ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Drivetrain => Topic started by: bryancobb on May 13, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
-
Is this the correct stamp I'll need for my MAR 66 C-Code?
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/bryancobb/starterstampask.jpg)
-
Are you asking if the stencil/stamp design is correct or asking about the engineering number.
IMHO my answer to both would be no - just from the other examples I have
-
Bryan,
I believe the engineering number would be C4ZF 110001-A for your car.
Dave
-
I believe the engineering number would be C4ZF 110001-A for your car.
+1
-
Well I ordered the wrong engineering number. Is the date coded correctly for a MAR 66 car?
Jeff, what characteristic(s) of the design do you see as being incorrect?
I need to order another one and I wannt to get it right.
Bryan
-
The date stamp should be a number followed by 2 letters. For instance, 6AB would be second week of January, 1966.
-
Jeff, what characteristic(s) of the design do you see as being incorrect?
First you've done a fine job so far - these often take me over 20 hrs since there are so many different features in the design
Below you will find a copy of your design with some alterations - Not near perfect just a quick adjustment to illustrate some points
As a note and after looking at a fair share of these I believe and have found evidence of the border going around the whole outside of the design and a matching line between the date and the main section of the stamp. From examples it appears that the date section was separate and replaceable like the two slipped together as on some examples the date section was not fully locked into place and was slightly higher than the rest of the stamping. So would correct that
1- 12 VOLT - was reduced in size
2- (in blue circle) needs IMHO to be bolder
3- MADE IN USA reduced to match the size of VOLT and the whole set of words moved closer to the center
4- FoMoCo enlarged within the present oval
5- Brackets (may have originally been a complete frame or at least a partical frame
6- Agree with Charles the date would be a letter followed by two or three letters
7- And as mentioned earlier needs the C4AF changed to C4ZF or there may have been a C5 or C6 used by mid 66 production
Not sure what the size of the file your working with is. I normally make the design 5-10 times the final sizing to improve the details often (in designs with really fine lines) just submit the graphic file but in simpler designs I just provide camera ready on a piece of paper
Hope this helps
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/firetrainer/starterstampfirstpass.jpg)
-
Thanks for the input guys.
-
Here's the one I used as an example.
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/bryancobb/starterstamping.jpg)
-
Here's the one I used as an example.
Thanks - believe it shows a number followed by two letters as mentioned
It does appear to be very similar/the same as the examples I have (have three different versions - 1 FoMoCo and 2 different AUTOLITE) except for the border/bracket on the upper right. I have other examples that show a border at the bottom left and possible evidence of bands between the corners that might have made up a complete border that didn't produce well in the stamp applications. In your examples right side I wonder if the stamp slipped downward or if the stamp did not stamp that area well and the worker reapplied the date.
-
Nice work Bryan. Does anyone have any info on what a Jan. '65 Dearborn 6 cyl starter stamp would look like? "I gotta get me one of them!" ::)
-
Thanks Gary,
I'm a designer at a ASME Pressure Vessel Builder and do AotoCAD daily.
I also have been a sign painter. These two fit together nicely.
-
Here's a picture of a starter and it has a lot more border around the stamping than most I have seen.
Dave
Gary - you have a 170 CI right. I believe your starter engineering number would be C4DF 11001-A or B. I'll look for a picture.
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv8/dkcain1/Starter-1.jpg)
-
Actually, it is a 200. Engine was assembled in Dec of '64.
-
Here's a picture of a starter and it has a lot more border around the stamping than most I have seen.
Dave - thanks for posting - interesting second border on the right side I have not seen on other examples - though we all know that the border seems to be the one thing that does not show up well after all these years. One reason I've left this stamp undone, at this point. Don't want to make one and find out its wrong in some major way
-
Now I'm seeing the big picture, and tweaking that picture with a dose of common-sense...
The non-changing copy was on one stamp. The date code was a totally separate stamp
that the worker manually lined up with the larger stamp.
There will be no consistency in how a finished stamp looks because it was done by hand,
quickly, with two flat stamps, onto a round surface.