ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1966 Shelby => Topic started by: dan green on November 16, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
-
Are these original for a 66 Shelby? I have never seen this type of leaf used on original ford springs. Maybe they have been re-leafed? Did Shelby do this?
-
Are these original for a 66 Shelby? I have never seen this type of leaf used on original ford springs. Maybe they have been re-leafed? Did Shelby do this?
I havn't seen that type used on a 66 Shelby before. Maybe someone else has a different observation. The leaf style and straps are not typical to what we normally see. I don't think the date code supports a 66 ether. The date code appears to be a fairly early 1964 . I don't think they came off of a Shelby originally.Bob
-
Wrong engineering number for a Shelby spring and agree - never seen this style of leaves and clamps before on an original application
-
It's hard to say what a previous owner or a shop that worked on the car may have done. This car (#455) was repainted in about 1973 by the owner at that time whom I have spoken to. These springs have the repaint over spray on them so I would guess that they were installed before that time. I thought it is interesting that the springs if replaced have a ford leaf in them.
How hard is it to find a set of original springs with the correct engineering numbers?
-
It's hard to say what a previous owner or a shop that worked on the car may have done. This car (#455) was repainted in about 1973 by the owner at that time whom I have spoken to. These springs have the repaint over spray on them so I would guess that they were installed before that time. I thought it is interesting that the springs if replaced have a ford leaf in them.
May just be a service replacement from some known vendor or the usual supplier changed designs during that time period. Lots of possibilities IMHO
How hard is it to find a set of original springs with the correct engineering numbers?
Not too bad for just the engineering numbers - look of a Mustang with GT suspension since the springs were not any different on Shelbys
-
Based on what I see in the MPC these, or at least the bottom leaf with Ford numbers, are 64-65 Falcon springs. The 66 GT350 rears have a C4ZA number...
Dave
-
Adding to what s2ms said, 5556-T is a 4 leaf, 610lb load rate spring found on 65/66 hardtop Mustangs w/ 6cyl & 8cyl, 260, 289-2V, 289-4V.
-
What should the numbers be for a 66 shelby?
C4ZA & 55?? ?. And a date code.
-
I believe it should be C4ZA-5556-K, L, S, Y which is a 4 leaf, 650lb load rate for 65/66 FB & conv., 8cyl 289-4V HIPO.
-
What should the numbers be for a 66 shelby?
C4ZA & 55?? ?. And a date code.
We would need to know a Ford VIN (just the first 3 or four of the sequential) You can PM or email them to me if you would rather not post in public - I've got at least a couple hundred from other 66's so I might be able to guess from the Shelby VIN
I believe it should be C4ZA-5556-K, L, S, Y which is a 4 leaf, 650lb load rate for 65/66 FB & conv., 8cyl 289-4V HIPO.
Matt did you get those from the Master Parts Catalog?
If so those are what would work as a replacement not what would be original to the car. ;)
-
Here is an original spring from 6S1757....
Dave
-
Matt did you get those from the Master Parts Catalog?
[/quote]
I was referencing pg 261 of my Mustang '64.5 - '73 Restoration Guide 2nd ed. by Corcoran & Davis.
-
Here is an original spring from 6S1757....
Dave
Thanks Dave for another data point for my spread sheet.
Don't get allot of spring dates since they are so often swapped out over the years as they weakened.
Dates are always interesting since some parts were produced in an on going basis while others were produced in batches, likely due to demand or the machines that produced them. Our cars are over 10,000 numbers apart (Ford VIN) while the spring dates are weeks apart
I was referencing pg 261 of my Mustang '64.5 - '73 Restoration Guide 2nd ed. by Corcoran & Davis.
- Same thing since the MPC (likely 75 version) is where they took their information for that book from
-
Taking into account sheet metal dates on the car I would guess the car was built mid to late November 1965.
So I should look for springs with an October date?
-
Taking into account sheet metal dates on the car I would guess the car was built mid to late November 1965.
So I should look for springs with an October date?
You'll be looking for the C4ZA-S springs
Looking at other examples (with tight spring to sheet metal date) I would look for ones stamped at least a month prior to the sheet metal dates. Maybe something between 250-290 but anything close should work
Remember the dating format is 234 E 5 - with
234 being the day of year - Julian year
E being the supplier
5 being the year
A usable site for figuring out the numbering system http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/julian.html (http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/julian.html)
Hope this helps
-
You'll be looking for the C4ZA-S springs
Looking at other examples (with tight spring to sheet metal date) I would look for ones stamped at least a month prior to the sheet metal dates. Maybe something between 250-290 but anything close should work
Remember the dating format is 234 E 5 - with
234 being the day of year - Julian year
E being the supplier
5 being the year
A usable site for figuring out the numbering system http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/julian.html (http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/julian.html)
Hope this helps
Dan, since the rear leafs are rare I would not miss a opportunity to acquire ANY C4ZA-S rear leafs. They are in such demand you can always sell or trade them if another more appropriate dated one comes along. Bob
-
Thanks Dave for another data point for my spread sheet.
Don't get allot of spring dates since they are so often swapped out over the years as they weakened.
Dates are always interesting since some parts were produced in an on going basis while others were produced in batches, likely due to demand or the machines that produced them. Our cars are over 10,000 numbers apart (Ford VIN) while the spring dates are weeks apart
You're quite welcome Jeff. The rear springs are one of the earlier dates on 6S1757. You may remember we've discussed them previously on the HiPo and SAAC forums. They are a little weird in that one spring has paint daubs and the other stripes. Plus on the striped spring you can see where a worker put the stripe colors in the wrong order and then painted over them in the correct order. You may already have this pic but just in case here it is again...
Dave
-
You're quite welcome Jeff. The rear springs are one of the earlier dates on 6S1757. You may remember we've discussed them previously on the HiPo and SAAC forums. They are a little weird in that one spring has paint daubs and the other stripes. Plus on the striped spring you can see where a worker put the stripe colors in the wrong order and then painted over them in the correct order. You may already have this pic but just in case here it is again...
Yes already have a copy - and for others DON"T COPY THIS EXAMPLE !!!! They are not what we typically see.
I've only seen a handful of cars where they mixed stripped and dotted rear spring markings. Dots are not that common on a later 66 car from my experiences
-
Yes already have a copy - and for others DON"T COPY THIS EXAMPLE !!!! They are not what we typically see.
I've only seen a handful of cars where they mixed stripped and dotted rear spring markings. Dots are not that common on a later 66 car from my experiences
Sorry, didn't mean to imply this was a normal thing, definitely not, but obviously it did happen.
Jeff, Just out of curiosity, what are the dates on the other springs you've seen with mixed stripe and daub markings? Just wondering if there was a transition period where it was more.... "likely to occur"....
Thanks,
Dave
-
Sorry, didn't mean to imply this was a normal thing, definitely not, but obviously it did happen.
Don't think you did but we all know how the lurkers see something and run with it ;) so I thought a warning was appropriate
Jeff, Just out of curiosity, what are the dates on the other springs you've seen with mixed stripe and daub markings? Just wondering if there was a transition period where it was more.... "likely to occur"....
No pattern a couple in 65 and a couple in 66 so either a worker grabbed a rattle can or daubed the paint when he should not have, a handful of of dotted springs got left back or the transition was really irregular I can't put any cars together by VIN enough to get a pattern
This the one of each (marking style) is not normal but would not deduct for it if I saw it at a show. Would likely ask if the owner found it or made it that way. Know one restorer that does just about every one of his 65-66 Shelby's that way :( based on one example/car in a magazine
-
While we are talking about rear springs for 66 Shelbys, these are the originals
on 6S923 in Sweden. The clamps look quite different from the ones I have
seen on most rear springs. The original yellow and green stripes have been recreated exactly
as they were originally. One picture on car and one before restoration.
These are marked
C4ZA
5556 S
345 E5
Texas Swede
-
While we are talking about rear springs for 66 Shelbys, these are the originals
on 6S923 in Sweden. ..............
Thanks Bo - yes sometimes all we can see fo the markings is a spot with less rust/texture
Thanks for the pictures
These are marked
C4ZA
5556 S
345 E5
Funny in that I have ones originally off of 6S1203
One made 343 (Dec 9th) and one made 345 (like your example - Dec 11th) and the guys skipped the green stripe :(
-
While we are talking about rear springs for 66 Shelbys, these are the originals
on 6S923 in Sweden. The clamps look quite different from the ones I have
seen on most rear springs....
Bo,
Those clamps are the same ones used on the Maier Racing springs I currently have on 6S1757. Plus, from your pic it looks like the rears on 6S923 have five leaves, is it possible these are a modified set with a correctly dated original bottom leaf?
Dave
-
Bo,
Those clamps are the same ones used on the Maier Racing springs I currently have on 6S1757. Plus, from your pic it looks like the rears on 6S923 have five leaves, is it possible these are a modified set with a correctly dated original bottom leaf?
Dave
Good catch Dave - I was busy looking at the other picture
-
Thanks Dave,
Have to ask Roland tomorrow if his springs have 5 leafs. The car was raced in Belgium
as can be seen by the perculiar panhard rod and the car has the holes through the floor for attaching
shoulder harnesses. Claude Dubois have been asked if he himself raced this car as his
name was found on a Belgian certificate for 6S923. Sofar no answer from Claude.
It was the German guy Wolfgang Kohrn who asked Claude.
/Texas Swede
-
Here is a pic of one of my springs. Both have the same date. I know its not a SJ car, but may help in the tie up between manufacture date and build date of a car with these springs. The paint is un restored.
(http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss52/cobraboy1/IMGP0730.jpg)
-
Here is a pic of one of my springs. Both have the same date. I know its not a SJ car, but may help in the tie up between manufacture date and build date of a car with these springs. The paint is un restored.
Thanks - is that 65th (March 6th) or 85th (March 26th - don't think 65 was a leap year) day of the year (sorry hard for me to make it out? And this is from your car with a projected April build date?
Just confirming
-
Dave,
You have real eagle eyes as Roland's car indeed has 5 leaf springs. Probably added by Claude Dubois in
Belgium who most likely got them from Maier Racing and added the bottom leaf with the date codes etc.
This explains the special clamps as well. Also I was wrong about the dates, one is 345 E5 and the other
353 E5.
/Texas Swede
-
.............Also I was wrong about the dates, one is 345 E5 and the other
353 E5.
Interesting that in the pile of springs two cars (maybe more) got the exact same matching dates. What are the odds?
-
Both of my springs are dated 137E5 on my 65.
Dave
-
Dave,
You have real eagle eyes as Roland's car indeed has 5 leaf springs. Probably added by Claude Dubois in
Belgium who most likely got them from Maier Racing and added the bottom leaf with the date codes etc.
This explains the special clamps as well. Also I was wrong about the dates, one is 345 E5 and the other
353 E5.
/Texas Swede
Bo,
Thanks for the info, glad to know my eyes weren't playing their usual tricks...
Those are interesting springs, they have the reverse stamped impressions that hold the Ford OE style anti-squeek pads. The Maier Racing springs I'm running (purchased 1991) do not have those impressions and use different style anti-squeek pads.
Also interesting that both Roland's springs have very late 65 date codes and stripes while one of my originals with a 16 6E date has daubs. I guess someone didn't get the memo...
Dave
-
Both of my springs are dated 137E5 on my 65.
Dave
Dave can you provide a VIN or approx build date and plant so that your picture can be more useful ;)
Thanks
-
The Ford Serial number on 6S923 indicates a January 12, 1966 build date at San Jose.
The original engine has a Jan 6, 1966 assembly date and the T10 M1 has
an assembly date of Dec. 4, 1965.
Texas Swede
-
Thanks - is that 65th (March 6th) or 85th (April 26th - don't think 65 was a leap year) day of the year (sorry hard for me to make it out? And this is from your car with a projected April build date?
Just confirming
Jeff
From my car.
It is the 85th day, which works well for the April 13th scheduled build date.
Mark
PS I make the 85th day, March 26th 1965
-
Jeff
From my car.
It is the 85th day, which works well for the April 13th scheduled build date.
Mark
PS I make the 85th day, March 26th 1965
Thanks
and thanks - read the table incorrectly
-
Dave can you provide a VIN or approx build date and plant so that your picture can be more useful ;)
Thanks
Jeff,
My car was built in San Jose either very late May or very early June.
It arrived at Shelby American June 4, 1965
137 = May 17, 1965
-
Jeff,
My car was built in San Jose either very late May or very early June.
It arrived at Shelby American June 4.
137 = May 17, 1965
Thanks - pictures without enough reference points are as helpful ;)
Shelby VIN around 2150-2200?
Happy Thanksgiving all!!
-
This thread got me curious so I decided to check the dates on 6S1575 - estimated production in mid March '66. One spring is dated 350 5E and the other is 16 6E.
-
Thanks - pictures without enough reference points are as helpful ;)
Shelby VIN around 2150-2200?
Happy Thanksgiving all!!
Jeff,
Serial number 5S396
Dave
-
Jeff,
Serial number 5S396
Dave
Thanks - didn't read your earlier close enough :(
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours
-
I just got to cleaning the springs in my original question up and found these paint markings. The green and yellow.
If these were from a Falcon like someone mentioned earlier, were they Mustang GT special handling type but for the Falcon?
If so maybe they were substituted on #455 at the time of build? Possible shortage at the time?
-
I just got to cleaning the springs in my original question up and found these paint markings. The green and yellow.
If these were from a Falcon like someone mentioned earlier, were they Mustang GT special handling type but for the Falcon?
If so maybe they were substituted on #455 at the time of build? Possible shortage at the time?
Green and yellow paint markings are what typically seen on 65 and 66 GT350 rear leaf. typically round dots on 65 and stripes on 66. Jeff may have a close determination on when the transition changed from dots to stripe marking style. There are a number of historical photos to document that combination.Bob
-
Bob,
Refer to my first post that started this thread. I am trying to determine what these crazy springs are that I pulled off of #455. They don't look like ford springs at all except the bottom leaf with the ford numbers. I just found the paint marks today as I blasted over them in the blast cabinet.
I don't understand why if the springs were changed with something aftermarket they have the ford bottom leaf. And the bottom leaf has the correct paint marks But the engineering numbers do not match what should be on a shelby or competition handling spring?????
-
Bob,
Refer to my first post that started this thread. I am trying to determine what these crazy springs are that I pulled off of #455. They don't look like ford springs at all except the bottom leaf with the ford numbers. I just found the paint marks today as I blasted over them in the blast cabinet.
I don't understand why if the springs were changed with something aftermarket they have the ford bottom leaf. And the bottom leaf has the correct paint marks But the engineering numbers do not match what should be on a shelby or competition handling spring?????
Sorry, i don't have any useful comments or theories then.BG
-
Hmm... well since you report that the rest of the leafs in the set are not factory all bets are off IMHO and we can not assume that these leaves (the ones with the Falcon engineering numbers) came with the car originally either. I think that we can disregard the happenstance that the spring markings are the same as what was used on Mustangs.
Checked the 67 Master Parts Catalog and even by then these springs had been dropped so I can't see what the leaves original came on or any ratings.
I think I would start looking for the C4ZA - S springs if it were my car.
-
Hmm... well since you report that the rest of the leafs in the set are not factory all bets are off IMHO and we can not assume that these leaves (the ones with the Falcon engineering numbers) came with the car originally either. I think that we can disregard the happenstance that the spring markings are the same as what was used on Mustangs.
Checked the 67 Master Parts Catalog and even by then these springs had been dropped so I can't see what the leaves original came on or any ratings.
I think I would start looking for the C4ZA - S springs if it were my car.
I think you're right Jeff.
I just really think it's a weird deal with these springs. It's almost impossible to say where they came from.
-
Dan, I just pulled #664 into my garage. suspension has never been touched. I'll report what I find
-
Sorry, its 701 not 664 :-[