Topic: 67 K/H calipers

[Paperback Writer]

Thanks for the clarification Bob, and sorry for the confusion.  I've had the car for over 30 years, and had no reason to believe that these were not original to the car...

[67gta289]

Those are the later style with the different bolts and the larger diameter C7 brake hose.

I'm doing some more research, and I've got what appear to be original K/H brakes from a Dearborn build car, schedule date Dec 3.

They are what I'll call 66 style, with the boot ring that is a separate steel ring that pushes on with an interference fit.  They have the older style single full coverage pad retainer.  The hose thread size is 3/8-24 NS.  The hose itself is a C7OZ part, but the rest of the number is not readable.  The hose is 3/8-24 NS.

So I have three questions to start with (may have more later...)

1. Bob mentioned a larger diameter C7 brake hose.  Is that hose diameter only, or is there a commensurate increase in thread size also.  If there is, to what?

2. Am I correct in assuming that the "early" 67 disc brake calipers were actually carry over from 66, and there was a running change to introduce a new version.

3. What is the list of differences between the versions?  (1) pad retainers, (2) dust boot retainer,

Thanks, John

[Bob Gaines]

I'm doing some more research, and I've got what appear to be original K/H brakes from a Dearborn build car, schedule date Dec 3.

They are what I'll call 66 style, with the boot ring that is a separate steel ring that pushes on with an interference fit.  They have the older style single full coverage pad retainer.  The hose thread size is 3/8-24 NS.  The hose itself is a C7OZ part, but the rest of the number is not readable.  The hose is 3/8-24 NS.

So I have three questions to start with (may have more later...)

1. Bob mentioned a larger diameter C7 brake hose.  Is that hose diameter only, or is there a commensurate increase in thread size also.  If there is, to what?

2. Am I correct in assuming that the "early" 67 disc brake calipers were actually carry over from 66, and there was a running change to introduce a new version.

3. What is the list of differences between the versions?  (1) pad retainers, (2) dust boot retainer,

Thanks, John

1. 65/66 smaller size fitting diameter on hose .  2. I can only assume.   3. Same things you list with the addition of hardware.

[67gta289]

(Modified)

Thanks Bob.

Since I have a C7OA hose attached to these 65-66 style Kelsey Hayes calipers, I'm inclined to think that there were at least three different styles used in Mustangs:

1. 65-66 AND early 67 with 3/8-24 NS hose fitting size, external boot retaining rings, and single full size brake pad retainer.
2. 67 with 3/8-24 NS fitting size, internal boot retaining rings, and dual small brake pad retainers.
3. late 67 with 7/16-xx fitting size, internal boot retaining groove, and dual small brake pad retainers.

As Bob mentioned hardware differences are also in play, but I'm concentrating on the big picture at the moment.

Looking for comments and corrections, especially in the 65-66 and late 67 hose fitting sizes.

Bob also stated in the related post that "Early build SJ 67 car's used the small inlet like the 65/66"

So it could be that thr 65-66 and early 67 are 3/8-24 NS, and the late 67 are larger.  If that is the case, then the early 67's may be a direct carry over from 65-66.

As for trying to determine the change over date(s), I can offer:

1. 7F01C129xxx Dec 3 scheduled build, has the 65-66 and early 67 caliper style.
2. My156855xxx Dec 20 actual build car had probably more than one caliper exchanges by the time I got it in 1979
3. Jeff's posting above of "original example from a December 15th scheduled car" that is the early 67 style.
4. Richard's (67gtasanjose) 11/02/66 had the early 67 type http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=8827.msg51459#msg51459
5. Jeff's other examples from March, San Jose, of the late 67 type.

To confuse the issue, I have some 3/8-24 (early) threaded calipers with the late style grooved boot retaining rings, although they appear to be aftermarket, with no K/H markings.  Will post pictures later.

[67gta289]

I did a bit more homework, in the attached file.  Comments welcome! John

[67gtasanjose]

Good info, I learned a bunch. Now if we could establish what is correct for various buld dates and plants...
Rome wasn't built in a day

[preaction]

Were these on all 67 disk brakes- K/H brakes?

[Bob Gaines]

Were these on all 67 disk brakes- K/H brakes?

No maybe only until they transitioned to the larger brake flex line fitting size .guesstimate no later then Oct/Nov 66. After that they were the metal retaining clips that held the pads in.

[Bob Gaines]

FYI the larger 65-early 67 pad retainers were semigloss black.

[Brian in PA]

I have those on my Jan 24 67 SJ  fastback.

[Bob Gaines]

I have those on my Jan 24 67 SJ  fastback.

Are you inferring that you believe that they are assemblyline?

[Brian in PA]

I would say so. I'll get numbers off of the calipers if that helps.

[Brian in PA]

I got some pics.  I hope this helps.  I have no reason to believe that they were changed but I'm no expert so please chime in Thanks!

Brian

[Bob Gaines]

I got some pics.  I hope this helps.  I have no reason to believe that they were changed but I'm no expert so please chime in Thanks!

Brian

First off the calipers have been off and restored. FYI someone didn't know any better and left the early style pad retainer unpainted which calls into question what other things that they did not know any better about. . The fact that the bolt holding the caliper on is the later safety wire type (the one with no safety wire in the holes ) proofs it has been tampered with.  Like the 65 and 66 the early 67 calipers didn't use a safety wire bolt. A later car did have the larger brake flex lines ,later style pad clips and safety wired in bolts. Most likely those calipers have been changed. There is no extra ordinary proof to justify the extra ordinary claim that the early style calipers were used on that late of car. There is however all kinds of evidence to suggest that they have been messed with and not in any kind of original type matrix to support a un tampered with conclusion.

[ruppstang]

When I restored this 11-04-66 SJ car many years ago I did not detail it correctly but it is original to the car.