ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 196667Bob on January 27, 2016, 11:03:40 PM
-
I am adding Power Brakes to my '67 Convertible. I have an NOS Booster, check valve, pedal support, new master Cylinder, etc. As I don't currently have PB on the car, the vacuum line to the C4 transmission modulator valve goes from the fitting on the intake manifold to a steel tube from the modulator. With PB, a hose goes from the Booster Check Valve to the intake manifold, and another hose goes from the Check Valve to the steel tube from the modulator.
I have the ID, OD and length of the hose from the Booster Valve to the intake, but not for the hose from the Check Valve to the steel tube from the modulator.
Could someone be kind enough to furnish me the ID, OD and length of that hose ? Also, were there any markings of note on said hose (note that on the attached picture of my existing hose from the intake manifold to the steel tube from the modulator, it has a white stripe. My car is a January 31, 1967 Dearborn Build.
Thanks for the help.
Bob
-
Bob I do not believe that the modulator line comes off the booster check valve. I think it should come off a different fitting on the vacuum tree. If you have the 67 Ford Vacuum service manual check the diagram there. I'll check if I have a picture.
-
Marty,
The 1967 ones I own/ have owned do come off the booster.
-
Marty : I was going to mention that John (67gta289) had first furnished me the information that his 67 had Factory PB, and that is where the hose to the AT came from (he beat me to the draw). While John's is a SJ build, and has the Thermactor, and mine is a Dearborn build with no Thermactor (and no vacuum tree), there is a possibility that it could be different.
The 67 Vacuum Manual does not show the Mustang lines with PB Booster; however, it does show it for 289 Falcons and Fairlanes. I have not found any help in any of the MPC's either in diagrams or text in regard to the hoses. However, in looking at the aforementioned Falcon/ Fairlane Vacuum Diagram, the 67 Shop Manual, and the Chassis Assembly Manual, I think that all indications confirm what John noted; that the vacuum line to the transmission goes from the PB Booster directly to the transmission.
That being said, I still am in need of the specs on that hose.
Thanks for the input.
Bob
-
Can confirm the somewhat odd routing for the automatic transmission vacuum source for San Jose cars equipped as listed above.
Should be able to provide pictures of allot of this but it will not help with the specific measurements needed. And, unfortunately, not planning on taking a yard visit in the near future. If it doesn't rain this weekend might get lucky at the Turlock swap meet though it looks like rain :(
-
Jeff : Thanks. One would sure think that there would be someone "out there" that had an early Dearborn 67 C Code with AT and PB (no A/C, Tilt or TE), that could do some quick measurements, wouldn't you ?
Bob
-
Did a 67 power brake rubber line have markings on them IIRC such as the ones sold by Dead nuts on for 68 and later years.
-
Did a 67 power brake rubber line have markings on them IIRC such as the ones sold by Dead nuts on for 68 and later years.
Would guess that there would need to be identifiers on them to identify which supplier, batch and or date. Don't believe they were ribbed for identification purposes like the radiator and by pass hoses
Will look through the 67 pictures but guessing its not going to show much with the dirt, dust and other build ups
Jeff : Thanks. One would sure think that there would be someone "out there" that had an early Dearborn 67 C Code with AT and PB (no A/C, Tilt or TE), that could do some quick measurements, wouldn't you ?
Since its a Dearborn car might reach out to the Cougar guys - just tossing out a bigger net ;) Challenge I'm finding is that power brakes were sort fo a new thing in 67 on these little cars making that option not a popular one
-
The rubber line from the intake manifold to the booster did not based on my experience and information. The subject hose of this thread, from the booster to the automatic transmission modulator valve is what Bob is asking about.
-
Just for info : the rubber hose (which I believe to be original) from the intake manifold to the steel tube from the transmission modulator on my currently non- PB 289, has a white stripe on it as shown in the picture attached to my original Post.
Bob
-
The rubber line from the intake manifold to the booster did not based on my experience and information. The subject hose of this thread, from the booster to the automatic transmission modulator valve is what Bob is asking about.
Thanks for the clarification. We seem to often need to get reminded as the threads meander a bit
Agree those small dia hoses normally don't have printing though sometimes there can be ribbing
-
My bad, I read the OP and saw booster hose, something Im working on and lost focus.
-
Here is the routing for the vacuum lines on my 11-04-66 SJ convertible. This is how it was when I got it, a PO could have changed it but I doubt it.
I have seen the small vacuum line in bulk from Ford with that white stripe on it but do not think it was assembly line.
I am not aware that the large hose that supplies the booster had any marks.
-
Dead nuts has a reproduction hose for 68 and up, it has 'Gates' hose markings and a date I thought the 67 may be similar.
-
Here is the routing for the vacuum lines on my 11-04-66 SJ convertible. This is how it was when I got it, a PO could have changed it but I doubt it.
Believe the difference is in the way the car is equipped
-
Marty : Thanks for the pictures (I think). I'm a little confused though; most likely because yours has (at least) PB and A/C. It appears that the vacuum line to the transmission comes off of the brass tee on the intake, and, contrary to other comments and diagrams, does not come from the check valve on the booster. This is probably (?) due to the other vacuum sources being needed. Is the check valve on your booster capped on the port that otherwise would have gone to the transmission ?
Thanks,
Bob
-
Our car has 289 2V, Automatic Transmission,PB, PS, AC, Tilt column and imco emissions.
-
......... early Dearborn 67 C Code with AT and PB (no A/C, Tilt or TE), ...........
Finding examples (like your request) with the vacuum line to the booster.
Collecting pictures now - will post once I get them all and sized. Guess you have already looked at the other vacuum charts and information in the various other Ford manuals
-
Marty : Thanks for the pictures (I think). I'm a little confused though; most likely because yours has (at least) PB and A/C. It appears that the vacuum line to the transmission comes off of the brass tee on the intake, and, contrary to other comments and diagrams, does not come from the check valve on the booster. This is probably (?) due to the other vacuum sources being needed. Is the check valve on your booster capped on the port that otherwise would have gone to the transmission ?
Thanks,
Bob
Yes the port on the booster is capped. I think our 68 has similar routing. May Jeff has some pictures of some unrestored examples.
-
Yes the port on the booster is capped. I think our 68 has similar routing. May Jeff has some pictures of some unrestored examples.
Marty , even though the subject is vacuum hose I thought I would mention something about the picture posted so that there is no confusion. The whole Master/booster assembly -master ,booster ,bail wire and everything in between is painted as a unit semi gloss black .The clamp was typically the zinc silver crimp type for 67/68 . The black oxide pinch clamp on the hose was typically 69/70.
-
Jeff : Hopefully the transmission vacuum line to the Booster. I think that pictures will probably be the best. As I think you know, I have a pretty extensive Ford library I've assembled over the past 55 years, the last 40 including 65-67 Mustang info. I have checked everything except the 1967 Engine Assembly Manual and my TSB's. I doubt that the TSB's will shed any light, but possibly the Engine Assembly Manual.. I'll check it. Hopefully, your pictures will take care of the routing questions, but of course not the dimensions.
Marty : Thanks for the additional picture - just as I surmised.
Thanks to both of you.
Bob
-
Here are the pics from my car, 289 auto power brakes, thermactor, SJ, Dec 66. These are from before the restoration started. Not too long after I got the car on the road in early 1980 I had problems with the trans shifting, and found the vacuum hose from the booster valve to the trans to be brittle, so I replaced it with "by the foot" vacuum hose at a local auto parts store. So I can't offer that as original, and the length is probably not valid either, considering Bob's request.
The brake booster hose, which I believe to be original, has different clamps than what shows in the picture that Marty posted. That might be a related topic to chase down. Also I included a picture of the end of the hose which shows that it is a "corded" type hose. Sorry for the fuzzy pic there.
As a side, note, looking at the pictures, I do recall also changing the brake MC and cap, and the front shocks. Bought the front shocks at Sears, and the girl that cashed me out asked what kind of car it was for. She was impressed. But I did not ask for a date since the girl I was dating would become my wife.
-
Has anyone looked at the image of "Installation-Max Vacuum Options Hose Routing-Engine Compartment" (page 7 of Osborn CHASSIS Assembly Manual)
This would be for 67 Mustang/Cougar 289 engines.
I believe this image, along with other original examples, indicate several things. FIRST: There are probably running changes with respect to the vacuum canister type and location (discussed in other threads within this site)
SECOND: That depending upon the option list of any car, assembly worker or plant location, there very well can be different examples of how the particular worker at a particular assembly plant (at different dates) may have interpreted these instructions.
Marty's example, best I recollect, was a NON-THERMACTOR CAR, built in San Jose for sale in the Midwest (Nebraska)
.
Other San Jose examples built WITH THERMACTOR, Select-Aire air conditioning, power disc brakes etc. (including my 11-1-1966 built SJ coupe) DID (or could?) ORIGINALLY HAVE THE TRANSMISSION MODULATOR HOSE CONNECED TO THE BRAKE BOOSTER.
As others seem to indicate (Jeff), there are examples where this would be true. I am waiting for pictures from Jeff too to hopefully help determine this as true, "correct information" but it looks like if your 289 early San Jose also had these four options (factory Select-Aire, Thermactor, power brakes and auto transmission) the hose should be found connected to the brake booster. (again, at least on 289's built in San Jose, for EARLY built 67 Mustangs and Cougars.
-
Here are the pics from my car, 289 auto power brakes, thermactor, SJ, Dec 66. These are from before the restoration started. Not too long after I got the car on the road in early 1980 I had problems with the trans shifting, and found the vacuum hose from the booster valve to the trans to be brittle, so I replaced it with "by the foot" vacuum hose at a local auto parts store. So I can't offer that as original, and the length is probably not valid either, considering Bob's request.
The brake booster hose, which I believe to be original, has different clamps than what shows in the picture that Marty posted. That might be a related topic to chase down. Also I included a picture of the end of the hose which shows that it is a "corded" type hose. Sorry for the fuzzy pic there.
As a side, note, looking at the pictures, I do recall also changing the brake MC and cap, and the front shocks. Bought the front shocks at Sears, and the girl that cashed me out asked what kind of car it was for. She was impressed. But I did not ask for a date since the girl I was dating would become my wife.
John, your information is almost exact to mine in regard to the hose location and replacement. I know I changed these hoses out after I bought my example in 1978, they also were brittle. I have no pictures of "before" but I certainly would not have changed the "where" they would have been connected and my modulator hose was always connected to the brake booster until the day my booster failed and I needed to bypass it for a while til it was replaced. After replacing the booster, I reconnected it as it was before, ON THE BOOSTER. I believe this to be 100% accurate and even matches what the body assembly manual looks to be showing.
-
Has anyone looked at the image of "Installation-Max Vacuum Options Hose Routing-Engine Compartment" (page 7 of Osborn CHASSIS Assembly Manual)
This would be for 67 Mustang/Cougar 289 engines.
Richard : The "image" you refer to is the third picture attached in my "Reply # 3". As I noted (at least I think I did), this shows, at least to my eyes, the vacuum line going from the Booster Check Valve to the transmission. However, it also shows all of the other vacuum lines for other Options, so my question in regard to that image is, "would it be the same if you only had one, or two of the Options" ? Of course this still doesn't address my original question as to ID, OD Length and Markings.
On another note and idea, in my particular case, since my car did not come with PB from the Factory (and from all of my info PB were not an Option on Drum Brakes), I'm looking at the addition as an "Accessory". This is listed in the Accessory Section of the 1960-68 MPC as Part # C7ZZ-2A091-A, Kit, Power Brake Booster Installation, F (drum brakes). Included in the "contents" of the Kit are 5 "tubes" and 1 "hose". While I could not find any of the exact part numbers listed for these 6 items in my 67, 1960-68 or 1965-72 MPC's, similar part numbers (including the one noted "hose") show that they are either Master Cylinder brake line/fitting related, or intake manifold tee/steel tube elbow related. No I.S. (Instruction Sheet) number is noted as included in the Kit, but there must have been one. A copy of it might shed some light if it could ever be found.
Getting a little "off track" from the "hose" subject of my original Post, yet related to the contents of the Kit, are the pedals. Both Manual Transmission and Automatic Transmission pedals are shown as being part of the Kit. What's interesting here, is that the Automatic Transmission Pedal shown is the same as that which is used on the Power Disc Brake Option. This by itself is not too hard to fathom; but what makes it interesting, is that cars equipped with the Power Disc Brakes used a different dash to firewall pedal support than those without. Apparently (?), since no dash to firewall support is included in the Kit, the Power Disc Brake Pedal will work in the non power Pedal Support ??? Anyone have any evidence of this ?
Bob
-
Here are the pics from my car, 289 auto power brakes, thermactor, SJ, Dec 66. These are from before the restoration started. Not too long after I got the car on the road in early 1980 I had problems with the trans shifting, and found the vacuum hose from the booster valve to the trans to be brittle, so I replaced it with "by the foot" vacuum hose at a local auto parts store. So I can't offer that as original, and the length is probably not valid either, considering Bob's request.
The brake booster hose, which I believe to be original, has different clamps than what shows in the picture that Marty posted. That might be a related topic to chase down. Also I included a picture of the end of the hose which shows that it is a "corded" type hose. Sorry for the fuzzy pic there.
As a side, note, looking at the pictures, I do recall also changing the brake MC and cap, and the front shocks. Bought the front shocks at Sears, and the girl that cashed me out asked what kind of car it was for. She was impressed. But I did not ask for a date since the girl I was dating would become my wife.
See reply #19. ;)Dead nuts on sells the correct hose although you would have to wipe off the markings which are 69/70 versions. Many times the 67/68 were plain .The booster has been changed out too. the entire unit as a assembly was painted and the white check valve would have been painted black along with the booster plus the aluminum tag is missing from the booster band clamp which is common to get lost during the rebuilding process. Just some observations to go along with the pictures in case someone try's to copy because of originality concerns.
-
Trying to focus solely on 67 Dearborn 289 applications I found the following 4 examples. Only one matches the PB & AT options as outlined in the prior posts.
Think the discussion related to San Jose cars needs to be a separate discussion
So with VIN's and list of options (best I can tell) I offer the following
7F01C1153xx AC PB AT Trans line hooked to booster check valve
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/5/6-290116154611-51381612.jpeg)
7F01C1291xx AC PB AT Tilt Trans line hooked to booster check valve
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/5/6-290116154613-5144874.jpeg)
7F02C1373xx AC PB ATTrans line likely attached to intake rear vacuum block
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/5/6-290116154615-5145862.jpeg)
7F02C2127xx PB ATTrans line likely attached to intake rear vacuum block
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/5/6-290116154616-5146246.jpeg)
-
Richard : The "image" you refer to is the third picture attached in my "Reply # 3". As I noted (at least I think I did), this shows, at least to my eyes, the vacuum line going from the Booster Check Valve to the transmission. However, it also shows all of the other vacuum lines for other Options, so my question in regard to that image is, "would it be the same if you only had one, or two of the Options" ? Of course this still doesn't address my original question as to ID, OD Length and Markings.
On another note and idea, in my particular case, since my car did not come with PB from the Factory (and from all of my info PB were not an Option on Drum Brakes), I'm looking at the addition as an "Accessory". This is listed in the Accessory Section of the 1960-68 MPC as Part # C7ZZ-2A091-A, Kit, Power Brake Booster Installation, F (drum brakes). Included in the "contents" of the Kit are 5 "tubes" and 1 "hose". While I could not find any of the exact part numbers listed for these 6 items in my 67, 1960-68 or 1965-72 MPC's, similar part numbers (including the one noted "hose") show that they are either Master Cylinder brake line/fitting related, or intake manifold tee/steel tube elbow related. No I.S. (Instruction Sheet) number is noted as included in the Kit, but there must have been one. A copy of it might shed some light if it could ever be found.
Getting a little "off track" from the "hose" subject of my original Post, yet related to the contents of the Kit, are the pedals. Both Manual Transmission and Automatic Transmission pedals are shown as being part of the Kit. What's interesting here, is that the Automatic Transmission Pedal shown is the same as that which is used on the Power Disc Brake Option. This by itself is not too hard to fathom; but what makes it interesting, is that cars equipped with the Power Disc Brakes used a different dash to firewall pedal support than those without. Apparently (?), since no dash to firewall support is included in the Kit, the Power Disc Brake Pedal will work in the non power Pedal Support ??? Anyone have any evidence of this ?
Bob
Power brakes on DRUM BRAKE Mustangs NOT an option ???
I don't believe this to be true, that or the ones I have seen (and I have seen several) were added.
-
Trying to focus solely on 67 Dearborn 289 applications I found the following 4 examples. Only one matches the PB & AT options as outlined in the prior posts.
Jeff : Thanks for taking the time to dig up the Dearborn examples and Post them. I appreciate it. One thing they definitely show - there is no real consistency. It sure seems odd to me that on a car that came with AT only (which had only a single 90 degree fitting on the intake manifold, threaded for a steel tube to which the hose from the modulator was attached), that the Dealer would take the time to replace that fitting with a multi-ported one, instead of using the extra port on the Check Valve, and using a new piece of hose.
I guess, as one of my long time late 50's Ford friends says in trying to explain something like this, "It's a Ford".
Power brakes on DRUM BRAKE Mustangs NOT an option ???
I don't believe this to be true, that or the ones I have seen (and I have seen several) were added.
Richard : I suppose I should have been a little more specific with my comment, and said something like "from all the info that I have, including MPC's, Sales Brochures, Showroom Option Book, Saleman's Price Guide, etc., PB are not shown as a Factory Option. As I mentioned, the Power Brake Booster Kit was available as an Accessory for Drum Brake cars, and as such, was also then available as a "Dealer Option". I just personally have not been able to put my hands on anything that confirms that it was available as a "Factory Option". Just another example of how careful and precise one must be in his or her wording. Of course if someone has any documentation that PB were available for Drum Brakes from the Factory, that would be good to know.
Thanks to both,
Bob
-
I have not seen a Factory power drum brake car. I have converted a 67 my self. You do have to use a master cylinder that is made for that application. They do make one so there must be a few cars out there.
-
Marty : When you made the conversion, did you use the Drum Brake Pedal, or did you use a Pedal from Power Disc Brakes like I mentioned in Reply # 24 comes with the kit ? If you used your non PD Drum Pedal, did it fit the Pedal Support OK, or did you need to modify anything ?
Thanks,
Bob
-
Jeff : Thanks for taking the time to dig up the Dearborn examples and Post them. I appreciate it. One thing they definitely show - there is no real consistency. It sure seems odd to me that on a car that came with AT only (which had only a single 90 degree fitting on the intake manifold, threaded for a steel tube to which the hose from the modulator was attached), that the Dealer would take the time to replace that fitting with a multi-ported one, instead of using the extra port on the Check Valve, and using a new piece of hose.
I guess, as one of my long time late 50's Ford friends says in trying to explain something like this, "It's a Ford".
Richard : I suppose I should have been a little more specific with my comment, and said something like "from all the info that I have, including MPC's, Sales Brochures, Showroom Option Book, Saleman's Price Guide, etc., PB are not shown as a Factory Option. As I mentioned, the Power Brake Booster Kit was available as an Accessory for Drum Brake cars, and as such, was also then available as a "Dealer Option". I just personally have not been able to put my hands on anything that confirms that it was available as a "Factory Option". Just another example of how careful and precise one must be in his or her wording. Of course if someone has any documentation that PB were available for Drum Brakes from the Factory, that would be good to know.
Thanks to both,
Bob
The typically plugged extra port on the check valve is not the best source for consistent vacuum. The booster uses a lot of vacuum and the extra port if used would have vacuum bled off when the booster is in use. The intake is a better source of full vacuum.
-
Jeff : Thanks for taking the time to dig up the Dearborn examples and Post them. I appreciate it. One thing they definitely show - there is no real consistency. It sure seems odd to me that on a car that came with AT only (which had only a single 90 degree fitting on the intake manifold, threaded for a steel tube to which the hose from the modulator was attached), that the Dealer would take the time to replace that fitting with a multi-ported one, instead of using the extra port on the Check Valve, and using a new piece of hose.
Not sure that they do suggest that there was no consistency. We only have a ver very small sampling and only have two of them that area different (same application) That difference could possibly just when the car was build
And I'm not sure of your reference of a dealer adding some option taking the time to change out the rear vacuum block. Its common IMHO to have a 4-5 post vacuum block at the rear of the intake with only one or two of the sources used. Made it easier for the builders that way
-
Marty : When you made the conversion, did you use the Drum Brake Pedal, or did you use a Pedal from Power Disc Brakes like I mentioned in Reply # 24 comes with the kit ? If you used your non PD Drum Pedal, did it fit the Pedal Support OK, or did you need to modify anything ?
Thanks,
Bob
Every thing was just the same as disc brakes except the master cylinder. It was pretty strait forward you can use the same pedal support just knock out the nutplates for the booster and use the upper pedal shaft holes. The hole in the firewall needs to be oblong for the booster. I have a pattern some where. It was in a 67 200 6cil. It made a nice car out of it.
Marty
-
The typically plugged extra port on the check valve is not the best source for consistent vacuum. The booster uses a lot of vacuum and the extra port if used would have vacuum bled off when the booster is in use. The intake is a better source of full vacuum.
Bob : Thanks for your input. Thought that might be the case as the intake is a much better source. Based on the few pictures that Jeff provided, it doesn't appear that they always adhered to that thinking.
Not sure that they do suggest that there was no consistency. We only have a ver very small sampling and only have two of them that area different (same application) That difference could possibly just when the car was build
And I'm not sure of your reference of a dealer adding some option taking the time to change out the rear vacuum block. Its common IMHO to have a 4-5 post vacuum block at the rear of the intake with only one or two of the sources used. Made it easier for the builders that way
Jeff : Once again, my choice of words was lacking. I should have said "Based on the few samples you provided, there appears to be no consistency".
Not sure that they do suggest that there was no consistency. We only have a ver very small sampling and only have two of them that area different (same application) That difference could possibly just when the car was build
And I'm not sure of your reference of a dealer adding some option taking the time to change out the rear vacuum block. Its common IMHO to have a 4-5 post vacuum block at the rear of the intake with only one or two of the sources used. Made it easier for the builders that way
As far as the intake manifold fitting, I have attached a picture of my single fitting which I believe is original, and consistent with the "Tees and Fittings" Chart in the 1967 Specifications Section (copy also attached).
Bob
-
See reply #19. ;)Dead nuts on sells the correct hose although you would have to wipe off the markings which are 69/70 versions. Many times the 67/68 were plain .The booster has been changed out too. the entire unit as a assembly was painted and the white check valve would have been painted black along with the booster plus the aluminum tag is missing from the booster band clamp which is common to get lost during the rebuilding process. Just some observations to go along with the pictures in case someone try's to copy because of originality concerns.
Bob, thanks for the lead on a potential hose. As far as the booster change out goes, I can say that a younger version of me, who did not know how to spell concurs at the time, when changing the MC, cleaned the area up and made those plastic pieces look like new. While the booster may or may not have been changed, certainly the booster to MC assembly is not detailed in a factory correct manner. It is good that you pointed that out.
Any takers on what might be correct, and not, for the intake manifold to brake booster hose clamps?
-
Bob, thanks for the lead on a potential hose. As far as the booster change out goes, I can say that a younger version of me, who did not know how to spell concurs at the time, when changing the MC, cleaned the area up and made those plastic pieces look like new. While the booster may or may not have been changed, certainly the booster to MC assembly is not detailed in a factory correct manner. It is good that you pointed that out.
Any takers on what might be correct, and not, for the intake manifold to brake booster hose clamps?
It is very common to see the crimp style hose clamp on 67/68 Mustang Midland brake booster hose clamp .The Bendix used the pinch style with flat ended ears. The style of crimp clamp you can find today many times has a dimple stamped into them unlike the un dimpled original. That goes for fuel line too ;). The dimple stands out and some will metal finish that non assemblyline look out of a clamp before it is installed. A source for the clamps is on the powersteering ram bellows .The clamp is the same size as the clamp used on the P/S bellows. It was a part service by Ford and where I used to get them before the went obsolete.You can still find genuine ones without the dimple in some P/S kits.
-
OK, I'll bite. Most of the hardware manufacturers use the "crimp" and "pinch" nomenclature meaning the same. Bob, when you say "crimp" are you referring to a "band" type clamp that typically in larger sizes uses the tower type with machine screw to tighten, but in the smaller sizes uses a special tool ?
Also, I thought that the PS bellows clamp was slightly larger than the Booster hose clamp ? I'm sure it would work, but different Part #'s.
Bob
-
I believe the clamps Bob is referring to go by the industry names "stepless clamp" and "spring clamp".
Photos are intended to indicate style of clamp only - not the exact appearance for applications being discussed.
-
Dave : The top picture I have always called a "pinch" clamp; the bottom picture I call a "spring" clamp like is noted. I don't believe that a "spring" clamp is strong enough to compress and hold on a Booster hose, which is "corded" and very rigid. My 57's, 59's and my 62 T-Bird used the "constant pressure spring clamp" (picture attached), and my 66 T-Bird uses the pinch clamp.
Bob
-
I believe the clamps Bob is referring to go by the industry names "stepless clamp" and "spring clamp".
Photos are intended to indicate style of clamp only - not the exact appearance for applications being discussed.
Never seen the bottom example used on a 60's or early 70's Mustang so thanks for mentioning.
More correct though the finish is still different than a couple used
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/5/6-300116175244.jpeg)
One in use ;) - Different year
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/5/6-300116181428.jpeg)
-
It is very common to see the crimp style hose clamp on 67/68 Mustang Midland brake booster hose clamp .The Bendix used the pinch style with flat ended ears. The style of crimp clamp you can find today many times has a dimple stamped into them unlike the un dimpled original. That goes for fuel line too ;). The dimple stands out and some will metal finish that non assemblyline look out of a clamp before it is installed.
Bob : Do you have a picture of what you note as a "crimp" clamp ?
Thanks,
Bob
-
Bob : Do you have a picture of what you note as a "crimp" clamp ?
Thanks,
Bob
Top picture in post #38. You most likely know this but for those who may be reading ,you have to use a tool to crimp it tight on the hose. The assemblyline ones are smooth like the picture. Many modern ones have a dimple stamped into the crimp area which I am guessing is a improvement to help that area to not distort but is a easy tip off of a non original part.
-
I have another question also, though related, if it should have a different location, I can start or look for another thread.
Similar topic, but relating to the CHECK VALVE,, am I understanding correctly that a correct check valve for a 67 would be white in color but painted black with the assembly? (I have two different check valves that are white plastic, one looks like Marty's (see image at comment #18 ~his is black) and my other white one looks like it has a sort of lid on the visible side when installed)
-
I have another question also, though related, if it should have a different location, I can start or look for another thread.
Similar topic, but relating to the CHECK VALVE,, am I understanding correctly that a correct check valve for a 67 would be white in color but painted black with the assembly? (I have two different check valves that are white plastic, one looks like Marty's (see image at comment #18 ~his is black) and my other white one looks like it has a sort of lid on the visible side when installed)
For 67 they are typically white but painted black with unit.I have seen black ones to (also painted black with unit) but not as typical. There is a later 68 style with a lip but not used in 67.
-
Bob : Do you have a picture of what you note as a "crimp" clamp ?
They are also shown installed and in use on three original cars in post #26
Plenty "strong" enough especially considering these are vacuum connections something that Ford didn't always clamp
-
Top picture in post #38. You most likely know this but for those who may be reading ,you have to use a tool to crimp it tight on the hose. The assemblyline ones are smooth like the picture. Many modern ones have a dimple stamped into the crimp area which I am guessing is a improvement to help that area to not distort but is a easy tip off of a non original part.
Bob : Well, I guess it's just a matter of semantics here. I have always called the one in the top picture a "pinch" clamp, and the one in the bottom picture a "spring" clamp. Am I correct that the one in the bottom picture you are calling a "pinch" clamp ?
Thanks,
Bob
-
Bob : Well, I guess it's just a matter of semantics here. I have always called the one in the top picture a "pinch" clamp, and the one in the bottom picture a "spring" clamp. Am I correct that the one in the bottom picture you are calling a "pinch" clamp ?
Thanks,
Bob
Yes the pinch clamp style is the lower picture in the mentioned post. You can call them what you want no harm no foul but the crimp and pinch terminology for those style clamps have been the typical description used in the Mustang/Shelby restoration hobby for several decades now.