ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 67gtasanjose on January 19, 2015, 06:19:23 PM
-
I am looking to ID these parts to see if they are correct for my application 67 SJ 289 11/66
Parts are off an April 67 unknown assembly plant, (updated 2/5/15, probably a San Jose Car, Shock Caps were painted black on the donor car~ they look to be unrestored, painted black is typical of ONLY SJ cars, going by other posts at this site) Other than date codes, do these look correct? @Blue Dot Specialties, I did not see this pressure hose available. These hoses and valve look to be unmolested, notice the hose clamp pictured for securing the hoses around the valve. It was untouched before me.
Richard
-
Early 1967 power steering hose to the control valve was 1/4 npt fitting. I do not know the cut off date for 5/16 fittings.
Most ram cylinders have dates on them, from what I have noticed.
-
I am looking to ID these parts to see if they are correct for my application 67 SJ 289 11/66
Parts are off an April 67 unknown assembly plant, other than date codes, do these look correct? @Blue Dot Specialties, I did not see this pressure hose available. These hoses and valve look to be unmolested, notice the hose clamp pictured for securing the hoses around the valve. It was untouched before me.
Richard
Richard , the hoses and hardware appear to be 67 289 parts from a early 67 . Without looking at any dates on items such as hoses or slave cylinder the large crimp clamp immediately identifies this as a early 67 version. The crimp 65-early 67 clamp secures the pressure and return lines to the control valve. The later version (march 67 ?) used a screw design band clamp similar to what you can still buy today at the hardware or autoparts store. The two shorty slave cylinder hoses have three ribs which is typical for 67 and early 68. bluedot repros the 68-70 style short hoses with the fine rib lines around the entire circumference. ether will work 67-70 but only one style is correct for 67-early 68 or later 68-70 .I hope this helps.
-
I was reading this topic over again, because I must also take care of my PS.
Something I noticed is that the original bracket (C7ZA-3A652-A?) that mounts the PS slave cylinder to the drivers side frame rail.
In attachment a picture of my current set up. If I see correct, than is the existing bracket different than the original bracket as seen in Richard's first pictures?
Is mine then aftermarket and not correct? Or where there different types of brackets?
If so, isn't there a problem witz the height of my existing bracket compared to the original bracket?
This means that my cylinder slave would mount 'much' higher?
Another question is where the bracket (with the insulator) for the PS hoses must be attached?
That isn't (anymore) mounted on my car.
If some one has pictures, that would be very helpfull for me.
Please note that I have a small block.
Thanks for your answers and effort,
Jeroen
-
Jeroen, the bracket you have is typically used when some exhaust headers are used, so yes it is incorrect.
The parts you need are in these pictures and can be available once I compare them to my other original parts.
I haven't forgotten about the seat trim, we need to Private Message each other some more.
Richard
-
Richard , the hoses and hardware appear to be 67 289 parts from a early 67 . Without looking at any dates on items such as hoses or slave cylinder the large crimp clamp immediately identifies this as a early 67 version. The crimp 65-early 67 clamp secures the pressure and return lines to the control valve. The later version (march 67 ?) used a screw design band clamp similar to what you can still buy today at the hardware or autoparts store. The two shorty slave cylinder hoses have three ribs which is typical for 67 and early 68. bluedot repros the 68-70 style short hoses with the fine rib lines around the entire circumference. ether will work 67-70 but only one style is correct for 67-early 68 or later 68-70 .I hope this helps.
Yes this helps a lot, I'm not sure how I missed you answering before...but thanks.
The PS Pressure hose has a white pinstripe with a gap every 6 inches, in the gap it has a EHR 3840-0617
Return hose has no marks that I can make out.
"Shorties" also no ink marks found, 3 ribs, a fat rib, then skinny rib and another fat rib, 6 swedged crimps at each end.
Slave cylinder has 7C22A with a Bendix logo and 128551
As I has said before, I was told it was an April 67 car (evidence suggests it to be a S.J. built car), that was never confirmed but if I have it correct, the 7C22A puts it an March 22, 1967, correct?
-
Hello Richard,
Thanks for the answer.
I know that my car originally didn't came with exhaust headers, but for the moment they must stay a little longer :-\
It is good to know that it is for that reason the bracket was changed, that I didn't know.
Kind regards,
Jeroen
-
Yes this helps a lot, I'm not sure how I missed you answering before...but thanks.
The PS Pressure hose has a white pinstripe with a gap every 6 inches, in the gap it has a EHR 3840-0617
Return hose has no marks that I can make out.
"Shorties" also no ink marks found, 3 ribs, a fat rib, then skinny rib and another fat rib, 6 swedged crimps at each end.
Slave cylinder has 7C22A with a Bendix logo and 128551
As I has said before, I was told it was an April 67 car, that was never confirmed but if I have it correct, the 7C22A puts it an March 22, 1967, correct?
Yes.
-
OK, thanks again Bob. It looks like the seller was at least close on the April 67 date, considering a couple weeks in between was the "norm" in this time period. It also indicates the "crimp" style clamp was still being used into late March sub-assemblies (at least @ whatever assembly plant this unit was installed (evidence suggests it was built in S.J) ) The date code from my original slave cylinder is 6K25B, only an 8-day spread from the actual build date of the car. My original cylinder is damaged, so I am replacing it. (if somebody has a closer one and wants a 7C22A cylinder in it's place, let me know)
So these items look to be "Correct" styling (excepting the date code, naturally) for my build date/location. This answers the first half of my original question. Maybe I wasn't completely clear on the 2nd question
I didn't notice Blue Dot making this hose. Is this hose available reproduction or is it possible to have one made up like these? (refering to BOTH Pressure and Return hoses)
Are there other ideas I haven't thought of, other ideas of reusing these original samples. The Pressure hose and the "shortie" hoses look to be "usable" but the return hose is frayed severely near the crimp end.
Richard
-
I would not use original hoses on a car that I was going to drive much, as you know most hoses deteriorate form the inside out. I have never found any one that makes the small block pressure hose that is correct.
Marty
-
I emailed Blue Dot and Gregg answered me back:
"Our PS4U6710 is the hose you describe that is only for the 1967 cars.
Our PS3U4 would be your low pressure hose and the 2 short hoses are our
PS4U1A & PS7U1B.
You would have to match the pump hose from the pictures on our web site and
its possible we don't make it."
Thanks,
Gregg
These hoses do not match up to the ones I pictured when I began this thread, and since they have been confirmed as OE (by Bob G. anyways), I wrote Gregg back again to ask if they do Custom Orders...Short answer: "NO"
-
In case you needed one. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1967-68-NOS-Mustang-289-1967-Shelby-GT350-Power-Steering-Pressure-Hose-/331472158630 .
-
NPD also has a very nice looking reproduction hose and a return hose both much like the original ones.
PRESSURE HOSE: https://www.npdlink.com/store/products/mustang_hose_p_s_pressure_concours-149123-2821.html
RETURN HOSE: https://www.npdlink.com/store/products/mustang_return_hose_power_steering_concours-149060-2821.html
-
NPD also has a very nice looking reproduction hose and a return hose both much like the original ones.
PRESSURE HOSE: https://www.npdlink.com/store/products/mustang_hose_p_s_pressure_concours-149123-2821.html
RETURN HOSE: https://www.npdlink.com/store/products/mustang_return_hose_power_steering_concours-149060-2821.html
JUST A FEW MINUTES LEFT on the eBay Auction.
I'm out at $130, $100 over NPD's hose price (considering shipping costs too)
For my money, the reproduction hose will serve the needs.
-
That repop would not do it for me.
Marty
-
That repop would not do it for me.
Marty
It closer resembles the original style as much as the NOS did...the NOS was not exactly the same either, only it was with a Ford label on it.
Curiousity asks why it "would not do it for" you Marty. It would be nice seeing all three hoses (original, NOS & repop) in the same picture, alongside each other but what characteristics set off a "red flag" Marty?
-
The first bend out of the pump is not sharp enough to fit in to the indexing bracket, the center hose crimp is not flaired enough to keep the hoses anchored in the rubber retainer and the finish on the lower hose protector is incorrect. I would deduct for this hose. It is too bad Blue dot does not make these as they do a great job. I really do not understand why they do not because there are probably more of these pressure hoses used than any other model.
Marty
-
The first bend out of the pump is not sharp enough to fit in to the indexing bracket, the center hose crimp is not flaired enough to keep the hoses anchored in the rubber retainer and the finish on the lower hose protector is incorrect. I would deduct for this hose. It is too bad Blue dot does not make these as they do a great job. I really do not understand why they do not because there are probably more of these pressure hoses used than any other model.
Marty
OK, thank you Marty for explaining the reasoning but since this is the best reproduction I have found (at this time) and NOS usually is not just available anywhere/everywhere, I wonder then why a deduction would be in order? I ask this since I will be going as occasional driven and as previously mentioned not wise to use an original hose over. What other options are available. I imagine I could wait out the next NOS one and put something like a $7K bid on it but seriously, why a deduction?
-
Sorry on this forum I default to Concours thinking only. If you are in occasionally driven there would be no deduction because it is based only on cleanliness, workmanship and condition. Authenticity is only considered in the Tbred, Unrestored and Concours classed in the MCA.
In Concours judging you must deduct regardless if it is available or not because you must give credit to the owner's car that has that correct part.
Hope this helps.
Marty
-
'In Concours judging you must deduct regardless if it is available or not because you must give credit to the owner's car that has that correct part.'
wish that were actually the case. after this years rules meeting it does not seem to apply to all parts.
-
Sorry on this forum I default to Concours thinking only. If you are in occasionally driven there would be no deduction because it is based only on cleanliness, workmanship and condition. Authenticity is only considered in the Tbred, Unrestored and Concours classed in the MCA.
In Concours judging you must deduct regardless if it is available or not because you must give credit to the owner's car that has that correct part.
Hope this helps.
Marty
Yeah, I guess I already knew that about "Concours Judging" and probably could have worded my questioning a bit better, along the "Driven Class" since that is MY goal. By default, without mentioning a JUDGED class, Marty's initial answer would be correct to assume going along the Concours direction. Thanks again Marty :)
-
Agree with Marty - the default here should be 100% concours. We present the information as to what it was original and leave it to the reader to decode that info to their level of application. Too hard IMHO for use to adjust to each and every members individual level of commitment.
Believe this provides a better service to all the members and reduces confusion to current and future members who read what is written
wish that were actually the case. after this years rules meeting it does not seem to apply to all parts.
Agreed that its not always consistent but we have come along way and there can be improvement if individuals will speak up and remind others. Every year we have some judges that wish to pull that group backwards to the "good enough" and "lets make them all happy" standards of old. It's much easier to accept this since there is less whining (from owners) and complaining to board members as well as officials.
Without the consent pressure for these positive changes, new, better reproductions will not be produced and the standard will become more like public education and trophies will be considered participation awards - as they have been in the past at times. IMHO - sorry ::) now back to the core of the thread
-
The first bend out of the pump is not sharp enough to fit in to the indexing bracket, the center hose crimp is not flaired enough to keep the hoses anchored in the rubber retainer and the finish on the lower hose protector is incorrect. I would deduct for this hose. It is too bad Blue dot does not make these as they do a great job. I really do not understand why they do not because there are probably more of these pressure hoses used than any other model.
Marty
I went ahead and bought a pair of "Concours" Pressure & Return hoses from NPD and did a side-by-side comparison to the OE assembly line hoses.
Addressing Marty's notes of incorrectness ON THE PRESSURE HOSE first because we are attempting to keep discussion towards "Concours" and these NPD hoses are sold as being "Concours".
1.) The first bend is the same angle as the OE hose. I believe in the picture, the fitting is wobbled sideways some and looks decieving. (IMHO="pass")
2.) The crimp IS NOT flaired as much, TRUE. I did a test fit using the new hose in the original (used) rubber grommet. It feels very tight. When I install it into the other opening of the grommet (wher the return hose had gone through) it will not even close around the hose. Translation~ If I use a new grommet or if I reverse the rubber grommet, the hose would be squeezed into the rubber and ought to stay secured just fine, even without the flair. Concours correct? NO, not concours correct. Close? IMHO, Close enough till another builder can duplicate a better Assembly Line likeness.
3.) Finish on the lower hose protector is a gold coloring of plating, also, the tubing color and fitting color are gold. (dichromate?) I thought pressure hose tubing & fittings were more silver in color. I'm not sure it does it well on this note, but others might help explain "correctness" on this better than I can.
4.) Other notes: The rubber slide-over hose protector is not the sponge-rubber variety like the original is. It is a 3/4" pressure-rated hose used like a sleeve. Hoses have gold lettering in the rubber, original hose lettering was in white.
5.) Matching bends in tubing, overall length as well as the rotation, THIS PRESSURE HOSE WILL FIT VERY WELL AND WILL LOOK VERY RESPECTABLE TO THE ERA OF THE 67 Model YEAR. No, I feel it is NOT fully concours correct but a very close match that only MCA's finest 67-8 judges would spot as incorrect, possibly even a mile away ;)
now for the RETURN HOSE:
Well, I might be sending that one back. EPIC FAIL in fitment, that is in matching of the bends and the hose crimping looks so bogus, I doubt it could be considered Concours at ANY level...Functional...Possibly. Better than others? Probably. IMHO,n I would more than likely have the old one re-hosed before using this knock-off.
Richard
-
a few NEW QUESTONS.
Same 67 Mustang, 289.
I am rebuilding the POWER STEERING CONTROL VALVE.
1.) What is the correct color of finish on the metal cover over the ball/socket boot, where the pitman arm shaft attaches. I have a bare steel one a zink one and I've seen what might be a dichromate (yellow) finish on a NOS item before. I also have an aftermarket one that is yellow/gold.
2.) What finish should the screws that hold the metal cover together be?
3.) What finish on the end cap screws?
4.) What finish on the main cast iron body of the control valve.
5.) What finish on the clamp (also bolt & nut) that secures the valve to the drag link
6.) What finish on the flat plate between the end cap and main body be?
7.) Grease Fitting or Plug? (on the bottom) What is the finish and which should it be, grease fitting or plug?
8.) Did I miss anything else????
-
I'll take the easy ones (I think) to start
3.) What finish on the end cap screws?
I've always darkened them
4.) What finish on the main cast iron body of the control valve.
Bare cast iron
5.) What finish on the clamp (also bolt & nut) that secures the valve to the drag link
Bare steel - normally I gun blue then work it back to a medium finish
6.) What finish on the flat plate between the end cap and main body be?
Bare steel - Normally just clean it - if rusty then wire brush, gun blue with steel wool application and work it to a bright finish
7.) Grease Fitting or Plug? (on the bottom) What is the finish and which should it be, grease fitting or plug?
Plug
Don't forget the worm hose clamp at the base and around the hardlines ;)
-
Don't forget the worm hose clamp at the base and around the hardlines ;)
Thanks for the answers on the finishes...I have a good start with those.
As far as the worm clamp goes, I think Bob G. mentioned the "pinch style" (pictured earlier in the thread) was correct for my time period. Are there different schools of thought on this clamp? Running changes, plant location etc.?
All parts I am rebuilding were originally removed from a later production '67 (Late March or early April '67) and other parts from the same car I ended up with lead me to believe it was a San Jose build but no definite confirmation on anything except the ram cylinder for dates. ALL of it, even the hoses and clamps looked unmolested over the years so probably never tampered with. I'll go with whatever the popular consensus is about the worm clamp.
Finding pictures of these details (considering the production differences) are tough since so many items got replaced over the years.
-
As far as the worm clamp goes, I think Bob G. mentioned the "pinch style" (pictured earlier in the thread) was correct for my time period. Are there different schools of thought on this clamp? Running changes, plant location etc.?
Forget it - just details blurring across years again ::)
Finding pictures of these details (considering the production differences) are tough since so many items got replaced over the years.
Yes especially the short hoses. Then its kind of boring - so hard to force yourself every time to take another picture of what ever detail it is after tones of other ones.
Have discovered - you can rarely predict what someone here on this site will ask for help with ;)
-
UPDATE: Just home from Columbus Oh. swap meet I came away a NOS Pressure and a NOS Return Hose.
Price was fair too, both pressure and return hoses cost only about $10 more than the previously mentioned ebay sale that I did not end up with (when shipping is figured into the equation). Add in a few other items needed I found and I can say it was a good trip to the 'ole swap meet!
PS: Anybody need a couple NPD reproduction CONCOURS hoses? ;) Buy the pressure hose at cost and I'll throw in the return hose no extra, just pick up shipping.
-
UPDATE: Just home from Columbus Oh. swap meet I came away a NOS Pressure and a NOS Return Hose.
Price was fair too, both pressure and return hoses cost only about $10 more than the previously mentioned ebay sale that I did not end up with (when shipping is figured into the equation). Add in a few other items needed I found and I can say it was a good trip to the 'ole swap meet!
PS: Anybody need a couple NPD reproduction CONCOURS hoses? ;) Buy the pressure hose at cost and I'll throw in the return hose no extra, just pick up shipping.
Some service hoses have later evolved incorrect double crimped ends compared to the correct assemblyline single crimped hose ends. hopefully you got the single crimped ends . I thought I would mention it before you get rid of the more correct looking blue dot repros (compared to double crimped) .
-
Some service hoses have later evolved incorrect double crimped ends compared to the correct assemblyline single crimped hose ends. hopefully you got the single crimped ends . I thought I would mention it before you get rid of the more correct looking blue dot repros (compared to double crimped) .
Bob, your statement here seems to add confusion a little, mostly when I go back and look at the "original hoses" in the first set of images I posted when I began this thread. I'll look again at the "original" set of hoses I have, i know the "shortie" hoses were "single crimped", but I'm not sure the other locations of the pressure and return hoses were all single crimped.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Blue Dot does NOT duplicate the small block hoses at this time. Now BIG block cars, that is another story. I called Blue Dot only a few months ago to double check. It would seem the closest "concours correct" replacement hose (for the majority of "judged" classes) at this time is any Ford Service replacement hose. (for applications like mine, early '67 small blocks with the 1/4" control valve end fitting and I believe this is also true of the later 5/16" control valve end hoses)
What I feel might help to see the differences in the pressure and return hoses is to upload some pictures of the 3 versions I now have. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I'll try and do that later this evening, if time allows.
-
Bob, your statement here seems to add confusion a little, mostly when I go back and look at the "original hoses" in the first set of images I posted when I began this thread. I'll look again at the "original" set of hoses I have, i know the "shortie" hoses were "single crimped", but I'm not sure the other locations of the pressure and return hoses were all single crimped.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Blue Dot does NOT duplicate the small block hoses at this time. Now BIG block cars, that is another story. I called Blue Dot only a few months ago to double check. It would seem the closest "concours correct" replacement hose (for the majority of "judged" classes) at this time is any Ford Service replacement hose. (for applications like mine, early '67 small blocks with the 1/4" control valve end fitting and I believe this is also true of the later 5/16" control valve end hoses)
What I feel might help to see the differences in the pressure and return hoses is to upload some pictures of the 3 versions I now have. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I'll try and do that later this evening, if time allows.
my reference was in regards to a blue dot repro for a particular application. They are a good alternative for the applications they are meant for. If you say they don't offer a repro for your application then a service hose may be the best alternative. I hope you got the single crimp versions and will stand by for pictures to verify one way or the other. I am thinking you got them from Bill Collins (midway through main building n side of main asle)as he had quite a few to pick from. I even picked through and bought some single crimped versions he had.
-
Here are some pictures.
First picture of the "Shortie Hoses", assembly line correct with the single crimp & 3 ribs
2nd picture of the pump ends of the pressure hose left to right is Original, NOS, NPD's reproduction
3rd picture of the rubber insulator & hose ink markings. NPD's top, NOS center, Assembly line lower
4th picture of the center crimping & steel hose protectors. NPD's top, NOS center & Assembly Line lower
5th picture of the control valve ends. NPD's Left, NOS center and assembly line lower
6th picture of the RETURN line control valve ends, NPD's upper, NOS center assembly line lower
7th picture is of the NOS lines threaded into the control valve.
8th picture is of the assembly line hoses threaded into the control valve and
9th picture is of the NPD lines threaded into the control valve.
The NPD lines required work to get them to lay against the valve like the assembly line hoses did and naturally, the NOS lines required very little to no adjustment to fit like the original lines.
Summary: KEEPING IN MIND THIS WRITE UP IS FOR THE SMALL BLOCK POWER STEERING HOSES FOUND ON THE EARLY 1967 SMALL BLOCK MUSTANGS (with the 1/4" fitting) and NOT to be compared to BIG BLOCK MUSTANGS though the hoses would be very similar in looks and fitment as the later 67-68 small blocks that use the 5/16" fitting pressure hose & control valve. These are my findings when comparing 2 hoses I have found that LOOK much like the Concours, assembly line hoses. (NOTE: The only reproduction "Shortie" hoses found that closely match are made by Blue Dot, but they look more like the later hoses found in 70 Mustangs, not the early, single crimp type with large ribs in the hose like originally found on the 67's)
The NPD Pressure & Return lines WILL WORK if NOS cannot be found. Bending required to make them fit right.
NOS lines are the closest match I have found (to date) They are NOT easy to locate and priced accordingly.
Original lines are the only thing found to be exact & as Bob Gaines has pointed out, there are some differences as seen in the photos, differences mostly in the crimping in the center and at the lower ends but NO noticeable difference in the crimping on the end where it attaches to the pump.
I feel the NOS hoses I have found this past weekend are likely the closest available to the original assembly line ones. In reality, other than some coloring issues, IMHO, the NPD lines really are not that bad looking when you lay them side by side. Earlier, I mentioned the return line to be a swing and a miss but after tweeking it with a tubing bender and my fingers, using the control valve and the original hoses as a guide, I was able to make them fit fairly good (as seen)
I hope this helps somebody else out there, it has been a REAL chore for me to get these examples available in these side-by-side pictures. I had resigned to using the NPD hoses till I found the NOS ones. If I couldn't have found NOS, I surely would not have hesitated using the NPD lines till either I did find NOS or till they began to leak...just saying :)
-
my reference was in regards to a blue dot repro for a particular application. They are a good alternative for the applications they are meant for. If you say they don't offer a repro for your application then a service hose may be the best alternative. I hope you got the single crimp versions and will stand by for pictures to verify one way or the other. I am thinking you got them from Bill Collins (midway through main building n side of main asle)as he had quite a few to pick from. I even picked through and bought some single crimped versions he had.
Correct!
-
Question about dust boot clamp(s)
Below I have a picture of my restored slave cylinder and hardware.
Is there supposed to be a clamp on the inside edge of the slave cylinder's dust boot?... and if so any pictures? I have between 3 and 4 system's parts and cannot find a clamp in any of my inventory. I have found pictures of "restored" that have NO CLAMP which seem to confirm that no clamp was used at that location. It seems odd that no clamp is used there.
-
Question about dust boot clamp(s)
Below I have a picture of my restored slave cylinder and hardware.
Is there supposed to be a clamp on the inside edge of the slave cylinder's dust boot?... and if so any pictures? I have between 3 and 4 system's parts and cannot find a clamp in any of my inventory. I have found pictures of "restored" that have NO CLAMP which seem to confirm that no clamp was used at that location. It seems odd that no clamp is used there.
Just the pinch clamp on the rod end.
-
2 NEW P/S related QUESTIONS: Presently, I'm doing the final assembly of my Power Steering Control Valve. Early '67 design with 1/4" pressure hose fitting, Actual Build date (of car) November 2, 1966
What DATE CODE would be expected to be found on the end cap? I had replaced this item twice before so original is long-gone.
Is there a casting date found on the cast housing all of the hoses thread into? If so, what would be expected?
Other Info: My original Power Steering Cylinder (ram) has a date code 6K25B (October 25,1966, 2ND shift). Would it be safe to assume a similar date on the end cap since both items theoretically are manufactured by the same vendor, Bendix?
Richard
-
2 NEW P/S related QUESTIONS: Presently, I'm doing the final assembly of my Power Steering Control Valve. Early '67 design with 1/4" pressure hose fitting, Actual Build date (of car) November 2, 1966
What DATE CODE would be expected to be found on the end cap? I had replaced this item twice before so original is long-gone.
Is there a casting date found on the cast housing all of the hoses thread into? If so, what would be expected?
Other Info: My original Power Steering Cylinder (ram) has a date code 6K25B (October 25,1966, 2ND shift). Would it be safe to assume a similar date on the end cap since both items theoretically are manufactured by the same vendor, Bendex?
Richard
Similar date code on cap but not the same date code from what I have seen. Date code of cap is for entire control valve assembly.
-
Similar date code on cap but not the same date code from what I have seen. Date code of cap is for entire control valve assembly.
Great! :D That is what I was thinking too (thinking the cylinders would differ slightly in date)
I ask the 2nd question in last post because my DONOR center cast iron housings (I have two housings that have the 1/4" pressure inlet line) each have a letter and number code on the bottom, forward side, opposite of the RAISED lettering "BENDIX" and those codes are different from one another. The codes found on these two housings are S M 22 and SM 19. There is about 1/2 inch space between these stampings.
Then (as another example) I have a 3rd center cast iron housing (later type that uses a 5/16" inlet pressure line) that is not coded the same way AND the later cast housing has BENDIX De-Bossed INTO the housing with some sort of a code next to the "BENDIX" impression.
Richard
-
Some good pictures of the 67-early 68 SHORTIE hoses