ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1967 Mustang => Topic started by: 2V8s on February 17, 2011, 05:44:36 AM
-
Hi,
sorry this might be an obvious question, but over on the UK's mustang club forum we are having a debate over how the rubber seals are attached to the front and rear splash shields.
http://www.mocgb.net/forums/showthread.php?40386-how-should-rubber-seals-fix-to-splash-shields
Is it the case that they swapped from rear to front of shields (as viewed dfrom the wheel side) between 66 and prior and 67 and later?
From what I can gather, for a 67/68:
the rear splash sheilds have the outer lip facing towards the wheel and the rubber stapled from the front, overlapping the lip, so as to push the rubber in a forwards direction (towards front of car). All of the rubber is therefore visable from the wheel well.
the front splash shields on the light bucket in the same manor mount with the lip facing towards the wheel, so that the rubber is also mounted on the wheel side, facing rearwards i.e towards back of car. All rubber is visible.
Is this correct?
Many thanks
Aaron
-
All of the rubber is visible from the wheel side
-
65-66 has the rubber on the back of the splash shields as seen once installed. There is a groove in the metal splash panels that the rubber fits into before stapling, basically an index so the worker knew where to place the rubber. Checking through some pics, not sure if this was changed for 67/8.
-
All of the rubber is visible from the wheel side
+1
Regards,
Pete Morgan
-
excellent thanks, just what I needed to know :)
-
I have just taken the fender off (passenger side), and I was searching on this site for learning as much as I can find for that topic.
I have found this topic and if I understand it correctly, the rubbers must be installed/seen from inside the wheel side.
in attachment a picture of the rear splash shield still in place, but as I can tell for my car the rubbers are installed behind the steel plate.
So, is this correct or isn't correct?
I do not know what all has happened to my car in the past 50 years, but I think that much hasn't changed for that area?
I have also attached a picture of the splash shield itself.
Thanks for your help/explanation.
Kind regards,
Jeroen
-
I have remained nuetral on this topic since I have seen them on BOTH sides...Maybe an anomolie of sorts but except for previously restored cars, I would put them back the way I found them if the date code of the splash shield's metal matches up similarly to other components of the same car.
...then document it for reference of course
-
All my 65-66 Mustangs (all San Jose) have the rubber on the non-visible side which is in agreement with the 65-66 Assembly Manuals. For 1967 it's the opposite, and, as Tim said, all the rubber is visible (well put), which is in agreement with the 67 Assembly Manual. There are two other possibilities for the use of the opposite side, different assembly plants did it different, and early 67 production may have continued the procedure they used in 66 production. Remember, Ford was not building concourse grade Mustangs.
One other item - I've found the staples supplied in the aftermarket replacement kits to be 0.060 inch diameter, while the original staples (the ones not too badly rusted) were 0.047 inch dia. The instructions with the replacement kits say to drill out existing hole to the new staple diameter. To keep some semblance of originality, I made my own staples from 0.047 in dia. hard drawn steel wire. You need around 60.
Jim
-
I have just taken the fender off (passenger side), and I was searching on this site for learning as much as I can find for that topic.
I have found this topic and if I understand it correctly, the rubbers must be installed/seen from inside the wheel side.
in attachment a picture of the rear splash shield still in place, but as I can tell for my car the rubbers are installed behind the steel plate.
So, is this correct or isn't correct?
As always (just to compare) we might want to get to the basics when it comes to comparing, collecting and documentation.
- Have you found the stamping date on the panel?
- If so what is the date and the stamping plant?
Comparing these two we might identify that it's a supply difference (different stamping plants following different patterns) that then might apply differently to different plans due to the supply matrix
Just a possibility ;)
-
Thanks for the answers.
in attachment closeup of the stamping date on the metal part from the rear splash shield (passenger side).
The first letter is '1'
The second is 'I' or 'l' (= not capital L) or another '1'
(but I thought that capital 'I' is never been used?)
The third is '2'
The fourth is '3' or '8'
The fifth is 'D'
And the last one is '2'
I have also looked at the driver side, and the rear splash shield is mounted just the same way (so rubbers backwards from the wheel well), but the rubbers from the front splash shield (drivers side) are mounted visible from the wheel well.
Just adding this information for giving the whole picture.
Thanks for your help/answers.
kind regards,
Jeroen
-
I live up in BC Canada and 99% of the cars I work on are from SJ.As stated when your head is in the wheel well you will see all the rubber seals.All my panels are oem or nos...This applys to 67/68's.I understand 65/66 are the other way..
-
Took so time and went through my pictures - focused just on 67 rear splash shields. Didn't want to confuse things with looking at forward splash shields and the running changes associated with those and the half on the front and half of the shield on the back thing
So looking at just the rear splash shields I found the following (sorry none had clear date and plant stampings)
- All 67 Dearborn examples showed that they were attached to the front of the rear splash shield with staples
Vins covered pretty much the whole production period 1107xxx, 1285xx, 1644xx, 1736xx, 1801xx, 1875xx, 196xxx, 2071xx, 2216xx, 2137,xx
- All 67 NJ examples showed that they were attached to the front of the rear splash shield with staples
Vins covered pretty much the whole production period 131xxx, 155xxx, 158xxx, 1652xx, 170xxx, 202xxx, 241xxx
- All 67 SJ examples showed that they were attached to the rear of the rear splash shield with staples (guess I could have looked through the Shelbys also bu figured this was a decent sampling) 1076xx, 1156xx, 1164xx, 133xxx, 1399xx, 1533xx, 1598xx, 1639xx, 1706xx, 1849xx, 1883xx, 2297xx
Choose not to count this one since there was no rubber section attached ::)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/4/6-141115152815.jpeg)
-
Interesting....I have never seen them attached to the back of the splash shields on 67/68
-
Interesting....I have never seen them attached to the back of the splash shields on 67/68
That's always been the challenge - normally we only see the cars in our geographical area so we take it all are the same.
I'm located close to a number of military bases that have been active since the 40's plus all the influx of new populations so we've always had a cross section from all three plants - though (like you) the majority are San Jose.
Same thing happened on the east coast. They restored things to always look like their local cars (most of the time Dearborn) so rules and such reflected those cars. Turned out some mighty "interesting" restorations of early Shelby's and San Jose cars. This really started to change when the westerners started to get involved nationally, followed by the internet and forums such as this. The reason we always ask when and where the car in question was built ;)
-
That's always been the challenge - normally we only see the cars in our geographical area so we take it all are the same.
I'm located close to a number of military bases that have been active since the 40's plus all the influx of new populations so we've always had a cross section from all three plants - though (like you) the majority are San Jose.
Same thing happened on the east coast. They restored things to always look like their local cars (most of the time Dearborn) so rules and such reflected those cars. Turned out some mighty "interesting" restorations of early Shelby's and San Jose cars. This really started to change when the westerners started to get involved nationally, followed by the internet and forums such as this. The reason we always ask when and where the car in question was built ;)
I have remained neutral on this topic since I have seen them on BOTH sides...Maybe an anomaly of sorts but except for previously restored cars, I would put them back the way I found them if the date code of the splash shield's metal matches up similarly to other components of the same car.
...then document it for reference of course
As I mentioned earlier within this thread and since I had seen the situation the O.P. originally asked about in another thread that also indicated the rubber was supposed to be on the front side...
...and also NOW that others have stated their San Jose built examples ALSO have these rubber seals ON THE BACK SIDE, I will add for reference that my 11/2/66 S.J. example also has the rubber seals on the back side, with the staples going forward.
Now, for what more it is worth, I knew I had replaced my right side rear splash shield when I also replaced the right fender & right door, this to repair sideswipe damage my car was purchased having (back in 1978) so I knew the right side was NOT original to my car but BOTH right and left were stapled the same. (unfortunately the rubber is gone on the left side...a result of Southern California Desert living) My intentions were to document my findings on the splash shield rubbers and put them back as it was, basically going against the popular belief they were intended to be on the front. The date stamp of my right fender indicates the (replaced) fender was stamped in early December and the splash shield has a date of 11 01 on it. The underside of the replaced fender was finished identical to the original drivers fender and finished correctly for what is known to be correct for my build date in San Jose (only red primer, no sound deadener), to me indicating that the used replacement parts I purchased back in 1978 to repair my accident damage, did come from another San Jose example and as best I can estimate, those parts were removed from a donor car built in mid/late December 1966. I remember for whatever else it is worth, that the car the fender and door came from was a six cylinder car.
If by chance there are MCA RULES or any judges opinions that indicate the ONLY correct way these are to be found belong on the FRONT of these rear splash shields, evidence suggests there might be a change in order for these beliefs.
Discovery is great! I discovered this and another facet of discrepency in the written knowledge early on in being active on this site. The bigger challenge isn't finding anomalies...but instead, finding the verifyable evidence that proves the truth in a way that can bring accuracy to the restoration process that we are using while NOT changing things from being TRULY ORIGINAL AND CORRECT, to simply follow what is the accepted opinion (of the majority).
-
Richard my SJ car built 11-04-66 two days after your also has the rubber on the back. Our 68 SJ built 7-16-68 also has them on the back side.
I am not aware that there is any thing written in the MCA rules about which side is correct. I have never deducted for them either way.
It is good to bring out these differences just to help keep some of the plant specific differences from being lost.
-
Although my SJ car (see sig) is missing its shields, my SJ parts car (which is about a week apart) has the L&R rear shields with the rubber on the rear.
Weird, since the lip on the shield forces the rubber to contort in an ungainly way around the lip.
But, there it is.
-
Going to lock this thread for a number of reasons.
The scope is too wide for this forum. We're getting 67 and 68 info and examples from all three plants as well as mixing in judging, so time to start over.
Invite anyone interested in starting a new discussion with a focus on a specific single year and single assembly plant since, by examples here, there were differences ;)