ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1968 Mustang => Topic started by: ruppstang on February 08, 2015, 02:31:23 PM
-
We are working on a 68 HCS GT J code. The car has been messed with a lot and I want to be sure that the leaf springs that were on it were original.
The number on them is C7ZA 5556 AM 82E The number in the NPD catalog for a 68 GT coupe is 5560-24 and has a rate of 114. Any help would be appreciated.
Marty
-
Marty,
Sell the car, too many variables in the rear springs.
C7ZA-5556-AM is listed for:
67/68 F (63) 8 cyl, 390 for competition handling GT only "From 11/15/66"
67/68 F (76) 8 cyl, 289, 390 for competition handling GT only "From 11/15/66"
68 F (GT350/500)
4 leaf-665 lb. load rate-#C7ZA-5556-AL,AM
Service number - C7ZZ-5560-T
Jim
-
The AM and the AR are the hardest to find as not many cars had them . They were used on the competition suspension cars like Shelby's and even rarer on regular Mustang I was not aware that any CA special or HC special cars came with a competition suspension but if they did it would have to be rare. Comp suspension on a regular Mustang came with the spec rear leaf ,15/16 front swaybar,15 inch speed rated tires and adjustable shocks like the Shelby's had. I may of left something out so someone help me out. Marty be sure your 68 GT350 has not been changed out and if they have you might want to swipe the ones from the car your working on :D .
-
This HCS was a GT with a J code and a 9 inch 3:25 rear axel but it did not have the competition handling option.
Thanks for the tip Jim but I think I may sell the springs and keep the car. Bob I will check out the Shelby springs thanks.
Where are you finding the explanation of the numbers? MPC?
Marty
-
This HCS was a GT with a J code and a 9 inch 3:25 rear axel but it did not have the competition handling option.
Thanks for the tip Jim but I think I may sell the springs and keep the car. Bob I will check out the Shelby springs thanks.
Where are you finding the explanation of the numbers? MPC?
Marty
The - AR & -AM is the catch for some of us. Since its shared with the Shelby's over a number of years we've tracked those specific ones. Tried to help out when you posted the question using the paint mark and looking for that paint mark on 68 build sheets in hope to find a match (68 coupe with HD suspension.....) for you didn't find one so didn't respond initially
They would be found on HCS and Cal Specials if equipped with a 428. One application/match I found
I've sort of given up on the MPC's since they only list replacements often combining applications to reduce needed stock. For paint marks I've started keeping track of the engineering numbers in my spread sheets to provide better (closer to original) information for others
-
The - AR & -AM is the catch for some of us. Since its shared with the Shelby's over a number of years we've tracked those specific ones. Tried to help out when you posted the question using the paint mark and looking for that paint mark on 68 build sheets in hope to find a match (68 coupe with HD suspension.....) for you didn't find one so didn't respond initially
They would be found on HCS and Cal Specials if equipped with a 428. One application/match I found
I've sort of given up on the MPC's since they only list replacements often combining applications to reduce needed stock. For paint marks I've started keeping track of the engineering numbers in my spread sheets to provide better (closer to original) information for others
So I take it that there is not much of a chance that these springs are original on this car. Can you tell me what numbers this car may have had?
BTW we found a orange paint band on them.
Thanks Marty
-
So I take it that there is not much of a chance that these springs are original on this car. Can you tell me what numbers this car may have had?
BTW we found a orange paint band on them.
Thanks Marty
Orange paint stripe is typical on AM and AR leaf springs.
-
Can you tell me what numbers this car may have had?
Here's a copy of two pages from the 72 edition of the Ford Car Parts for 68 rear springs. Like I stated before, "too many variables". Per the GT/CS Registry, there should be nothing special or different in suspension (and other stuff) for GT/CS and HCS cars. It's related to body, engine and a lot of "variables".
Jim
-
So I take it that there is not much of a chance that these springs are original on this car. Can you tell me what numbers this car may have had?
..........
Believe I can tell you the markings but will need to check some ofther files to see if I have a match (color to engineering) from there
-
Ok today we checked the other spring and discovered that it is a C7ZA AU 110 EC 8 . It could have been what the car had originally.
Thanks Jim for the charts, that was a big help. Those charts would be great to have in the library . One other thing this car also had a trailer hitch and we wonder if the PO changed to these heaver springs.
Our other 68 HCS is a C code and it has C7ZA 5556-Y G1 7E 8E springs.
It is amazing all of the combinations that there were, and to think some suppliers sell a one size fits all.
-
It is amazing all of the combinations that there were, and to think some suppliers sell a one size fits all.
Oh the rear springs are nothing compared to the pages after pages of front spring applications.
Here is a picture of a closer MPC for viewing. No "replaced by" and similar notes. MPC page is from April 68
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/3/6-090215203408.jpeg)
-
Jeff I can not bring up the chart, I get a screen asking for a gallery password. I do not know what that is.
Marty
-
Jeff I can not bring up the chart, I get a screen asking for a gallery password. I do not know what that is.
Marty
+1, I thought this must be an item privey only to the "secret society" ;D
-
+1, I thought this must be an item privey only to the "secret society" ;D
Same here, thought it was just me!!
-
another same here.
-
Sorry tried to post a thumbnail - didn't work
Full size now
-
Jeff why is the C7 5556-Y listed on Jim's MPC and not on yours? Or is it on the next page? My C code HCS has those.
Do you believe that the C7 5556- AU was the correct spring for the 68 HCS J code GT? If so what color band would it have had?
Thanks Marty
-
Jeff why is the C7 5556-Y listed on Jim's MPC and not on yours? Or is it on the next page? My C code HCS has those.
Suggests to me that Ford was not installing or using them on the line at the time of printing or it was a mistake lacking any other documentation
Do you believe that the C7 5556- AU was the correct spring for the 68 HCS J code GT? If so what color band would it have had?
The application of matching - engineering numbers and paint colors is the difficult thing for me. Use to rely on the books until I found enough original cars that didn't fit the boxes so now when I help with paint marks I normally as for the engineering numbers instead of the application. Less mistakes and poor guesses that way. Same thing for collecting the pictures and info - match the picture and marks with the numbers. Unfortuately they are often difficult to make out and hard to get a clear picture of. Enough of excuses ::)
- First the -Y rear spring is a standard base rear spring not one that would have normally been installed on your car as equipped
- Looking at build sheets (have none that match your car in equipment and month), otes, observations and pictures:
I do have is a picture of what was reported to be a J code automatic GT coupe built the end of December - early Jan 68 time period. It shows paint ID stripes of one orange and one pink on the short leaf. This matches a buildsheet for a J code GT auto no AC fastback I have a copy of. Don't have a picture of the engineering number to go with the picture but I'm guessing it would match
Best I have at the moment
Hope it helps
-
I tracked down a 68 GTCS J code GT and it had AT springs. What is confusing is on Jeff's MPC the AT is not listed for a coupe and has a 665 load rate. The AU is listed for a coupe and is listed at a 625 load rate. In Jim's MPC the AT and AU are listed as 665 load rate and both for a 68 coupe.
This is very confusing I see why you are giving up on the MPC.
Marty
-
I tracked down a 68 GTCS J code GT and it had AT springs........
When was that car built? Or just the date from one of the springs.
-
I do not know the build date of the car but here is a picture. I will try to find the build date.
-
I do not know the build date of the car but here is a picture. I will try to find the build date.
Was more interested in the date from the spring
The stamping on the example you show is very different from what I typically see on San Jose springs. Believe its likely a service replacement. Originals normally don't have the Ford oval, stamped so deeply and have the date under the engineering number. Date pattern normally includes letters and numbers.
Can be applied/stamped vertical or horizontal to the spring leaf's length. Shape of the short leaf can also help identify an original or service piece .
One of each of the different stamping orientations
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/3/6-200215194103.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/3/6-200215194146.jpeg)
-
I thought it was odd as well but was a C7 ZA not a C7 ZZ.
-
I thought it was odd as well but was a C7 ZA not a C7 ZZ.
It's the other way around. A C7ZA- part is the part number that engineering used to design the part. It is the part number on the drawing. It's the same part number that the part was bought for assembly line use.
A dealer would use C7ZZ- to get the same identical (in most cases) part for a customer's car for service or replacement purposes. At the dealership, the part came with a tag stating C7ZZ-, but would still (in most cases) be marked with the C7ZA- part number. It's actually a fairly good part number system once you understand the what and why (better than GM or Mopar). It is not an absolute, many replacement parts are identified with the engineering number in service department documentation.
Jim
-
I do not know the build date of the car but here is a picture. I will try to find the build date.
The '75 MPC lists the following for 1969:
MODEL
F(63)-8 cyl. 302 use with improved handling pkg.-(exc.GT350/500)
F(65)-8cyl. 302, 351, 390 4/B with improved handling pkg.-(exc.GT350/500)
DESCRIPTION
4 leaf-665 lb.load rate-C7ZA 5556-AS,AT,AU,AV
PART NUMBER
C7ZZ 5560-M
Any chance the spring in the photo could have come from a '69?
-
.................
Any chance the spring in the photo could have come from a '69?
Markings and patterns are different from what I've seen on factory rear springs for 69
I'm thinking late 70's - early 80's maybe
-
It's the other way around. A C7ZA- part is the part number that engineering used to design the part. It is the part number on the drawing. It's the same part number that the part was bought for assembly line use.
A dealer would use C7ZZ- to get the same identical (in most cases) part for a customer's car for service or replacement purposes. At the dealership, the part came with a tag stating C7ZZ-, but would still (in most cases) be marked with the C7ZA- part number. It's actually a fairly good part number system once you understand the what and why (better than GM or Mopar). It is not an absolute, many replacement parts are identified with the engineering number in service department documentation.
Jim
Thanks that makes sense. I had seen NOS parts relabeled with a latter part number.
-
Here is the perfect match to our HCS it is a 68 GTCS J code GT automatic transmission and has the AU springs. It is also marked with the pink and orange like the one Jeff described above. Now just to find one.
-
Here is the perfect match to our HCS it is a 68 GTCS J code GT automatic transmission and has the AU springs. It is also marked with the pink and orange like the one Jeff described above. Now just to find one.
It's a San Jose built GT (December 1967), but it's not a GTCS. I used to own it and know it well!
Danny
-
Just to throw this in, from memory my rear springs are C7ZA 5556 AU. This is from a Non GT coupe with Heavy Duty Suspension option.
-
Just to throw this in, from memory my rear springs are C7ZA 5556 AU. This is from a Non GT coupe with Heavy Duty Suspension option.
Tim from what I have found the Heavy Duty Suspension used the same leaf springs as the GT. I purchased a pair of AUs from a HDS car this week.
I am curious about one thing, are your shock towers welded on the inner structure? I have found most 68 GT small block cars to be welded.
-
Definately not welded on mine. Mid dec 67 san jose car.
-
Definately not welded on mine. Mid dec 67 san jose car.
Thanks I did not think it would be. It most likely has a 8 inch rear axel too. It is looking like the only small block that were welded were GTs.
-
It is interesting the difference in profile in even the short springs. The lightest one the Y has the most arc.
The AR seems to made by a different supplier as it is stamped differently and is shaped slightly different.
Marty
-
It is interesting the difference in profile in even the short springs. The lightest one the Y has the most arc.
The AR seems to made by a different supplier as it is stamped differently and is shaped slightly different.
Marty
I don't see a "AR" but do see a "AM" . It doesn't really matter from a comparison stand point because the AR and the AM were virtually identical in specs and design. the Au seems to be the different design . I have always thought the "E" at the end of the date code was the MFG mark for Eaton . Not to be confused with the Detroit Eaton that makes springs for the aftermarket because they are not related to the vintage OEM mfg.
-
Yep you are correct I meant AU.
I found a nice set of AUs out of a 68 GTCS with Heavy Duty Suspension. I all ways say its better to be lucky than good.
-
I have a set of 68 R code automatic springs and they are AM. Can check the J code GT 4 speed tomorrow as it has the original springs as well.
-
I have a set of 68 R code automatic springs and they are AM. Can check the J code GT 4 speed tomorrow as it has the original springs as well.
Kerry if you would also check your shock towers and see if they are welded like the big block cars.
Thanks Marty
-
Kerry if you would also check your shock towers and see if they are welded like the big block cars.
Thanks Marty
Hi Marty, I finally got a chance to look at the GT J code car. The leafs are both original to the car. With regards to the towers, the passenger side has a very typical looking stick weld with a piece of wire still in place. The driver side however is not welded. I cannot say with 100% certainty it has not be welded after leaving the San Jose plant but would say it is very doubtful based on the over all car and the history. Hope this is helpful for you.
Left/Right Leafs
Left/Right Towers
-
Thanks Kerry you car looks to be the same as several J codes I have gotten information from except the one unwelded shock tower. I believe it was just missed. Does your car have a nine inch axel with a 3.25 open gearing? The 3.25 seems to be the most common in the cars I have looked at.
Marty
-
It is a 4 speed with an optional axle code E limited slip 3.00 9 inch.
-
Just to clarify. I thought i remembered seeing 5556 in there somewhere. Now i see
C7ZA - AU
300EC7
i didnt check the front side, just the rear. Is that correct? Both sides have the same stamp.
-
Tim they were only stamped in the rear on the ones I have seen. It seems that there were two manufacturers, one used the 5556 in the engineering number and the other did not.
Marty
-
Tim they were only stamped in the rear on the ones I have seen. It seems that there were two manufacturers, one used the 5556 in the engineering number and the other did not.
+1 Different suppliers at the time and in the years to follow as we've seen examples of in this thread
-
I got the AU springs last week and am very pleased with them. I thought it was interesting that they appear to have been striped laying together. These came off a 68 C code GTCS with HD suspension witch show it was the same suspension used on the GTs.
Because of the original condition what would you recommend for clean up. I hate to just blast them and start over.
Marty
-
Because of the original condition what would you recommend for clean up. I hate to just blast them and start over.
Agree those are in nice shape. Might disassemble, soak them in Evaporate, re oil and reassemble
-
I know this is an old thread and maybe a bit off topic, but does anyone have a spare set of AU leaf springs?
-
I know this is an old thread and maybe a bit off topic, but does anyone have a spare set of AU leaf springs?
Best to place an ad in the wanted sections since most will not respond to such a request in the discussion area ;)