ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 67gta289 on January 10, 2016, 09:31:47 PM
-
Looking for some help in validating the correct application between two different seal retainers for 1967.
The shop manual calls for seal retainer 3B633 (no split) for "Mustang except 390", and retainer 65017A51 (split) for "Cougar and Mustang 390". In both cases the seal is part 3513. Refer to the attached picture.
The Jan 67 MPC is in general agreement, but adds details for the tilt steering option:
1. 3513: "Seal - Steering Column Weather":
A (Ford), B (Fairlane), X (Falcon), and U (Bronco) listed, no F (Mustang) at all. Probably a simple omission error.
2. 3B633: "Plate - Steering Column Opening Cover":
F (Mustang) (except 8 cyl 390 & tilt steering wheel) C7ZZ 3B633-B
U (Bronco) C6TZ 3B633-A (upper)
(no other listings)
3. 65017: "Retainer - Steering Column Opening Cover":
F (Mustang) C7ZZ 65017A50-A (R.H. - use with tilt wheel)
C7ZZ 65017A51-A (L.H.)
4. 01738: "Seal - Steering Column Opening Cover Plate":
A (Ford) (Refer to chassis group 3513)
U (Bronco) C6TZ 9601738-A (Rubber)
My interpretation based on these documents and observations is:
1. All Mustangs received the 3513 rubber seal. But I don't have a full part number since it is missing from the 67 MPC
2. All Mustangs used the non-split cover plate C7ZZ-3B633-B except for:
3. Mustangs with 390 -or- with tilt steering used the split cover plates C7ZZ-65017A50-A and C7ZZ-65017A51-A
Any comments to the above?
-
The December '67 revision (Change No. 30) does not add any information, other than listing attaching screws:
67 F (except 8 cyl. 390) Screw (attaching) - No. 14-10 x 1" - tapping qty 4 42154-S7-8 (U256)
The '68 chassis manual (I don't have a copy for '67) has a triangle note by the seal. The note reads "part of 3C529 assy." (the steering column). Maybe the seal wasn't serviced separately? Seems unlikely.
-
1. 3513: "Seal - Steering Column Weather":
A (Ford), B (Fairlane), X (Falcon), and U (Bronco) listed, no F (Mustang) at all. Probably a simple omission error.
2. 3B633: "Plate - Steering Column Opening Cover":
F (Mustang) (except 8 cyl 390 & tilt steering wheel) C7ZZ 3B633-B
U (Bronco) C6TZ 3B633-A (upper)
(no other listings)
3. 65017: "Retainer - Steering Column Opening Cover":
F (Mustang) C7ZZ 65017A50-A (R.H. - use with tilt wheel)
C7ZZ 65017A51-A (L.H.)
4. 01738: "Seal - Steering Column Opening Cover Plate":
A (Ford) (Refer to chassis group 3513)
U (Bronco) C6TZ 9601738-A (Rubber)
My interpretation based on these documents and observations is:
1. All Mustangs received the 3513 rubber seal. But I don't have a full part number since it is missing from the 67 MPC
Haven't looked at the illustration so can't comment on that yet
Looking at a Feb 68 version there is nothing in that one either. Does the piece and or part number show up in the Assembly Manual?
Wondering if a different base or part number was assigned to the Mustang application. Do see screws for the Mustang applications (except for the "390" application) listed in that section. Same service part number as the Fairlane application
2. All Mustangs used the non-split cover plate C7ZZ-3B633-B except for:
Listed in the Feb 68
C7ZZ-3B633-B
67/ = (to Feb 68) Mustang (except for 8 cyl 390 & tilt column)
67/ = (to Feb 68) Mustang (8 cyl 289- 4/B with 4/S or C4
NOTE: Except for 289 with E70x14 tires without P/S
Then lists screws for the non 8 cyl 390 & tilt column
3. Mustangs with 390 -or- with tilt steering used the split cover plates C7ZZ-65017A50-A and C7ZZ-65017A51-A
C7ZZ-65017A50-A & C7ZZ-65017A51-A = NOTE: Use without collapsible column
C7ZZ-65017A50-B & C7ZZ-65017A51-B = NOTE: Use with collapsible column
68 is listed as a different two piece part
Think we need to find C7ZZ-65017A50-A & C7ZZ-65017A51-A to see if they were included with a seal. That would explain why its not listed by itself. Not unusual for Ford to not sell a part of an assembly. There are examples were Ford sold certain individual parts then changed their minds and made the small parts only available as part of a larger subassembly. Believe its very possible in this case
-
What you have is determined by which steer box you have.
Most 1967 Mustangs used the steering gear box with the long spear or shaft, that is the one that takes the non-split bracket and seal.
All 1967 Cougars received steering columns (fixed and tilt away) with couplers to go with the short shaft, or 1968-70 style steering box.
Cougars were about quiet and lack of vibration, hence the use of the rag joint coupler between the steering box and steering columns.
Just a WAG, but the Mustang long shaft steering boxes were probably absorbing too much heat from the 390 engines. All of that heat was probably felt by the driver through the column.
-
What you have is determined by which steer box you have.
Most 1967 Mustangs used the steering gear box with the long spear or shaft, that is the one that takes the non-split bracket and seal.
All 1967 Cougars received steering columns (fixed and tilt away) with couplers to go with the short shaft, or 1968-70 style steering box.
Cougars were about quiet and lack of vibration, hence the use of the rag joint coupler between the steering box and steering columns.
Just a WAG, but the Mustang long shaft steering boxes were probably absorbing too much heat from the 390 engines. All of that heat was probably felt by the driver through the column.
That is how I saw it Scott, I simply have not documented enough of them to have declared it. I started a response and then deleted it.
-
I have checked my January 67 MPC, 1960-68 MPC (Dave, mine is Dated February 1968 like Jeff's, Change 31 in Section 35), 1965-72 MPC, the Body, Chassis, Interior and Weld/ Sealant Assembly Manuals, TSB's, Ford Course Manuals and Rotunda Diagnosis Manuals, and found nothing to add to the Part numbers previously noted. The only thing I did find was in the Body Assembly Manual, it notes " (ESB-M2G43-A) adhesive, applied around perimeter of steering column seal assembly and attaching screws (4 places)". Of course, there is no differentiation noted as to Model, with or without Tilt, etc.
All of that being said, I am attaching a couple of pictures of the Tilt Column that picked up in the early 1980's that I am going to install on my '67. Note that it does have the (a) rubber seal included. Note that it appears that the inside part of it may have a small lip or boot that goes around the steering column cover; I'll find out for sure when I disassemble it. I'll also look then to see if any Engineering Number may have been cast with the rubber.
Wish I could be more help, for all of us "tilted" people.
Bob
-
What you have is determined by which steer box you have.
Just a WAG, but the Mustang long shaft steering boxes were probably absorbing too much heat from the 390 engines. All of that heat was probably felt by the driver through the column.
Coupling that with Bob's last post, I think I have it. Referring to the first attached picture, comparing the two retainer profiles, there is a reason why the split shaft with rag joint style has the two piece retainer design. Consider the long shaft design with the column tube that is fixed at the gear box. Then consider the split shaft design. While the shaft is connected at the rag joint, the column tube is floating (not fixed to the gear box). The two piece retainer actually clamps the column tube at the firewall and provides rigidity, not allowing it to float. The one piece retainer does not have the z dimension (less than 1/4") to do much to actually affix the column tube.
As to why Ford called it the "390" retainer or "390/tilt" retainer is unknown. But that is misleading. As Scott said well - it's all about the gear box used.
There are no part numbers stamped on either retainer. I have 4 rubber 3513 seals but they have no number either.
Next it would be interesting to know if any 67 390s got the one piece column.
-
My Mercury MPC lists the seal part number for 1967-68:
C7ZA-3513-D - also noted "improvise".
-
Coupling that with Bob's last post, I think I have it. Referring to the first attached picture, comparing the two profiles, there is a reason why the split shaft with rag joint style has the two piece design. Consider the one piece design with the column tube that is very fixed at the gear box. Then consider the split design. While the rod is connected at the rag joint, the tube is floating. The two piece retainer actually clamps the tube and holds it in place. The one piece retainer does not have the z dimension (maybe 1/4") to do much to actually retain the column
As to why Ford called it the "390" retainer or "390/tilt" retainer is misleading. As Scott said well - it's all about the gear box used.
There are no part numbers on either retainer. I have 4 rubber 3513 seals but they have no number either.
Next it would be interesting to know if any 67 390s got the one piece column.
When you say one piece do you mean the one piece retainer ?
-
When you say one piece do you mean the one piece retainer ?
Good point - I used a few terms interchangeably. I've fixed the original post. Thanks.
-
I asked because I have two 67 390 cars one tilt and one not.
-
Does the non-tilt have a one piece shaft or two piece with rag joint?
-
Both cars have a rag joint and both have the two piece retainer plate.
-
Both cars have a rag joint and both have the two piece retainer plate.
Both of your 1967 cars are Cougars.
1967 Cougars have rag joint connectors with two piece retainer plates, regardless of engine.
-
My Mercury MPC lists the seal part number for 1967-68:
C7ZA-3513-D - also noted "improvise".
Good thinking! I should have checked my copy. See the attached image for more on the retainers. It's a reasonable supposition that Cougar usage was similar to Mustang.
-
Both of your 1967 cars are Cougars.
1967 Cougars have rag joint connectors with two piece retainer plates, regardless of engine.
Scott you are correct. I was under the impression that most parts like these are the same between the two cars. Your statement in post #3 Was something I was unaware of thanks for the info.
-
Looking at the 3513 rubber insulator a bit more closely, I compared the few that I have to what is currently available at a large national supplier. The first pic shows their 67-68 version, along with the 69-70 for contrast.
As these things tend to go, so there should be no surprise, the replacement part does not match the factory ones that I have. Those are the subsequent pictures.
Starting with the easy stuff, I'll call the firewall surface the X-Y surface. The original parts, as best as I can figure, follow the flat plate 3B633 outer shape in all dimensions, including the radii. Moving inward, the four mounting holes line up, but the diameter of the holes in the rubber are about 1/2" whereas the steel retainers are at 5/8". Moving toward the center, the hole in the rubber is much smaller, providing a seal against the column, whereas the steel provides quite a gap. I would put the rubber at about 1-7/8" and the 3B633 plate at just under 3.5". Quite a difference indeed.
I need to note here that the rubber seals are about 1/16" thick, but they are not "flat". There is a "Z" dimension that allows for a proper seal against the column. I would peg that "Z" dimension at between 1/4" and 3/8".
If you look at the catalog (first) pic, you will see that the 67-68 part is flat as a pancake. I wonder by the way if they are selling like pancakes, but I'll get back on task. The 69-70 has a wild (in comparison, no offense intended) Z dimension compared to the 67-68 part. Looks more like a manual shift boot. Anyway, the factory truth for 67-68 is in between those two.
Part of the problem that I see is that when I pull these out of original cars, they are knarly, dude. Probably installed in a hurry, then exposed to the elements, time, etc. This is why some of the dimensions I noted above are "about" this or that.
Note that the two piece retainer has a slightly different profile. But the 3513 rubber parts all look pretty much the same. I can tell which one was under the two piece retainer, since some of the rubber seal got caught in the gap. But when stretching it out, it looks to be the same as used under the one piece retainer
-
I know the original question was regarding '67, but I have an observation on my '68 SJ that raises a general question about the column seals. While following this discussion, I took a look at photos of my column, which I don't have access to at the moment. I noticed that there are two pieces (or possibly one that wraps around) of black fabric tape holding the seal to the column flange. The tape is the same type that is found in various places protecting sheet metal edges. If it's original, my guess is that it was used to hold the seal in place while the column was installed. Is this something that has been observed on other vehicles?
Next time I get back to the car I will take a closer look at the tape.
-
That would be the gaffers tape that was fairly common on the assembly line. I have seen that on many 68 steering column to firewall plates. I believe it was used to hold the two pieces together while the column was fitted to the lower dash and to the steering box. The two hex head screws were tighten after the column was in place.
Regards,
Pete Morgan
-
Pulled out a tilt column I removed from an early Dearborn car (can vin later if needed). Note that I disconnected the column at the rag joint and never removed the column retainer or seal. The car was mouse and raccoon infested and it was not "duty free" if you get my drift. So time in the car under the dash was kept to a minimum. Anyway referring to the pics note (1) the fold-over of the seal towards the engine compartment. Another pic shows the intact paint which is evidence that it left the factory like that. (2) the shape of the seal follows the one piece retainer shape leading me to believe that there was only one type (at least early 67 models). This agrees with the MPC and other cars I've worked on.
Comparing to what is available at NPD (close to home) I did confirm that their 67-68 version is completely flat. That said the hole might be smaller than the tube and fold over like the factory ones. I'll pick one up and test it. The 69-70 version (pic below) would have to be cut a lot, both in the part that runs along the column and the flat area that is much larger than the plate.
-
Dredging this back up due to finding an unrestored 390 car (7F02S223501) that has the long shaft column with no rag joint. Just a point of reference. Also has tach not listed on Marti report, we have discussed that in other posts. Car is currently on eBay if you want to look at a few more pics. I've attached what is pertinent to this topic though.
-
Dredging this back up due to finding an unrestored 390 car (7F02S223501) that has the long shaft column with no rag joint. Just a point of reference. Also has tach not listed on Marti report, we have discussed that in other posts. Car is currently on eBay if you want to look at a few more pics. I've attached what is pertinent to this topic though.
Hodgepodge of parts, No July car has that gear box though I just judged a May built car that did (smallblock) and made a note on his Judges Sheet. That owner admits he got the car "in boxes" so...
-
I came to understand the reason for the rag joint on 390 and 428 cars was that it was not possible to remove the spear version of the gearbox without engine removal.
Someone in engineering found this unacceptable.
It is possible to remove the spear version on small blocks.
So calling the rag version the 390 version makes sense.
-
The steering box difference is on the long list of "changes" right now. Though it will likely not be a running change we will be able to document and support the findings with hundreds if not over a thousand of examples. Data will provide us support
-
It is my understanding that the rag joint box was typically used on the 390 and tilt cars . The non tilt smallblock used the long shaft box up until I think May of 67 (can't exact date) when even the non tilt smallblock cars started to be transitioned over to the rag joint box. It probably happened at different times depending on the plant. I have always assumed that Ford knew that the mandatory for 68 collapsible column would require all to change over to the rag joint box anyway so they started to incorporate the change in preparation. I will let someone else do the fact check on the changeover date in 67 production. If that be the case a running change would be a good description.