ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: J_Speegle on July 23, 2019, 07:43:57 PM
-
Working down the list of running changes that took place during 1967 production at San Jose as the title states this thread we're looking at the extra/needed additional battery upper anchor/support that connected the outer battery hold down bolt to the inner fender panel on the passenger side.
This detail may (likely) not be a running change but instead connected instead to a specific option or a combination of both so lets see what the evidence suggests to us.
The focus -
On most cars the battery his held down using a top clamp and two "J"/hook shaped (at the bottom) bolts on either side of the battery as shown below in an original picture from the time period.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/8/6-290817235003-8598590.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/8/6-290817235000-8597268.jpeg)
Non-San Jose original example but shows the typical bracketing.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-260218220349.jpeg)
On a far number of cars we have found evidence of an additional hole in the inner fender panel and through or not through fender for a bracket that provided additional stabilization and that connected the outer battery hold down bolt to the car. Example of the screw hole and bracket below.
Bracket painted semi-gloss black.
67 GT500 from around March example
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/12/6-230719183913.jpeg)
Close up of head markings of the screw from one example. Apparently PO removed the bracket but reinserted the screw back in the original hole for some reason.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/12/6-230719183803.jpeg)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyone having some solid examples with VIN and real build date (even projected) is invited to submit those details to the process
Will post my findings and we'll see what we can make of them. This one might be a tough one given the possibilities.
Will look at the results comparing all cars and also separate out the Shelby's just in case how they were ordered or designed makes a difference.
-
I don't believe the extra battery hold down support is a running change given it is seen through out production with more aprons that do NOT have the extra hole for the bracket then do. One thing that the pictures that Jeff first posted show is the Zinc silver early battery hold down J hooks seen in vintage photos vs. the Phosphate and oil ones that are more typical on later versions though 1969. That is a running change.
-
The Shelby has the hole. It has the heavy duty battery. Wonder if that is the reason.
7R01C189340 parts cars est date 06C does not.
-
My signature car does not have the bracket, nor the related hole. Standard battery.
-
What is the EARLIEST KNOWN assembly date of the use of this bracket?
I wonder if perhaps a Service Bulletin has anything to do with the random findings is why I ask.
A late-dated service bulletin may explain it if Ford reinforced the underside of the apron, the bracket may have been omitted in production.
I am only spitballing an idea, I have no horse in this race. I do have a "repaired" original Novemer '66 apron that was either cracked or corroded by acid that did not have any bracket. It DID have a group 22F tray [all parts original with confirmed date codes matching build date]. The battery tray has only minor corrosion and the "braised" repair looks more consistent with a crack than it does to corrosion, thus perhaps adding a small amount of credence to this theory.
I should take a new look at this repair. I will not "remove" the repair, it seems to be successful in repairing the problem so my plan was to leave it alone but perhaps I can see if it was or was not corrosion as the reason for the repairs.
-
What is the EARLIEST KNOWN assembly date of the use of this bracket?
Have ALLOT fewer samples from the 66 period when compared to after December just because of the influence of the large volume of Shelbys that help out in the later half and may be different (with or without) than the typical Mustang.
With that said - right now I have the period suggesting mid December to mid Jan as the beginning and for Shelby's the practice changing again in the later part of their production back to no brackets used.
-
My car (Sept 22, 1966 SJ build date) did not have this bracket/fender apron hole either.
Standard battery too...
-
This is a post from another thread but information is aplicable here
Bob I believe you are correct concerning big blocks, but in the other engines a 22F was the standard and the 24F was the heavy duty. I am not sure what color of caps heavy duty may have had.
A few years ago I restored a late 67 200 I6 that had a 22F and the Z bracket. It is unclear to me what triggered it's use.
A 22 F battery and the additional hold down bracket would not seem consistent with a Heavy duty battery triggering the use of the bracket theory. Any additional information on that car Marty? Maybe just a anomaly and maybe not.
-
Marty if you see this . How "late" of a car was it? If you have any records from the car.
-
I did not get a Marti report for this car because it was a flip project. I will see if I can find the door tag information.
Here is a picture if you look closely you can see the bracket hole in the apron.
-
Marty if you see this . How "late" of a car was it? If you have any records from the car.
This is a post from another thread but information is aplicable here A 22 F battery and the additional hold down bracket would not seem consistent with a Heavy duty battery triggering the use of the bracket theory. Any additional information on that car Marty? Maybe just a anomaly and maybe not.
I got the new owner to take some pictures for me.
-
Thank you for the update and info. Also great to see that the car has been restored(?) or cleaned up.
-
Thanks Marti will add to the spread sheet
Fits right in with the washer bottle and service decal surveys also that are currently going on
-
My signature car don't have the extra hole in the inner fender panel.
When purchased the car it hadn't the original battery and the Marti report doesn't mention anything concerning the battery, so I assume it was the standard one.
Kind regards,
Jeroen
-
7R03A206***, a very original car, with 08E plate date.
-
Thanks - have about 100 examples so far with the brackets or holes indicating a bracket. Some in nice large groups.
-
Here is a picture of a 67 Mustang with a heavy duty battery (red caps show darker then yellow in B+W) that apparently doesn't have the extra bracket. It is a very loaded option car with A/C and Cruise. It must be a early production given the January of 67 Car Life magazine it was featured in.
-
7R02K146xxx 2/2/67 SJ has hole in apron:
-
Interesting looking heat shield, I have not seen one like that.
-
Here is a picture of a 67 Mustang with a heavy duty battery (red caps show darker then yellow in B+W) that apparently doesn't have the extra bracket. It is a very loaded option car with A/C and Cruise. It must be a early production given the January of 67 Car Life magazine it was featured in.
Car Life - Jan_ 1967 - Page 38 (Zoom).jpg
Also note placement of Pass. side horn on condenser bolt. Typically mounted in its own set of holes with horn opening facing down.
-
7R02K146xxx 2/2/67 SJ has hole in apron:
If it has a hole it should have the bracket as the hole was made at the time of installation.
-
Also note placement of Pass. side horn on condenser bolt. Typically mounted in its own set of holes with horn opening facing down.
That is the AC equipped car horn for 67/68. The horn bracket is different then non air car horn because of different placement.They are not to interchange .
-
Bob, I was referring to the passenger side horn. The driver's side has the special bracket.
-
Bob, I was referring to the passenger side horn. The driver's side has the special bracket.
Correct.
-
Interesting looking heat shield, I have not seen one like that.
Very early version. Believed we discussed it in a thread about the battery heat shields
-
My Car just to have the additional Bracket..
Build 03/02/67 in Dearborn + equipped with “Heavy Duty Battery”
Does anybody know where to get these brackets nowadays?
And, does this require modifications to the “normal” hold-down bracket?
Thanks, enno
-
NPD sell a reproduction, I have a original. The problem is todays batteries are shorter, even the reproductions. So the bracket will come up short of the top of the battery unless you shim up the bottom of the battery.
-
Ok, thanks! Found it!
Unfortunately, no shop in germany has it ;-) The middle part of the Z should be approx. 2,1 inches with my actual installed battery.
Would you mind sending the dimensions of your original bracket? Maybe it is easier to build it by myself instead of buying a reproduction one!?!
-
At the risk of contaminating this survey with a Metuchen data point, my signature car has the hole and the build sheet indicates a "45" at Battery Amperage boxes 40 and 41. I am not sure if that is the standard or heavy duty battery. If you know, can you please advise?
I too would be interested in the dimensions of this bracket.
Thanks,
Mark
-
At the risk of contaminating this survey with a Metuchen data point, my signature car has the hole and the build sheet indicates a "45" at Battery Amperage boxes 40 and 41. I am not sure if that is the standard or heavy duty battery. If you know, can you please advise?
I too would be interested in the dimensions of this bracket.
Thanks,
Mark
NPD sells a exact duplicate. I measured it in the past with a genuine one to confirm. My assumption is that they are still made the same. I don't have a original or repro currently to measure for you. There is not much to the design . It is simple.
-
It's interesting that some of these holes are in just the apron and others go into the fender and the apron underneath.
Mine is the later.
-
It's interesting that some of these holes are in just the apron and others go into the fender and the apron underneath.
Mine is the later.
I am wondering what type of tool made the hole. The ones that I have seen still in place appeared to use a typical sheet metal screw similar to the regulator ,solenoid , splash shields etc. . It was not like a self drilling type screw which it would need to be if it drilled through the meta . The apron is relatively thin. The fender lip and apron metal thickness combined would be much thicker and consequently hard to go through. Once measurements and gauge of steel used for the bracket are confirmed it will be relative easy to make a modified one for a particular battery and hold down combination . The slight difference in dimension to make the bracket work compared to factory would most likely be hardly noticeable if at all IMO.
-
I think we can safely say the bracket was only used on the HD applications. Here is a picture comparing a NOS 22F and a reproduction 24F batteries. The original 24F is a bit taller than the reproduction. I have only see the extra bracket in one size. You can see that there would have had to been to sizes if they were used on the 22F.
I agree the bracket would not be difficult to make and I would make it to fit a modern battery.
Here is a original bracket. Top and bottom legs are 1 1/2 and the off set is 1 3/8.
-
Is it possible to have battery envy?
-
It's interesting that some of these holes are in just the apron and others go into the fender and the apron underneath.
Mine is the later.
Just depends on where the worker placed/orientated the bracket and put the hole. Have many examples of both - just inside the fender edge and others where it is located more outboard placing the hole through the fender and inner fender panel. On cars where the fender has been replaced you sometimes can't see the hole.
Guess I should figure out a way to illustrate what the survey produced - just need to find some time - been allot busier since the stay at home orders and such took place. Also some new information/findings have been suggested so need to cross reference that will the findings also to see how it all works together
-
Is it possible to have battery envy?
I show our unrestored 68 HCS with that NOS 22F and have to have anyone notice it. I guess it look much like the 24F reproduction so they do not notice.
-
While realizing of course, that this thread is for possible "Running Changes at the San Jose Plant" in 1967, the Topic, nonetheless, has peaked my interest (just another case where I'd like to see the ability to have three sub-topics, one for each Plant, under one Main Topic ; while it appears that there are more "interested people", or at least more interested people willing to share, on the West Coast, and thus more San Jose cars, I'm sure that there are others like me, that are interested in what happened at all Plants, not just "our own", whether it be Dearborn, Metuchen or San Jose ; while similar threads could be started for Dearborn and Metuchen, there are apparently not enough willing to do that, and even if they were done, would most likely not carry the identical Topic name, and would thus not be easy to compare or comprehend - enough said ; any more is for another Topic).
Having said the above, and getting back on track with the "Additional Battery Hold-Down Bracket", I started with the 1967 Electrical Assembly Manual. The Battery Illustration there is dated 1-13-66 (a carryover from 1966), and shows no "Additional Bracket". It does have a note to see the "Body Assembly Manual" for Installation of the Battery Mounting Parts. A look at the Body Assembly Manual has an illustration dated 9-16-66 (copy attached), and again, no "additional bracket".
Next, assuming (?) that the reproduction bracket that Marty referred to earlier, had the correct Part Number (C7ZZ-10753-A) listed on NPD's site, I checked my November 1, 1966 Ford List Price Book ; there is no listing for that part.
I then looked at my "1967 Only" MPC (printed January 1, 1967) ; once again, no listing for such part, and it is not shown in any of the illustrations or text provided. However, there is a C7ZZ-10A691-A Bracket listed for V8's with A/C, and both Standard and Heavy Duty Batteries. Of course, there is no illustration of this part, so I have no idea what it looks like, or where it goes. This bracket is shown in the November Price Book.
On to the 1960-68 MPC. A look at the "Battery Mounting Parts" page (copy attached), produces several new "discoveries" :
1) Besides the previously noted C7ZZ-10A697-A "Brace or Bracket", a C7ZZ-
10753-A is also noted.
2) Note that the C7ZZ-10753-A Brace or Bracket, which Jeff has previously noted,
as "Upper", as would have I, is noted as "Lower", and the C7ZZ-10A691-A is
noted as "Upper".
3) Both parts are shown to be used with both Standard and Heavy Duty Batteries,
and with no caveat as to Engine size or A/C.
4) 1968 is shown to use the same parts as 1967.
A look at the May 1, 1967 Ford Price Book, does show that Part Number C7ZZ-10753-A was then available for purchase.
In looking at the 1968 Electrical Assembly Manual, the sheet showing the Battery is dated 12-20-67, and like its predecessor in 1967, shows nothing regarding installation of the Battery Hold-Down ; but also has the note like in the 67, to see the Body Assembly Manual for Installation of the Battery Mounting parts. Unfortunately, I do not have a 1968 Body Assembly Manual, so hopefully, someone who does can Post that page to see if it might answer some of the unknowns (such as what C7ZZ-10A691-A is, and where was it used).
In summary, I propose the following conclusions :
1) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was a "system wide" addition, not a "Plant Only" addition.
2) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was not used until sometime between January 1, 1967 and
January 31, 1967 (pictures from my January 31, 1967 Dearborn car attached). It is of course
possible that other Plants didn't implement this change until after January 31.
3) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was used in addition to the C6ZZ-10A691-A Bracket/Brace.
4) The C7ZZ-10753-A Bracket was to be used on all Models regardless of Engine size or
whether with, or without A/C.
Richard : While I did not go through each TSB one by one (at least not yet), I did look at my
January 1966 through December 1968 TSB Index and found no reference to the "Additional Bracket".
Bill : As you can see by the pictures I attached of my Convertible, the hole is in both the Fender Flange and Fender Apron, like yours.
Marty : While your comparison shows that the two batteries are different heights, which would require a different Bracket, or a spacer to be used on the 22F batteries, the original 45 and 55 amp Batteries are shown to be the same height (1960-68 MPC).
Bob G : If you zoom in to the picture that I attached of my 67 Fender flange, it appears to be a punched hole. I don't have a better picture right now, but will get some, when and if we get to Colorado (where my 67 resides) later this Spring or Summer.
Hopefully, the above has helped answer at least some questions as to the "mystery of the Additional Bracket.
Bob
-
Don't doubt for a minute that the bracket was used at other plants. Have pictures of original cars with it. Just typically start these things where we have the the greatest numbers of cars and data.
Though it does not relate to this exact thread - Do you have a Marti report and buildsheet for your Dearborn built 67?
I've been through all the TSB articles that reflect on 67 production and I've never seen one related to the subject but that is not an oddity since those often deal with issues, problems, fixes and so on.
Holes I've seen, on cars I've owned and those I have pictures of tend to have the hole deformed from the screw tightening
-
So back to square on the bracket being random or as needed? use not related HD battery? With no other information to suggest otherwise my conclusion also was a punched hole based on the evidence . Many holes i have seen are deformed metal downward edges which would be typical of a punched hole instead of drilled or screw cut. It was typical for Ford to punch holes because of the deformed metal downward edge provides extra area for screw threads to grip to. I still would like to see the machine used to punch through that thick of metal without deforming the surrounding metal like a fender lip or even thin apron metal. It must have been fast and powerful.
-
So back to square on the bracket being random or as needed? use not related HD battery? ........
Currently working on (between other requests) the data I've collected in relationship to engine, transmission, buildsheet data, marti reports and other options as well as documented confirmations of the holes and or bracket. There are around a half dozen points that I'm plotting on a spread sheet to see where they intersect with one another.
Don't believe they are random but of course one or two factory mistakes or a couple being added over the years can happen and can be addressed in the study IMHO
Numbers and data should tell the tale
-
Thanks for the dimensions, Marty!
I will reproduce one that fit´s to my actual installed Battery.
Jeff, I send the requested Info via email.
-
Currently working on (between other requests) the data I've collected in relationship to engine, transmission, buildsheet data, marti reports and other options as well as documented confirmations of the holes and or bracket. There are around a half dozen points that I'm plotting on a spread sheet to see where they intersect with one another.
Don't believe they are random but of course one or two factory mistakes or a couple being added over the years can happen and can be addressed in the study IMHO
Numbers and data should tell the tale
I was leaning towards HD battery . Ford does things fr a reason . I don't think random ether .I have seen evidence on cars that did not have a HD battery which complicates a clear understand of the when and why. I will be interested in seeing what your data suggests.