ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Drivetrain => Topic started by: Bossbill on June 12, 2019, 06:32:16 PM
-
I started this particular post in the 67-68 section, but it spans across many years so I copied the original text and pics to here with a note in the other post to come here for future discussions.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=14384.msg129239#msg129239
I originally called out 65-68 starters in that post above post, but amended that to include 69. 70 had a different nose, so that's why I cut it off at that year.
><><><><><><><><><><><><
I've been conversing with another user offline about his starter.
That lead me to look again at two detail items about early (65-69) starters. I included 69 since they appear to have the nose cone and other details in common with earlier starter, but differ in the barrel encoding and drive cover.
After viewing the starter, that appears original, from my 65 A-code it appears I've made a few assumptions that may or may not be true. See first two pics of this filthy beast.
First, the long bolts that go through the bush holder to the nose cone.
My 65 has flat, no name or physical marking bolts with built-in washers/shoulders.
Later bolts have the inverted cone or look like the ends have been drilled.
The early Ford starter (somewhere in the 62-65 time frame) I used as the basis for a lot of parts in my 67 starter have the drill style bolts.
Any old stock starters out there that validate a date change or perhaps this is simply a different vendor? Maybe the drilled bolts are rebuilder-only bolts and I have this wrong?
Second, the brush holder. Both examples shown here are FoMoCo/oval circle holders. Never mind the rebuilder pop rivets in these examples. My 65 version, top, has only 6 tabs for holding the brush holder securely centered in the barrel. The other example shows 8.
Any old stock starters out there that validate a date change or perhaps this is simply a different vendor?
-
There was a question regarding the square plug starter shoe holders in this thread:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=16775.msg131186#msg131186
There are some deformations on the inside of the square plug that appear to be damage.
I grabbed a pic of what appeared to be a reasonably unmolested starter (pic 1) and then zoomed in on that pic (pic2).
It now looks like whatever tool was used to drive the plug has purposely deformed the plug in 4 locations. The deformation is in the correct 'tighten' direction. My thought is that this might be a way to lock the plug by slightly deforming the head.
Or someone used the wrong size to tighten it.
-
Bill the starter guy I found in my area had a fixture that held the starter body square to tighten the square headed screws it looks like an arbor press.
-
The Ford manual shows that tool. It's a neat way to remove/replace the screw.
I don't have one so an impact driver has to do. The internal socket I made fit very tightly.
To get these out with an impact driver requires a very tight fit in the plug. It requires a serious hammer blow as well. As I noted in my build thread, if you don't have the correct size not only will the plug not unscrew, it will get so damaged it won't out without drilling it out.
That's why the plug above has me confused. Maybe they used the right tool to take out but a smaller tool to install.
-
To get these out with an impact driver requires a very tight fit in the plug. It requires a serious hammer blow as well. As I noted in my build thread, if you don't have the correct size not only will the plug not unscrew, it will get so damaged it won't out without drilling it out.
I haven't used an impact driver in years. No point, it is an out-dated tool IMHO.
Look for the socket-driver attachment for your air hammer.
Once you've used it, you'll never find a need to do it old-school again. Available 3/8" & 1/2" drive.
https://www.toolsid.com/mayhew-tools/pneumatic-shake-and-brake-tool-mpn-37315.html?view=551285&gclid=CjwKCAjwqNnqBRATEiwAkHm2BGl8rjDnDvoyZOnSaxvLkH-stdR1RZYDfxu6srLqAZkg03XazQHWXRoCls8QAvD_BwE
-
That's a neat tool. Great for removing.
-
That's a neat tool. Great for removing.
Tightening too, like the door strikers and latches. Works great on or off, rusty or clean. Beats the rust right out of the threads once the bolt begins s to turn. I use it about every day, usually removing the tiny torx screws in rotors. Rarely, but now and again, one will twist off but it usually never marks the bolt head up.
-
I see I never finished this.
As a quickie response, two other details need to be addressed.
The nose cone should be the C3 version with no reinforcements on the part not visible when installed and the part of the barrel visible should have no reinforcements there as well.
I've had issues with my 67 Bendix cover so finding one was difficult.
The bulbous nose cover is for 65 starters.
Here is what I believe to be a correctly detailed (for Dec 66) starter with the correct nose cone, no numbers on black barrel, good overspray on nose and other details mention above.
You need to verify your starter number for the ink stamp on pre-68 starters. Starting in 68 the numbers were stamped in the barrel.
-
Every "detail" but a Ford Part Number. Are you afraid of "numbers"? The nose piece is what I look for. The rest is for show and tell.
Jim
-
Which number? The C3 nose?
I don't understand the show and tell comment.
-
Which number? The C3 nose?
I don't understand the show and tell comment.
Any and all Ford numbers are pertinent. The nose piece has a casting number that can be used to identify it's application. There are four obvious starter related items to be aware of: the nose piece casting number; the actual starter housing (the big round thing with the wires inside); the cover over the actuator arm (replacements are often different than assembly line); the Ford part number marking. That's the show and tell part.
The 65 small block V8 has a different Ford part number than the 66 small block V8, which in turn has a different Ford part number than the 67 small block V8, and in some cases, the transmission type. I'm satisfied with the ones in my cars, I have the correct ones. Your topic states "details". Well, detail them.
Jim
-
The starter nose on the short nose starter is a either a C30F-11131-A or DOAF-11131-D. I've only seen pictures of the later nose, but it has the same physical appearance as the C3OF-A (from pics).
The barrel in 65-67 (and some very early 68s) is not identifiable except for the ink stamp. Since this is usually gone or has been applied by a PO it is not useful in the identification of the barrel. Also, you can take any later barrel and remove the hard metal stamped number with bondo. The thing to really look for are the side screws (square) and a proper power stud.
The end plate does not have any number stamped in. You can identify early and later features as shown above. Usually the biggest tell is the use of pop rivets by rebuilders which you should replace with proper rivets or find another end plate. Since so few people can tell an early from later even when out in the open, on an installed starter it's almost impossible to see.
The bendix cover is also missing any identification number. You can tell a 65 through mid 66 from the rest since it has a very bulbous nose. My Dearborn car has such an original starter with its nose still intact so that's the best date I have on that application.
In the pic above I have what is thought to be a later 66-67 bendix cover. You have to have a number of various covers next to each other to spot the subtle difference in how the angle of the "ramp" works.
The starter power lead nut and bolt are handled in other threads.
The ink stamp above is based upon the MPC part number and some sleuthing by Jeff (who helped with the stamp). 68 and 69 part numbers are stamped into the barrel and the MPC is your guide here.
I have almost no data on 68-69 differences (other than the barrel numbers) so others will have to reply.
I've attached a pic I posted on another thread of the bulbous nose bendix cover in side view:
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18166.0;attach=47292;image)
edit in red
-
The starter nose on the short nose starter is a either a C30F-11131-A or DOAF-11131-D. I've only seen pictures of the later nose, but it has the same physical appearance as the C3OF-A (from pics).
The barrel in 65-67 (and some very early 68s) is not identifiable except for the ink stamp. Since this is usually gone or has been applied by a PO it is not useful in the identification of the barrel. Also, you can take any later barrel and remove the hard metal stamped number with bondo. The thing to really look for are the side screws (square) and a proper power stud.
The end plate does not have any number stamped in. You can identify early and later features as shown above. Usually the biggest tell is the use of pop rivets by rebuilders which you should replace with proper rivets or find another end plate. Since so few people can tell an early from later even when out in the open, on an installed starter it's almost impossible to see.
The bendix cover is also missing any identification number. You can tell an early 65 from the rest since it has a very bulbous nose. My Dearborn car has such an original starter with its nose still intact so that's the best date I have on that appliation.
In the pic above I have what is thought to be a 66-67 bendix cover. You have to have about 6 of these covers next to each other to spot the subtle difference in how the angle of the "ramp" works.
The starter power lead nut and bolt are handled in other threads.
The ink stamp above is based upon the MPC part number and some sleuthing by Jeff (who helped with the stamp). 68 and 69 part numbers are stamped into the barrel and the MPC is your guide here.
I have almost no data on 68-69 differences (other than the barrel numbers) so others will have to reply.
I've attached a pic I posted on another thread of the bulbous nose bendix cover in side view:
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18166.0;attach=47292;image)
FYI the bulbous bendix cover is not just 65. The cover changed to the different style during the 66 production year.
-
Thanks Bob.
I'll correct that in the post above.
-
Resurrecting an old thread, it's time I clean up my starter. First question is does it come out easily after removing the one wire and removing the two bolts?
After that and clean up, should it be painted black except near the engine mount? And are there any stamps as I've seen in some pictures?
-
Here's another picture. I started to clean off the flange. I could see there was a line just above the lower bolt. Is that because the starter was all painted black except that area to ensure it was grounded or was that not the case? The flange area cleaned up easily so I wonder if it was just grease ore was it all painted black?
-
Here's another picture. I started to clean off the flange. I could see there was a line just above the lower bolt. Is that because the starter was all painted black except that area to ensure it was grounded or was that not the case? The flange area cleaned up easily so I wonder if it was just grease ore was it all painted black?
Typically there is more paint on the flange. Typically a car as late as yours will have the engineering number metal stamped into the case. It will be very evident one way or the other when you take the starter out and clean it up. The starter cable loose and the two bolts loosened and it is out.
-
You were correct Bob. The starter was easy to get out. After taking off the wire and 2 bolts it dropped - I didn't mean literally though it was heavy - right out. I've cleaned it up some and posted some pictures. I am guessing mine is one that doesn't need a white stamp as I was reading during the 68 year there were starters with stamps and some without. Looks like my date code is 8D1C which would be 1968 April 1st, 3rd or C shift.
Also while there is a lot of paint evident on the body, there is none on the flange or at least very little evidence at all. It's hard to tell from the grease that was on the starter.
-
You were correct Bob. The starter was easy to get out. After taking off the wire and 2 bolts it dropped - I didn't mean literally though it was heavy - right out. I've cleaned it up some and posted some pictures. I am guessing mine is one that doesn't need a white stamp as I was reading during the 68 year there were starters with stamps and some without. Looks like my date code is 8D1C which would be 1968 April 1st, 3rd or C shift.
Also while there is a lot of paint evident on the body, there is none on the flange or at least very little evidence at all. It's hard to tell from the grease that was on the starter.
There is not much paint left on the center barrel section now ether ;) . There was not clear cut line of paint demarcation between the center barrel section and the nose cone unlike the numerous examples of starters that had varying amounts of paint from a little to a lot on the nose cone. Given the reason the starters were painted so that the metal surface would not rust and the way the starters were painted assembled it would be unreasonable to expect no overspray on to the nose cone IMO. FYI when you reinstall the starter be careful to make sure it is fully seated in the hole otherwise you risk breaking off a mounting ear when you tighten down and the teeth will not fully engage the flex plate teeth which will result in damage to the starter and the flex plate.
-
It should literally fall out.
The stamping is either ink or stamped into the housing depending on the year
-
Any need to use high temperature paint on the starter?
-
no, i do not believe so.
-
................I am guessing mine is one that doesn't need a white stamp as I was reading during the 68 year there were starters with stamps and some without. Looks like my date code is 8D1C which would be 1968 April 1st, 3rd or C shift.
Correct as we've seen earlier in this thread and others. If it has the stamping into the case there was no need for the ink identification
Also while there is a lot of paint evident on the body, there is none on the flange or at least very little evidence at all. It's hard to tell from the grease that was on the starter.
Paint does not stick as well to aluminum as evident on other parts like timing covers and aluminum water pumps. And its not like we don't have factory pictures of starters to document this practice :)
Thanks for the pictures it helps narrow down the change over from ink to stamped in metal identification