ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1968 Mustang => Topic started by: Oz390 on August 02, 2014, 09:18:33 AM
-
Have seen them with both nuts on one side, and staggered. What is the correct pair of shackles for the dual exhaust '68? And which way do the nuts face?
-
In a bit of digging around it looks like:
RH side is both nuts on same side of shackle, with nuts to outside.
LH side is nuts on different sides, nut on top inside, bottom outside
can someone confirm?
-
Richard, What I have found in the Assy. Manual and confirmed by a MCA Gold Card Judge and an Asst. National Head Judge, your findings are correct. Left side shackle is opposing, with upper nut to the inside, lower nut outside. Right side is both nuts outside. This was a conversation we had on my S Code GT/CS at the last MCA show I attended. Both these Judges I respect and have several decades of knowledge between them. As a new 67/68 Judge myself, I found this info very helpful in my "Bag o tools" to help me in the future. Hope this answers your question. Mike
-
+1
Both the '67 and '68 Assembly Manuals show it as Mike describes, and my '67 390 Convertible is the same way as well: driver's side nuts are staggered (upper nut inside/lower nut outside), and the passenger side nuts are both to the outside...
-
65-68 had the special duel exhaust shackle.
-
I would hold the fort saying all 68 dual exhaust cars have staggered studs on left side. yes that is whats shown in assembly manual. Yes that is what a lot of judges expect but the fact is of all the unrestored 68's (mostly NJ) I have taken apart the majority of them have the same shackle L & R. I would say its somewhere in the ratio of 20 to 3. Because both apparently were used I would accept either in judging
-
Thanks for the replies!!
Dearborn X code, had two of the same, which I was not sure was correct or not. As that is as found and the car and it appeared pretty untouched there (OEM leafs) I'll go with the way it was...
-
I would hold the fort saying all 68 dual exhaust cars have staggered studs on left side. yes that is whats shown in assembly manual. Yes that is what a lot of judges expect but the fact is of all the unrestored 68's (mostly NJ) I have taken apart the majority of them have the same shackle L & R. I would say its somewhere in the ratio of 20 to 3. Because both apparently were used I would accept either in judging
I would default to the staggered stud in 68 with nothing else to go by . With that said I have seen enough shackle anomalies in the 68 model year that I too (like Tim)accept either in judging for 68 only. I couldn't in good conscience do otherwise.
-
I would hold the fort saying all 68 dual exhaust cars have staggered studs on left side. yes that is whats shown in assembly manual. Yes that is what a lot of judges expect but the fact is of all the unrestored 68's (mostly NJ) I have taken apart the majority of them have the same shackle L & R. I would say its somewhere in the ratio of 20 to 3. Because both apparently were used I would accept either in judging
With that being said, a few questions: 1) What kind of shackle is found, same side nuts, or staggered? 2) If staggered, what is the mounting configuration? 3) You stated mostly NJ, would this still hold true to SJ built cars? 4) You would accept either, but what about other judges? Should someone restoring a car do as the assy. manuals call for to cover what most judges expect, at least for now?
Thanks, Mike
-
Here's the odd thing...
There appears to be more than enough room to use a shackle on the driver's side where both nuts face out - so what was the reason for the staggered design where the top nut faces in?
-
I would hold the fort saying all 68 dual exhaust cars have staggered studs on left side. yes that is whats shown in assembly manual. Yes that is what a lot of judges expect but the fact is of all the unrestored 68's (mostly NJ) I have taken apart the majority of them have the same shackle L & R. I would say its somewhere in the ratio of 20 to 3. Because both apparently were used I would accept either in judging
One of the most frustrating things in this hobby is that you learn something like the duel exhaust spring LH shackle bolts are off set. Then confirm it in the assembly manuals then find out Ford did it only sometimes. It really takes years to become a credible judge. I started questing that all duel exhaust cars had the special shackle when I got our 68 GT350. I can not say that these have never been changed but the nuts on them have not been turned in a very long time. Tim I am with you on not deducting it either way
-
I would default to the staggered stud in 68 with nothing else to go by . With that said I have seen enough shackle anomalies in the 68 model year that I too (like Tim)accept either in judging for 68 only. I couldn't in good conscience do otherwise.
The combined information of this thread is stating that ONLY in 68 models, there would be no deduction for NOT having it staggered. For 65-67 models it would be required, correct?
Richard
-
The combined information of this thread is stating that ONLY in 68 models, there would be no deduction for NOT having it staggered. For 65-67 models it would be required, correct?
Richard
It is general consensus that 65-67 the staggered shackle was typical based on many observations by numerous different people on survivor type cars. It has not been observed on 65-67 the anomalous use and non use like the 68 model year for the staggered shackle. That is the reason. That part was being phased out which is one possible explanation for the use and non use.
-
It is general consensus that 65-67 the staggered shackle was typical based on many observations by numerous different people on survivor type cars. It has not been observed on 65-67 the anomalous use and non use like the 68 model year for the staggered shackle. That is the reason. That part was being phased out which is one possible explanation for the use and non use.
+1 not that we are talking about it here but 69 also I dont see the staggered studs. Assembly manuals are helpful but they are kind of like AMK hardware, majority of time they are correct but often miss the mark.
Bottom line is this guys, it takes a lot of time and research to understand all the nuances of these cars and its not something that can be covered in a book. When it comes to judging I know its frustrating that not all are aware of all differences but thats just the way it is. Most simple rule of judging: when you don't know give the car the benefit of the doubt
-
Just to be clear, My car received no deduction on the spring shackles, but it sparked a good conversation, which I feel was cleared up here. Thanks guys.
-
Just to be clear, My car received no deduction on the spring shackles, but it sparked a good conversation, which I feel was cleared up here. Thanks guys.
Many judges are still not aware of the staggered shackles let alone the use or none use issue in 68.
-
+1 not that we are talking about it here but 69 also I dont see the staggered studs. Assembly manuals are helpful but they are kind of like AMK hardware, majority of time they are correct but often miss the mark.
Bottom line is this guys, it takes a lot of time and research to understand all the nuances of these cars and its not something that can be covered in a book. When it comes to judging I know its frustrating that not all are aware of all differences but thats just the way it is. Most simple rule of judging: when you don't know give the car the benefit of the doubt
That is why I haven't mentioned 69 it in any of my posts ;) .
-
Don't know about 65-68 but I would think the same way as 69-70 as its more about installing shackle on assembly line on LH side there isn't enough clearance room getting long shackle stud thru bushing on top rear frame rail on lh side since the gas tank is offset to lh side since spare is on rh side for weight balance. RH side no issue installing studs either direction but try doing that on LH side as very little room between gas tank & rear frame rail shackle hole. Isnt this also the reason the dual chrome tips have those 2 dimples pressed in them where the 2 pipes are welded to outlet pipe for lower shackle clearance when installed on either side?
-
+1
Both the '67 and '68 Assembly Manuals show it as Mike describes, and my '67 390 Convertible is the same way as well: driver's side nuts are staggered (upper nut inside/lower nut outside), and the passenger side nuts are both to the outside...
And sometimes the assembly line guys just got it wrong!
(Must be logged in to see photos below)
-
I wouldn't say definitely for all '65 dual exhaust either, but certainly seen the staggered on some cars.
-
paperback writer what car & where built is the photo of the rear hanger J-hook as that looks like the TALL version for dual exhaust cars since that is another part still not documented & tall version hook never serviced & don't show a different part # in book but only shows up on certain 67-68 dual exhaust cars?
-
1967 S-Code Convertible, built in San Jose - September 1966...
-
I wouldn't say definitely for all '65 dual exhaust either, but certainly seen the staggered on some cars.
I wouldn't ether . For myself that is why I choose to use "typical" in a description that way it covers the anomalies that happen from time to time that are more not typical . With hundreds of thousands of units the odds are good that there will be some kind of deviation from time to time of the typical or what was engineered to happen .
-
I wouldn't ether . For myself that is why I choose to use "typical" in a description that way it covers the anomalies that happen from time to time that are more not typical . With hundreds of thousands of units the odds are good that there will be some kind of deviation from time to time of the typical or what was engineered to happen .
Maybe we should make the words 'all', 'every' and 'absolutely' bad words here on the forum?? ;) :)
Seems 66-67 was probably the sweet spot for the staggered shackle on dual exhaust cars.
-
Maybe we should make the words 'all', 'every' and 'absolutely' bad words here on the forum?? ;) :)
Seems 66-67 was probably the sweet spot for the staggered shackle on dual exhaust cars.
I have learned and followed the lead of a certain larger then life ex fireman and eliminated them from my vocabulary "typically" ;)
-
Make note here MR 67 gaines & look at paperback writer TALL J-hook picture or has anybody figured out the 2 different height dual exhaust J-hooks yet? here is a good original example fall 66 built san jose car & built same plant & time 67 dual exhaust shelbys built also. paperback writer is your car turn-down tips or gt chrome tips with cut-out rear valance as that might make a difference?
-
Don't know about 65-68 but I would think the same way as 69-70 as its more about installing shackle on assembly line on LH side there isn't enough clearance room getting long shackle stud thru bushing on top rear frame rail on lh side since the gas tank is offset to lh side since spare is on rh side for weight balance. RH side no issue installing studs either direction but try doing that on LH side as very little room between gas tank & rear frame rail shackle hole. Isnt this also the reason the dual chrome tips have those 2 dimples pressed in them where the 2 pipes are welded to outlet pipe for lower shackle clearance when installed on either side?
Spec Ed the Cougar GTE did not have the dimpled quad tip. Just the same rolled quad tip as a Mustang but without the dimples. Watcha think about that. Good debate
-
Make note here MR 67 gaines & look at paperback writer TALL J-hook picture or has anybody figured out the 2 different height dual exhaust J-hooks yet? here is a good original example fall 66 built san jose car & built same plant & time 67 dual exhaust shelbys built also. paperback writer is your car turn-down tips or gt chrome tips with cut-out rear valance as that might make a difference?
The car originally had the chromed GT quad exhaust tips/cut-out rear valance - however, the tips were missing when I bought the car, and it was obvious that most of the exhaust system from the "H" pipe back had been replaced at some point in the past, but I do believe all the exhaust hangers/brackets were original (as were the rear leaf spring shackles)...
I think we're getting a little off-topic here, and should probably start a separate thread about exhaust hangers/brackets if we want to discuss it further...
-
The reason I pointed the TALL j-hook out as it may have something to do with the staggered shackle combo & which exhaust tip was used. If you put both c7zz j-hooks beside each other they are easy spotted being same design only 1 taller than the other made from 2 totally different stamping tooling & there has to be a reason why ford engineered the 2 differently & has to have something to do with clearance issue. Kerrry did the gte cougarhave a different rear valance panel (cut-out ) & usesame rear hanger set-up as mustang since rear springs are mounted differently & longer than mustang as this may explain not having the 2 dimples in the chrome tips. I have asked several 67-68 experts about why the TALL J-hook was used on some dual exhaust mustangs & never got a documented reason why or which plant it was used but never seen the staggered shackle or the TALL j-hook used on a 69.
-
well...I'll hijack my hijacked thread on this comment... ;D
it takes a lot of time and research to understand all the nuances of these cars and its not something that can be covered in a book
Respectfully, this is the kind of comment in this hobby that kills me... and why I feel MCA is a fatally flawed organization.
Basically, this common refrain that "It is too hard to write down what I know is right"
Flame suit on... but I call BS.
A lot of data? Yes, of course. But for most that would indicate the need to document, not memorize?
Bob Mannel did a great job (in 1998) that shows it can be done. If he can do what he did for ~8 years of Ford small blocks, as an individual, ~15 years ago, it seems odd the MCA can't even come close to 1/10th (maybe 1/100th?) of the info he provided in written form to this day. Let alone he dug into engine internals and a lot of stuff most folks don't see, and most judging focuses on mainly the open and obvious.
After 35-ish years (don't recall exactly when MCA came to be, mid 70s'?) for the MCA to hold up a few pages of sketchy information in the open, and provide judging sheets that are seen as intellectual property with instructions not to distribute the forms and results? Corporation, not cooperation? :-\
The view that "it is easier to remember all aspects of a few years of one car's details by tribal lore and oral history and regurgitation/rote than by writing it down"... ?? Really?
I'd suggest a few centuries supporting the small growth of documentation from the invention of the printing press, to encyclopedias, to web pages, to Wikipedia, etc. have shown oral histories are a bit weak as a formal source of documentation. ;)
Not a popular opinion, for sure, but I'll stand by it.
-
Sounds like a job for Special Ed ;D
-
Ed I would say your reply makes sense as the GTE did not have the valance cut out and yes completely different rear pad, spring length etc. They also used the pre CJ 2.00 OD pipe like a 390 car for interest sake.
-
Respectfully, this is the kind of comment in this hobby that kills me... and why I feel MCA is a fatally flawed organization.
Basically, this common refrain that "It is too hard to write down what I know is right"
Flame suit on... but I call BS.
A lot of data? Yes, of course. But for most that would indicate the need to document, not memorize?
Bob Mannel did a great job (in 1998) that shows it can be done. If he can do what he did for ~8 years of Ford small blocks, as an individual, ~15 years ago, it seems odd the MCA can't even come close to 1/10th (maybe 1/100th?) of the info he provided in written form to this day. Let alone he dug into engine internals and a lot of stuff most folks don't see, and most judging focuses on mainly the open and obvious.
After 35-ish years (don't recall exactly when MCA came to be, mid 70s'?) for the MCA to hold up a few pages of sketchy information in the open, and provide judging sheets that are seen as intellectual property with instructions not to distribute the forms and results? Corporation, not cooperation? :-\
The view that "it is easier to remember all aspects of a few years of one car's details by tribal lore and oral history and regurgitation/rote than by writing it down"... ?? Really?
I'd suggest a few centuries supporting the small growth of documentation from the invention of the printing press, to encyclopedias, to web pages, to Wikipedia, etc. have shown oral histories are a bit weak as a formal source of documentation. ;)
Not a popular opinion, for sure, but I'll stand by it.
When you're right, stand by it, and I'll stand with you.
Jim
-
well...I'll hijack my hijacked thread on this comment... ;D
Respectfully, this is the kind of comment in this hobby that kills me... and why I feel MCA is a fatally flawed organization.
Basically, this common refrain that "It is too hard to write down what I know is right"
Flame suit on... but I call BS.
A lot of data? Yes, of course. But for most that would indicate the need to document, not memorize?
Bob Mannel did a great job (in 1998) that shows it can be done. If he can do what he did for ~8 years of Ford small blocks, as an individual, ~15 years ago, it seems odd the MCA can't even come close to 1/10th (maybe 1/100th?) of the info he provided in written form to this day. Let alone he dug into engine internals and a lot of stuff most folks don't see, and most judging focuses on mainly the open and obvious.
After 35-ish years (don't recall exactly when MCA came to be, mid 70s'?) for the MCA to hold up a few pages of sketchy information in the open, and provide judging sheets that are seen as intellectual property with instructions not to distribute the forms and results? Corporation, not cooperation? :-\
The view that "it is easier to remember all aspects of a few years of one car's details by tribal lore and oral history and regurgitation/rote than by writing it down"... ?? Really?
I'd suggest a few centuries supporting the small growth of documentation from the invention of the printing press, to encyclopedias, to web pages, to Wikipedia, etc. have shown oral histories are a bit weak as a formal source of documentation. ;)
Not a popular opinion, for sure, but I'll stand by it.
Well since it was my comment you are calling BS, I will address it and I dont need a flame suit. Bob Mannel wrote a book. Bob Mannel got paid for his book. Richard, do you want to pay me to write you a book? I will be happy to write down everything I know about Mustangs and sell it to you. Otherwise I, like most people, have to earn a living which is why we come on here and volunteer information. I repeat, volunteer. You speak with an expectation that you are entitled to this knowledge and if it doesnt get delivered in a package you like you type up a derogatory reply like this. Not even sure what it has to do with MCA. If you dont care for the information as it is presented then go and get it elsewhere. In the meantime its my knowledge and I will relay it anyway I see fit.
My reply may not be popular to you but I'm sticking by it.
-
Well said tim & if we got paid for all our free information & years of research we wouldn't have to work for a living & I don't mind giving out info to other restorers that give info in return but its usually a 1 way street.
-
Well said tim & if we got paid for all our free information & years of research we wouldn't have to work for a living & I don't mind giving out info to other restorers that give info in return but its usually a 1 way street.
I'm at the bottom of the food chain knowledge, but do appreciate all the volunteering that goes on here. I do try to give back when I can, but don't have much to offer most of the times. :-[
-
+1 Tim
Many of us have invested copious amounts of time and resources over the years and share quite freely
Some think it is just easier to have the answers given and show no appreciation.
Some are very grateful and soon we see them paying it forward to others as they learn.
It does not take long to see which category a regular poster falls in regardless of which forum.
I am in the parts business and get calls and emails all day with people wanting me to tell them what something they have or have even seen is worth ::). I delete all my classifieds for this exact reason once sold. Some understand and some do it constantly.
-
PLEASE! discontinue the off topic related conversations in this thread and start a new one if more off topic debate is needed.
I really appreciate all the input from other restorers and try to offer help when I think I have something to offer. So many of you have given your life to this hobby and/or made it a career. I wouldn't expect you to share everything you know in an open forum, though it is nice to get a few pointers to lead us "newbies" in the field the right direction for our project(s). I suppose emotions can and do run high because we have a passion, a passion for various reasons. Mostly a good passion, but sometimes, not so good. The bottom line is we all would like to achieve good results with our work with a minimum effort or expense.
As I have said before, the combined knowledge available at this site is invaluable. I feel unavailable anywhere else. If we drive somebody, ANYBODY away with harsh comments, we deprive the whole community of their potential input. A GREATER harm has then occurred.
Please, lets place principles above personalities whenever possible.
Richard
-
PLEASE! discontinue the off topic related conversations in this thread and start a new one if more off topic debate is needed.
Please, lets place principles above personalities whenever possible.
Richard
Richard, It was the original poster that steered the thread that direction. Sometimes you just need to point at the elephant walking around the house. Anything else would be avoidance
Now back to cars ;)
-
Richard, It was the original poster that steered the thread that direction. Sometimes you just need to point at the elephant walking around the house. Anything else would be avoidance
Now back to cars ;)
I know, but yes when I read that I thought, "Here we go"...and "There" we went...
-
Some think it is just easier to have the answers given and show no appreciation.
I think this is where the issue usually occurs. The expectation for full disclosure of information from knowledgeable posters that has been gained and gathered at great cost (both time and money). From what I've seen, most share pretty openly what they know. Knowledge about our Mustangs is easy to come by now, compared to the past when the only way to gather it was to go to junk yards, buy original unrestored cars, and attend car shows. Full documentation of Mustangs is attainable. But without compensation by MCA or SAAC to gather and coordinate the information, it's probably not going to happen.
Scott