will check it today. I have a very original 68 GT 350 that has two lines to the tilt can under the battery.
Just curious where you got the manuals. Love the clear detailed images
-
Just curious where you got the manuals. Love the clear detailed images
The electrical and vacuum manuals were produced for each year and are oversized 13" x 18" making it easier to show more details. I got the ones I've got at swap meets and Ebay over the years.
-
I found one of the same-size-double-nipple cans in my parts stash.
How do I test it? Never owned a Tilt-Away.
The center nipple holds 15" of vacuum when I stopped pumping the MightyVac. I got tired of pumping. It held.
So what does the outside do?
Pic from a previous post that's identical in size and shape to mine:
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9888.0;attach=17139;image)
On edit, I remembered I had a New Service Replacement can on hand so I checked it out. I had the nipples' functions backwards in my initial reply so I removed the response.
Center nipple passed in and out while the outer nipple has the check valve. The outer nipple would go to Intake Manifold vacuum source and the inner nipple would go to the column's vacuum solenoid/switch at the column.
TESTING: Pump (with a Mighty-Vac or similar vacuum tester tool) the center nipple with the outer nipple open to atmosphere and you should not have any leak-down on your (Mighty-Vac) gauge. This should hold essentially 'indefinitely'. If it leaks down you can then cap the outer nipple and re-test. This second test would test the check valve that sometimes can be cleaned (internally) to get the check valve to seal again. If it doesn't hold vacuum with the outer nipple capped, the can is leaking.
Hope this helps.
-
SNIP ...
TESTING: Pump (with a Mighty-Vac or similar vacuum tester tool) the center nipple with the outer nipple open to atmosphere and you should not have any leak-down on your (Mighty-Vac) gauge. This should hold essentially 'indefinitely'.
... SNIP
Hope this helps.
Ah, so my can tests good. Good to know. I'm cleaning it up as we speak.
Thanks for the help.
-
To add my 2 cents:
I have an early model 67 convertible with factory installed Tilt and A/C verified by the Marti report. It only has the single oblong canister mounted on the inside of the passenger fender apron.
Since the oblong canister does not have the built-in check valve, there is a single port check valve installed next to the heater water valve. The vacuum hose goes through the firewall and is split (and reduced) to the A/C and the tilt solenoid. I'm pretty sure the split was incorrectly routed because the tilt was disconnected when I bought the car. So, I'm a little unclear on how that reduction works. I get that it has to reduce to go to the A/C, but the tilt requires the full size hose and pressure. That is part of another conversation.
I'm going after the check valves.
Now, a later model 67 would have the coffee can style can in the fender well AND the can under the battery tray. Both cans would have integrated check valves in them, so... there would be no need for the extra in-line check valve. Right? Then, I don't see documentation on where the vacuum hose from the tilt can would connect to the tilt solenoid. It seems to reason that the A/C and tilt would not share cans and you would have two large dedicated vacuum lines going through the firewall and then routing to their perspective accessories?
To complicate things even more, I'm adding Speed Control to the car so I have to add the can under the battery tray. It makes sense that the can has a check valve and two nozzles. The outer one has the check valve (and goes to the manifold), the inner one is wide open and goes directly to the Speed Control head unit. This makes sense because then the add-on can would then be dedicated to the Speed control.
It seems to me that you would want the tilt to have the dedicated can since you wouldn't be using Speed control a lot. Unfortunately, all of the instructions I have seen seem to show the install sequence of A/C, then tilt, THEN Speed Control, so it gets hooked up last.
-
RE: Hose routing for adding Speed Control. Refer to the article in the Library.
RE: The under dash T connection for EARLY version Tilt Column, the connection is under dash and was pictured earlier in this thread. Go back a couple of pages and you will find a picture of the T and the specifications of the T itself. It is a very strange part. It actually splits the 1/8 inch hose and increases the hose connection to connect to a 1/4 inch hose for the tilt column. In other words it is not a reduced connection. Obviously the engineers decided this method was a poor design so they made changes in the middle of the year.
-
RE: Hose routing for adding Speed Control. Refer to the article in the Library.
RE: The under dash T connection for EARLY version Tilt Column, the connection is under dash and was pictured earlier in this thread. Go back a couple of pages and you will find a picture of the T and the specifications of the T itself. It is a very strange part. It actually splits the 1/8 inch hose and increases the hose connection to connect to a 1/4 inch hose for the tilt column. In other words it is not a reduced connection. Obviously the engineers decided this method was a poor design so they made changes in the middle of the year.
ADDENDUM:
When arranging UNDER DASH hoses and making the under dash T connection for the Tilt-away column, be sure and follow EARLY 67 underdash vacuum diagrams. There was an EARLY diagram and a LATE diagram in FORD Service manuals (pending date of printing). This is yet another aspect of the running changes of the vacuum diagrams for the 67 Mustang.
For what it is worth, any aftermarket vacuum hoses or vacuum hose kits, seemed to typically follow the later 67 vacuum diagrams. Also, the reproduction vacuum hoses for use under the dash, are not color coded like the original hoses. They typically have color labels on them, not colored stripes on the hoses.
-
The vacuum hose goes through the firewall and is split (and reduced) to the A/C and the tilt solenoid... I get that it has to reduce to go to the A/C, but the tilt requires the full size hose and pressure... It seems to reason that the A/C and tilt would not share cans and you would have two large dedicated vacuum lines going through the firewall and then routing to their perspective accessories?
The early 67 has very small vacuum hoses - the last leg that is increased in diameter that goes to the tilt wheel vacuum motor is not because it requires full pressure (vacuum). The small upstream source line is the limiting factor, the larger hose at the end does not change the dynamics. IMO the vacuum motor was lifted from the Thunderbird, and the Thunderbird had a lot of vacuum operated accessories, and its vacuum distribution was a larger diameter all the way around. Making that odd plastic tee was probably the cheapest way to integrate it when both were optioned. Even in a tilt optioned car without A/C, there would need to be an inline adaptation from the vacuum canister smaller diameter to the tilt vacuum motor.
A/C and tilt shared cans was not a problem. If you think about timing, when does the tilt-away function? Not while driving, which makes the vacuum load zero under driving conditions, leaving the vacuum fully available solely for air conditioning valve modulation. Speed control however would add additional load at the same time that the driver might want to switch A/C modes, so the system design would need to take that into account.
-
...Even in a tilt optioned car without A/C, there would need to be an inline adaptation from the vacuum canister smaller diameter to the tilt vacuum motor.
I do not believe that part of your above statement was true on examples provided or reported thus far. We have only a few reported EARLY 67's with Tilt-Away without AC and thus far (correct me if I am wrong) those examples DID NOT USE the oblong canister with the small (1/8" I.D.) vacuum hose nipple.
For example, username 7R02A shared images of the canister found on his Mid-December built example and it has the two 1/4" nipples with the built-in check valve (exact same as the one later fit under the battery tray with a second bracket). Also, other larger "Tomato Can" types have been found on early N.J. built examples equipped WITH tilt but without AC, also with both nipples being 1/4" so those Non-AC cars would not use this odd T or have another reducing/enlarging vacuum fitting IMHO, going by those previously shared example as a basis of my opinion.
-
Richard, thanks for the reminder, I think that you are correct in all respects on that. I'll chalk my incorrect statement up to lack of coffee.
-
Thanks for the great info--but, I'm still a little unsure on what to do. It didn't occur to me that the under dash tee increased the hose size!?
Part of my problem is that I am adding tilt wheel to my brother's later model 67 and I am adding Speed Control to my early (built Dec 66) 67. I'm currently rebuilding the tilt columns on both cars, so I'm focused on this accessory but I'm factoring the Speed control project in as well, or, at least how it interacts with the tilt..
I'm also not looking to be absolutely concourse correct, but I want to be as close to some kind of restored factory correct as I can. I'm not worrying about colors on hoses or paint daubs, but the obvious things like correct vacuum cans/brackets/bolts, hose routing/size, proper Tees and check valves are very important. We do plan on driving these cars.
So, for my brother's mid year, factory A/C car, I would need a tee coming off of the manifold and a large hose leading to the outer nozzle (check valve) of the can, mounted under the battery tray. I then run a large vacuum line from the can directly to the tilt solenoid? It looks like it would use the same firewall hole as the AC line? I wouldn't need the 'increaser' Tee on his car. He also wouldn't need an in-line check valve because both the tilt canister and the A/C canister (smaller can in the wheel well) both have built-in check valves. Correct?
For my early year factory A/C and tilt, I keep the large can inside the fender apron and route the smaller line to the A/C as before--using the 'increaser' tee (which I have). I keep the single port in-line check valve that leads to the large vacuum can from the manifold. That is how the car was set up and shouldn't effect the Speed control. So, when adding SC, then I would add the tilt can under the battery tray as directed in the installation instructions. I run the large hose from an (added) tee from the manifold to the outer nozzle (the check one) and a large vacuum line directly to the SC control unit from the center nozzle (no check). At least, that is what I'm gathering from the installation instructions. Sounds correct?
-
Thanks for the great info--but, I'm still a little unsure on what to do. It didn't occur to me that the under dash tee increased the hose size!?
Part of my problem is that I am adding tilt wheel to my brother's later model 67 and I am adding Speed Control to my early (built Dec 66) 67. I'm currently rebuilding the tilt columns on both cars, so I'm focused on this accessory but I'm factoring the Speed control project in as well, or, at least how it interacts with the tilt..
I'm also not looking to be absolutely concourse correct, but I want to be as close to some kind of restored factory correct as I can. I'm not worrying about colors on hoses or paint daubs, but the obvious things like correct vacuum cans/brackets/bolts, hose routing/size, proper Tees and check valves are very important. We do plan on driving these cars.
So, for my brother's mid year, factory A/C car, I would need a tee coming off of the manifold and a large hose leading to the outer nozzle (check valve) of the can, mounted under the battery tray. I then run a large vacuum line from the can directly to the tilt solenoid? It looks like it would use the same firewall hole as the AC line? I wouldn't need the 'increaser' Tee on his car. He also wouldn't need an in-line check valve because both the tilt canister and the A/C canister (smaller can in the wheel well) both have built-in check valves. Correct?
For my early year factory A/C and tilt, I keep the large can inside the fender apron and route the smaller line to the A/C as before--using the 'increaser' tee (which I have). I keep the single port in-line check valve that leads to the large vacuum can from the manifold. That is how the car was set up and shouldn't effect the Speed control. So, when adding SC, then I would add the tilt can under the battery tray as directed in the installation instructions. I run the large hose from an (added) tee from the manifold to the outer nozzle (the check one) and a large vacuum line directly to the SC control unit from the center nozzle (no check). At least, that is what I'm gathering from the installation instructions. Sounds correct?
I believe your answers are hidden within this thread and this other thread:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=5644.0
It will take some time but I believe you will then see why it is difficult to answer you using unrestored or unmolested examples since there are so many running changes on these options and it looks as though there are differences depending where it was built.
In the end, you will become as educated as I am or you will just give in to the path of least resistance.
Once you decide what you feel is your best answer, bounce your results off of us and see if we concur.
CLUE: The easier one is your brothers car if it has No AC.
-
SNIP ... If your battery tray does not have these particular holes, it may be because the tray has been replaced with an aftermarket battery tray or the tray is out of an early production '67. In that case, to locate the holes, refer to the LIBRARY section on 1967's, in the Speed Control installation PDF, http://concoursmustang.com/speegle/Instructions/67/Article-67CrusiseCntrl.pdf I believe it was on page 13 where the relocation instructions show the intended locations to drill the holes on the early production style battery tray support braces. Later production trays, as I said, already would have the holes regardless what options the car has or does not have, all 4 holes would be pre-punched for locating the canister there.
Richard
How early is early here?
I have a 12 4 D2 stamped tray I recently purchased and it has no holes. It's going in my March 67 SJ car -- would it have the four holes? I think March is considered "late".
-
How early is early here?
I have a 12 4 D2 stamped tray I recently purchased and it has no holes. It's going in my March 67 SJ car -- would it have the four holes? I think March is considered "late".
That later production 2684 barn find 67 GT500 in the recent you tube video has it original battery tray and it has the holes. It is at a friends shop and I noticed that detail recently. I would add the pattern to your tray and error on the side of caution given examples with the hole pattern after the build date of your car. I have seen others.
-
That's a really neat find on that car.
As always, appreciate the help, Bob.
I'll use the tilt-away PDF for the hole location.
Appreciate Jeff making that available.