ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: Bob Gaines on July 23, 2019, 10:34:15 PM
-
NOTE: The first six posts were separated from the thread discussing the 67 Battery hold down Z bracket so that proper focus and attention can be given to each.
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.
The heavy duty battery in this case is the 24F battery. It may while have something to do with that however the issue in thinking that may have something to do with that is all GT500's got the 24 F battery . Not all GT500's got the the extra bracket in fact very few proportionally. Dimensionally the heavy duty and base 24 F battery are identical to the base 24 F battery. The difference between the base 24 F battery and the heavy duty 24 F is internal capacity . Possibly a slight weight difference but they seem to weigh very close to the same . Regardless the extra bracket is not a running change given the seemingly random pattern (until we figure it out) throughout production.
-
FYI the heavy duty battery has red caps. The base battery had yellow caps. The red cap battery in Jeffs picture has red caps. It is ether a heavy duty battery with no extra bracket or someone has messed with the battery and put red caps on a otherwise base battery.
-
FYI the heavy duty battery has red caps. The base battery had yellow caps. The red cap battery in Jeffs picture has red caps. It is ether a heavy duty battery with no extra bracket or someone has messed with the battery and put red caps on a otherwise base battery.
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.
-
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.
Marty, I am not aware of a heavy duty version of the 22F battery in 65,66,or 67. The 22F was a base battery for Mustang 65-67 and the 24 F was the base battery for the new for 67 Big block.The base 24 F battery the big block used was lower capacity then the heavy duty version. The lower capacity 24 F battery used as a base battery in a 67 big block had yellow battery caps for identification. In 65-67 the base battery used the yellow caps and the heavy duty version used the red caps . The heavy duty 24F battery had higher capacity then the base 24F battery. The heavy duty version of the 24 F battery had red caps for easy identification . The battery case also has the amp hour capacity which is different between the base battery and the heavy duty version but is admittedly hard to read especially when installed in a car. As far as I know a heavy duty battery option regardless of big block or small block would be the 24F higher capacity battery identified with the red caps in 67. Reading about 22 F battery car with the extra bracket is a first for me . Unless some kind of mistake anomaly the extra bracket on a non heavy duty battery equipped car would seem to dispel that line of thought reasoning for the brackets usage.
-
Marty, I am not aware of a heavy duty version of the 22F battery in 65,66,or 67. The 22F was a base battery for Mustang 65-67 and the 24 F was the base battery for the new for 67 Big block.The base 24 F battery the big block used was lower capacity then the heavy duty version. The lower capacity 24 F battery used as a base battery in a 67 big block had yellow battery caps for identification. In 65-67 the base battery used the yellow caps and the heavy duty version used the red caps . The heavy duty 24F battery had higher capacity then the base 24F battery. The heavy duty version of the 24 F battery had red caps for easy identification . The battery case also has the amp hour capacity which is different between the base battery and the heavy duty version but is admittedly hard to read especially when installed in a car. As far as I know a heavy duty battery option regardless of big block or small block would be the 24F higher capacity battery identified with the red caps in 67. Reading about 22 F battery car with the extra bracket is a first for me . Unless some kind of mistake anomaly the extra bracket on a non heavy duty battery equipped car would seem to dispel that line of thought reasoning for the brackets usage.
I do not think that there was a HD version of the 22F. From what I read in the 67 option list the HD battery up grade in a small block was the 24F.
Here is how it reads.
BATTERY - HEAVY DUTY - 55 Amp. (Standard on 390 V-8 with C-O-M) ............$7.44
I do not know what C-O-M stands for.
Both our 67 GTA C code and our 68 GT350 have the HD battery on their option lists. Both have a 24F and would have had 22Fs.
-
I do not think that there was a HD version of the 22F. From what I read in the 67 option list the HD battery up grade in a small block was the 24F.
Here is how it reads.
BATTERY - HEAVY DUTY - 55 Amp. (Standard on 390 V-8 with C-O-M) ............$7.44
I do not know what C-O-M stands for.
Both our 67 GTA C code and our 68 GT350 have the HD battery on their option lists. Both have a 24F and would have had 22Fs.
I suppose I confused the thought that you implied that there was a 22F HD version because of the the previous post discussion about the extra battery hold down bracket being used possibly in combination when the HD battery was used . The description of a 6cyl car that had the bracket and also a 22F battery seemed to imply a HD version given the previous post from my perspective. It is obvious to me now that you were just reporting a out of the ordinary observation on the 6cyl car and its extra battery bracket. I am glad to see that we are on the same page.
-
Maybe this can help. It's for Shelbys but I think we can read between the lines on SB v. BB v. A/C, etc
Maybe break this out into its own battery thread here?
- Yr...Model......A/C...Smog....55A....Group....Caps.....Caution...Autolite
- 65...GT350.................................22.........Yellow....Yellow....No Color
- 66..GT350..................................22.........Yellow....Yellow....No Color
- 66..GT350.....X...........................24.........Red.......Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT350...................................22.........Yellow....Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT350......X...or..X....or....X.....24..........Red.......Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT500...................................24.........Yellow.....Yellow....No Color
- 67 GT500......X...or..X....or....X.....24..........Red.......Yellow....No Color
-
Maybe this can help. It's for Shelbys but I think we can read between the lines on SB v. BB v. A/C, etc
Maybe break this out into its own battery thread here?
Broken/separated out. Will modify location if this expands again to all year or classic year discussion like others
-
I do not think that there was a HD version of the 22F. From what I read in the 67 option list the HD battery up grade in a small block was the 24F.
Here is how it reads.
BATTERY - HEAVY DUTY - 55 Amp. (Standard on 390 V-8 with C-O-M) ............$7.44
I do not know what C-O-M stands for.
Both our 67 GTA C code and our 68 GT350 have the HD battery on their option lists. Both have a 24F and would have had 22Fs.
My Southern Cal. DSO 289 Thermactor with factory Select-Aire A/C, came surprisingly with a 22F. My Marti report DOES NOT have Heavy Duty battery called out on it.
I used to believe that the use of the 22F was for clearance issues with the Thermactor filter but in other discussions, that was ruled out. A car built with A/C at the factory, you would think that HD Battery and charging system would be standard with the A/C as a package but obviously not in this example. I believe Marty (ruppstang) just mentioned his A/C non-Thermactor example HAS Heavy duty battery called out, built 2 days after my example. It would appear that Heavy Duty battery option is a separate line on the order sheet and if it wasn't checked, you did not get it...not part of the AC package.
Without derailing the thread, I assume (hate this word) the standard alternator would go with the standard battery option. Maybe a topic for another thread but a car with A/C needs a better battery and charging system than a car without and "engineering wise" (I know, a real oxymoron ~yes John, I thought of you), you would think the two items (battery and charging system) would go hand-in-hand. I do know the accessories post on the back of my ignition switch is so overloaded with connectors it once melted from resistance heat so I know the engineers wouldn't have NOT been thinking about all of these options overloading the charging systems. These guys tend to overthink rather than under think these things.
This leads me to another thought and causes me to wonder if in SOME examples (like mine), if there could have been a higher capacity 22F BATTERY used when they did not actually call it out on the build sheet, BECAUSE it has A/C as well as numerous other electrical options.
-
My Southern Cal. DSO 289 Thermactor with factory Select-Aire A/C, came surprisingly with a 22F. My Marti report DOES NOT have Heavy Duty battery called out on it.
I used to believe that the use of the 22F was for clearance issues with the Thermactor filter but in other discussions, that was ruled out. A car built with A/C at the factory, you would think that HD Battery and charging system would be standard with the A/C as a package but obviously not in this example. I believe Marty (ruppstang) just mentioned his A/C non-Thermactor example HAS Heavy duty battery called out, built 2 days after my example. It would appear that Heavy Duty battery option is a separate line on the order sheet and if it wasn't checked, you did not get it...not part of the AC package.
Without derailing the thread, I assume (hate this word) the standard alternator would go with the standard battery option. Maybe a topic for another thread but a car with A/C needs a better battery and charging system than a car without and "engineering wise" (I know, a real oxymoron ~yes John, I thought of you), you would think the two items (battery and charging system) would go hand-in-hand. I do know the accessories post on the back of my ignition switch is so overloaded with connectors it once melted from resistance heat so I know the engineers wouldn't have NOT been thinking about all of these options overloading the charging systems. These guys tend to overthink rather than under think these things.
This leads me to another thought and causes me to wonder if in SOME examples (like mine), if there could have been a higher capacity 22F BATTERY used when they did not actually call it out on the build sheet, BECAUSE it has A/C as well as numerous other electrical options.
Richard did your car come with a heat shield on the 22F? It should have if it had factory AC. I have never seen a heat shield on a 22F battery.
I have my doubts about a high capacity 22F. It seems likely that if it was truly necessary such as the case of the 390 24F would have been standard with AC. It is going to be next to impossibly to know for sure there are so few cars out there with original batteries, alternators and voltage regulators.
-
Richard, I've thought about this a couple of times, but never transferred the thoughts to the keyboard...so here you go.
When it comes to A/C it would make sense that engine temperature control will be a problem. The incoming temperature of the radiator will go up when cabin cooling is occurring, which will reduce the radiator capability of rejecting engine heat. So bigger radiators, better fan design, shrouds, higher idles, etc. all make perfect sense.
But from an electrical perspective the single largest load by far is the blower motor. I've measured over the years motors in the 17-20 amp range. This is the largest load in an engine running scenario. The starter of course has much more of a draw but once the starting process is over so is that load. The thing though is that a heater only blower motor and the heater-A/C blower motor is probably no different, or if it is would not be by much. I have not measured both, but can do that at some point. So if we continue with the premise that a blower motor is a blower motor, and since the dampers are vacuum operated, the only additional load for A/C would be the compressor clutch. While these are pretty beefy, I would guess (assume) that they are in the 5A range. I'll have to go measure that now also.
My conclusion is that I see the need for better cooling, but I don't see a need for a heavy duty battery/charging system for A/C.
When it comes to a big block, I suppose that the additional effort needed to turn it over would result in a higher capacity system (alternator/battery) so that multiple start attempts (with failures) in a short duration would be possible. The typical scenario that us over-thinkers talk about is being stopped at a railway crossing, then taking off and stalling out on the tracks. How many cranking events would you want in reserve under those conditions?
To wind this up, the biggest problem with batteries (and recovery after starting) is in extreme cold weather. Someone in Bemidji in winter (-40 degrees, F and C) with a 250 cu in 6 cylinder is going to need more power (with a nod to Tim the tool man) than someone in LA with a 390 in summer. If we had access to the database I would bet that the further north the car was destined, the more heavy duty batteries were ordered.
Let me be clear that my commentary is intended to be a practical discussion of the need, and does not reflect what Ford actually did. For that, as always, we need documentation and untouched examples.
-
Thanks guys, your input helps understand, to the best of our "current" knowledge (yes John, all pun intended).
Bob, no heat shield was found on the car in 1978, that leaves 10 years for someone else to leave it off the car. Battery wasn't in the car when it was bought.
John, I do agree with you about the Heavy Duty battery being more likely destination-based when considering it on an order form. This is why I mentioned my southern California DSO, I figured that was a factor.
My plans are to install the factory Heavy Duty option, though not original to my build (according to the Marti Report) with the 55 amp optional alternator, a 24F battery and a heat shield.
"More Power" has it's perks.
-
Thanks guys, your input helps understand, to the best of our "current" knowledge (yes John, all pun intended).
Bob, no heat shield was found on the car in 1978, that leaves 10 years for someone else to leave it off the car. Battery wasn't in the car when it was bought.
John, I do agree with you about the Heavy Duty battery being more likely destination-based when considering it on an order form. This is why I mentioned my southern California DSO, I figured that was a factor.
My plans are to install the factory Heavy Duty option, though not original to my build (according to the Marti Report) with the 55 amp optional alternator, a 24F battery and a heat shield.
"More Power" has it's perks.
What if the heavy duty battery upgrade was triggered by the A/C option ? I don't know this for 100% for certain but suspect it is. If that is the case then the Marti report may not consequently call that out upgraded battery separately. I have seen that kind of occurrence before on other Marti reports but not on everyone. I don't know why the HD battery is called out on some A/C Marti reports and not on another . Just reporting observations. I suppose that a factory AC car with a 22F battery could be some kind of anomaly. I have not come across one before. Although I have studied the 67 AC cars and their differences extensively every chance I get I have not remotely seen them all. I think "upgrading" to the HD option on a factory 67 AC car is a safe bet. Just my opinion.
-
What if the heavy duty battery upgrade was triggered by the A/C option ? I don't know this for 100% for certain but suspect it is. If that is the case then the Marti report may not consequently call that out upgraded battery separately. I have seen that kind of occurrence before on other Marti reports but not on everyone. I don't know why the HD battery is called out on some A/C Marti reports and not on another . Just reporting observations. I suppose that a factory AC car with a 22F battery could be some kind of anomaly. I have not come across one before. Although I have studied the 67 AC cars and their differences extensively every chance I get I have not remotely seen them all. I think "upgrading" to the HD option on a factory 67 AC car is a safe bet. Just my opinion.
Bob, automatic upgrades triggered from options is certainly not unheard of. But the inconsistency in Marti reports tend to make the opposite argument in this case. Although Ford did not do everything logically, the preponderance of design decisions was logical. To summarize my engineering exercise, the only reason that I can think of for an automatic upgrade was that the increased power draw from the A/C version of the blower motor (which may be a wash) coupled with the increase in draw from the A/C compressor clutch would have reduced the safety margin below specification. To do this properly, the whole vehicle configuration needs to be taken into account. For example, a GT (which adds fog lamp bulb load) plus power convertible top plus A/C might have triggered it. This item will be tricky to figure out for sure.
-
This is from a 67 390 auto car with A/C it shows the 55amp alternator and a 45amp battery is the 45amp battery a HD part ?
-
Looks like a task to go through a bunch of buildsheets with attention to battery, alternator, ac, GT option is in order to at least collect base information to move forward.
Did I miss something?
-
Looks like a task to go through a bunch of buildsheets with attention to battery, alternator, ac, GT option is in order to at least collect base information to move forward.
Did I miss something?
Yes you were elected.
-
Yes you were elected.
Was this a hand count or another secret ballot? ::)
-
67402F7A 01317 came with heavy duty battery as per Marti report and the Z bracket.
Texas Swede
-
Was this a hand count or another secret ballot? ::)
Worse: election interference by unindicted co-conspirators...
-
Here a bit of battery information from the 68 electrical assembly manual.
No mention of up grade to a HD battery there for AC.
-
That's the info right there 45 amp hour for a 390 with standard trans which is what the build sheet was that I posted though it appears the amp hour went up with the A/C option IIRC means more plates in the battery case and maybe the heavy duty designation.
-
It looks like I typed to quickly as Marty stated no mention of A/C upping the battery used from the picture posted. Its interesting why an automatic transmission would get a higher rated battery.
-
It looks like I typed to quickly as Marty stated no mention of A/C upping the battery used from the picture posted. Its interesting why an automatic transmission would get a higher rated battery.
Could be that the original owner specified/paid for it. Would need to see a bigger sampling to see if this was standard or not.
-
It looks like I typed to quickly as Marty stated no mention of A/C upping the battery used from the picture posted. Its interesting why an automatic transmission would get a higher rated battery.
I thought the same thing.
I guess when your battery is dead in a manual you can jump start it, you can't in a automatic. LOL
-
I think Marty is correct.
In the later 60s GM stopped putting rear hydraulic pumps in their Powerglides.
Without a rear pump you cannot push start an automatic.
Ford's Fordomatic/Cruiseomatic through the early 60s could as well. I don't believe any C4 had a rear pump.
I remember push starting a 63 or 64 Impala with a Powerglide. The rear pump is connected to the driveshaft via the output shaft which makes it possible to build hydraulic pressure by pushing the car.
-
Here’s some Marti Report information...
I’ve got copies of 13 Marti Reports for cars with the Heavy Duty Battery option.
They break-down as follows:
Dearborn
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – With A/C, build date = 3/15/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Convertible – No A/C, build date = 4/17/1967
1967 289-2V Mustang GTA Fastback – No A/C, build date = 7/12/1967
1967 289-4V Mustang GTA Convertible – No A/C, build date = 8/2/1967
San Jose
1967 289-4V Shelby GT350 Fastback – No A/C, build date = 3/22/1967
1967 428-4V Shelby GT500 Fastback – No A/C, build date = 4/13/1967
1967 289-4V Shelby GT350 Fastback – No A/C, build date = 5/4/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 5/8/1967
1967 289-4V Shelby GT350 Fastback – No A/C, build date = 6/7/1967
Metuchen
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 1/5/1967
1967 289-2V Mustang (T5) GT Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 2/22/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 3/9/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 5/26/1967
FYI – The Marti Reports do not include Alternator information. Other than these cars all being GT/GTA/Shelbys, there doesn’t seem to be a correlation to any other options.
That being said, I have copies of Marti Reports for another 42 GT/GTA cars, and they do not have the Heavy Duty Battery option.
(Of them, 14 also had Air Conditioning)
Dearborn
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 12/15/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 12/28/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 1/24/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – With A/C, build date = 2/21/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 2/25/1967
San Jose
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 8/22/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Convertible – No A/C, build date = 9/22/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 9/28/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – No A/C, build date = 10/3/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 10/27/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Convertible – No A/C, build date = 11/10/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 11/12/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Convertible – No A/C, build date = 11/15/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 11/30/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – No A/C, build date = 12/13/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 12/20/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 12/21/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 12/29/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Hardtop – With A/C, build date = 1/9/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 1/11/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Convertible – With A/C, build date = 1/31/1967
1967 298-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 4/20/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 4/20/1967
1967 289-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 5/2/1967
1967 298-2V Mustang GTA Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 5/9/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 5/17/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 8/2/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 8/3/1967
Metuchen
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Hardtop – No A/C, build date = 9/19/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 9/29/1966
1967 289-4V Mustang GT Convertible – No A/C, build date = 11/28/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Hardtop – With A/C, build date = 12/3/1966
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 1/24/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – No A/C, build date = 1/26/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 4/2/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 4/5/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – With A/C, build date = 4/20/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Fastback – With A/C, build date = 5/2/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GTA Convertible – No A/C, build date = 5/9/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Convertible – No A/C, build date = 5/15/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Fastback – No A/C, build date = 7/18/1967
1967 390-4V Mustang GT Convertible – With A/C, build date = 7/28/1967
Hope this information helps!
Kevin
-
Is it just me, Kevin's findings of cars listed WITH H.D. battery option are all after January, 67?
Odd that none show up for August 66 thru December...
-
Is it just me, Kevin's findings of cars listed WITH H.D. battery option are all after January, 67?
Odd that none show up for August 66 thru December...
Yep - I noticed that too. That's the reason I included the build dates...
It would be interesting to see the Marti Reports for some of the early Shelby GT500's/GT350's built in the Sep - Dec 1966 time frame...
(Unfortunately, I don't have any copies in my collection).
I take that back - I do have a Marti Report for the Shelby GT500 Convertible, built on 11/21/1966.
It does not list the Heavy Duty Battery option.
-
Yep - I noticed that too. That's the reason I included the build dates...
It would be interesting to see the Marti Reports for some of the early Shelby GT500's/GT350's built in the Sep - Dec 1966 time frame...
(Unfortunately, I don't have any copies in my collection).
I take that back - I do have a Marti Report for the Shelby GT500 Convertible, built on 11/21/1966.
It does not list the Heavy Duty Battery option.
I am not sure but think that the battery apron might have been changed on that car. I don't remember the car ever having the extra bracket . Unfortunately If the apron was changed any evidence for or against the bracket would be lost .
-
Our 67 GTA convertible SJ built 11-04-66 has the heavy duty battery option listed.
-
My 12-17-66 built car has the heavy duty battery listed on the Marti report. Car did not originally have AC.
-
This is from a 67 electrical assembly manual there is no date on the page.
-
Thanks for the additional data points guys!
I do not think that there was a HD version of the 22F. From what I read in the 67 option list the HD battery up grade in a small block was the 24F.
Here is how it reads.
BATTERY - HEAVY DUTY - 55 Amp. (Standard on 390 V-8 with C-O-M) ............$7.44
I do not know what C-O-M stands for.
Both our 67 GTA C code and our 68 GT350 have the HD battery on their option lists. Both have a 24F and would have had 22Fs.
C-O-M = Cruise-O-Matic, Ford's marketing-speak for an automatic transmission.
So here's where things get interesting...
My car is a 390 Automatic, so it should have had the Heavy Duty Battery as standard equipment - yet there's no mention of it on the Marti Report VOI.
I wonder if this is another inconsistency with Ford's VOIs? Like the way that some '67 Shelby's have specific call outs in the VOI for the "Shoulder Harness" or "Tachometer/Trip Odometer", but many others do not. All '67 Shelby's were supposed to have these two options, but why do they only appear in the VOIs of some cars, and not all of them?
-
This is from a 67 electrical assembly manual there is no date on the page.
I have a similar page in my 67 Osborn electrical assembly manual that is dated 1-13-66 (still in the 66 model year production) and states it supersedes 11-3-65, EFFECTIVE WITH CZV1-RD-50500 ADDED C5AF-10655-B REQQMTS. TO (ITEM-1) & REVISED DRAWING
I'm not sure how much that helps, if at all but just adding it to the dialogue.
-
Regarding the "brace or bracket", the 68 MPC lists C7ZZ-10A691-A (upper) for 1967 & 1968. It appears that many more cars were shipped out without the upper bracket than with, but the MPC does not mention that detail. No need, I suppose. If you lose it, you can go to the dealer and order it. If you order a kit, and don't need it, it goes in the "maybe I can use this somewhere else later" drawer.
-
I found this battery in a 1967 Mercury Station wagon in a junkyard a few years ago. The front end had been damaged and the hood could not be opened. The junkyard has cars back to the 30's. I was able through persistance to get the hood open and remove the battery. The junkyard owner was surprised to see it.
There is a crack in one corner and the finish has suffered from over 50 years of sitting there. I posted this on the SAAC forum and folks there (many of whom are also on this site) think it is an assembly line battery.
My current questions relate to what sticker it might have had on it and if any of the lettering was colored. Information I have read here tells me the battery would not have had a date punch sticker.
The white fluid highlighting the markings is just Armorall right after being sprayed. It wiped off nicely, but shows the markings very well.
-
I found this battery in a 1967 Mercury Station wagon in a junkyard a few years ago. The front end had been damaged and the hood could not be opened. The junkyard has cars back to the 30's. I was able through persistance to get the hood open and remove the battery. The junkyard owner was surprised to see it.
There is a crack in one corner and the finish has suffered from over 50 years of sitting there. I posted this on the SAAC forum and folks there (many of whom are also on this site) think it is an assembly line battery.
My current questions relate to what sticker it might have had on it and if any of the lettering was colored. Information I have read here tells me the battery would not have had a date punch sticker.
The white fluid highlighting the markings is just Armorall right after being sprayed. It wiped off nicely, but shows the markings very well.
Jim ,there is no sticker used on the picture battery. The Autolite and Staful were not painted typically. The warning info letters arrows etc.were highlighted in yellow paint.
-
Bob, Thanks very much. I saw that early photo on the SAAC forum showing the yellow paint. i dont see any traces of it now, but 53 years is a long time......
Best regards, Jim
-
Thanks for sharing.
For others you might consider something other than a silicon based dressing for your battery out of concern for its long and short term affect on the case. Just a concern - not offering this in a negative way towards Jim. Just have had a fair number of issues over the years with the product and similar ones but this thread is not the place to discuss further :)
-
Jeff, Thanks for the heads up about Armorall and other silicone based products. I'll message you for advice.
Jim