ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1966 Mustang => Topic started by: socalgt on June 19, 2017, 12:49:53 PM
-
Before I copy my previously owned '66 289 A code setup on my new car, I thought I'd post a picture and see if it appears to be as it left the factory.(linkage, return spring, bracket, etc.) I've seen diagrams with the spring attached to the bend in the linkage rod, but it sure looks strange.
Thanks for any thoughts
-
2nd pic is right except the return spring is incorrect.
-
Thanks....I assume the spring bracket is also correct.
-
Thanks for any thoughts
Automatic or manual transmission?
-
Based on the fuel input to the carb, it's a 65 setup.
Jim
-
Correct, C5ZF-E on the carb and tag. ;D
-
I have some examples (for 66) that look like the top picture - A code automatic examples
The following example is from 6R07A1590xx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/7/6-190617154116.jpeg)
-
Automatic....looks just like your example.
-
Just for record:
-Accelerator pump assembly on that carb. is not correct for a 1966 Mustang (looks like early Autolite setup used in 1963?)
-Clip at the end of the accelerator pump rod is also wrong.
Good catch. can't see the number stamped on the base - guess it might have been a rebuilt carb picked up at a supplier (reason for the hardware differences
-
Just for record:
-Clip at the end of the accelerator pump rod is also wrong.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=16168.0;attach=38996;image)
What would the correct one be?
Jim
-
What would the correct one be?
like the bottom picture (appears to have been replaced during a rebuild) on in the first post
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/7/6-200617200446.jpeg)
-
like the bottom picture (appears to have been replaced during a rebuild) on in the first post
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/7/6-200617200446.jpeg)
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=16141.msg101061#msg101061
As shown in the 1975 MPC, illustration Section 95, page 4, the clip is part number 375894-S (GG-215) and a drawing of the clip is in "Ford Standard and Utility Parts Catalog, January 1965", page 35 (Osborn Productions). That does not say it was a factory original item, but the clip existed prior to 1965 and was used as the service replacement in 1975. Until a Ford drawing, Ford bill of materials or other Ford documentation is produced to show another means of attachment, this clip would be the best choice.
It's the same clip.
Jim
-
Just an observation...the clip 375894-S clip in the photo is broken and only the retainer portion remains.
-
Just an observation...the clip 375894-S clip in the photo is broken and only the retainer portion remains.
Yes appears that it was broken when installed. Interesting thing (well sort of) is that the picture is from a new - NOS carb so likely original though would not suggest anyone copy the "mistake"
-
OK, wait a second here, I just went through this accelerator linkage setup on my automatic trans 66 HiPo, and everyone was telling me my linkage was setup wrong previously. So there's a different linkage setup for and automatic verses a 4 speed? I originally had it setup similar to the the top picture on my C6ZF-F 4100 carb, but I just re-did it like the second picture with that bracket and it attaching to the linkage arm.
So what's correct for my application?
Oh, and it's a February 10th 1966 San Jose GT K-Code Automatic transmission car.
Thanks as always,
Jason
-
OK, wait a second here, I just went through this accelerator linkage setup on my automatic trans 66 HiPo, and everyone was telling me my linkage was setup wrong previously. So there's a different linkage setup for and automatic verses a 4 speed? I originally had it setup similar to the the top picture on my C6ZF-F 4100 carb,..................
Jason I don't think we've agreed to an answer but at this point we're investigating and discussing the possibility it seems. Its takes a while for us to collect documentation/examples and changes to "common knowledge" take time to digest and consider.
The benefit of a site like this is the exchange and honest discussion of new findings and possibilities. Not all pass the test and don't expect all to be received quickly.
Not sure of the history of how your car got that arrangement so I think we need to see if we can find some more original/unrestored examples to compare. Not an easy task since most engine pictures are taken with the air cleaner in place.
-
Jason I don't think we've agreed to an answer but at this point we're investigating and discussing the possibility it seems. Its takes a while for us to collect documentation/examples and changes to "common knowledge" take time to digest and consider.
The benefit of a site like this is the exchange and honest discussion of new findings and possibilities. Not all pass the test and don't expect all to be received quickly.
Not sure of the history of how your car got that arrangement so I think we need to see if we can find some more original/unrestored examples to compare. Not an easy task since most engine pictures are taken with the air cleaner in place.
Haha, totally understand, I just saw this and it was such a coincidence since I was literally changing it a couple days ago based on some feedback I received on my car, so it was just a question like, "so it is a possibility the way I had it"?
But obviously I agree that I've seen so many examples of the way I have it now (bracket and spring to the linkage arm as shown in the second picture) that I was sure it must be setup incorrectly the way I had it, so I changed it. Obviously the way I have it now is a safer bet and more common. But I just found it curious that it was possible the way it was setup when I received the car. And like you said, who knows what was done to it and if a mechanic at some point adjusted and moved the spring like the first picture.
Anyway, I was just confirming and making sure I understood what was being said in the thread, and it sounds like it's more a case of "the jury is still out".
Thanks as always Jeff,
Jason
-
Jason,
Here's the throttle linkage on my San Jose Oct 65 GT K Fastback. The only differences between any AT and MT are the dashpot and the kickdown arm from the accelerator pedal arm to the transmission. Everything else is the same as any 4100.
Jim
-
Anyone else notice the bottom edge of the throttle shaft end plate (for lack of a better term)?
So far the automatic examples have a round hole at the bottom and the manuals don't. Maybe its the angle of the pictures but we have a number of pictures posted so far from multiple angles
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/7/6-220617190636.jpeg)
IF so why did the maker make the difference and provide a hole/loop for an attachment?
Just discussion possibilities and observations ;)
-
Jason,
Here's the throttle linkage on my San Jose Oct 65 GT K Fastback. The only differences between any AT and MT are the dashpot and the kickdown arm from the accelerator pedal arm to the transmission. Everything else is the same as any 4100.
Jim
Yes, this is exactly how mines setup now, looks exactly the same...
Thanks for the images...
Jason
-
Anyone else notice the bottom edge of the throttle shaft end plate (for lack of a better term)?
So far the automatic examples have a round hole at the bottom and the manuals don't. Maybe its the angle of the pictures
IF so why did the maker make the difference and provide a hole/loop for an attachment?
Just discussion possibilities and observations ;)
I just pulled these carb images from mustangtek.com... These are both 4100 HiPo carbs, the shinny one is an automatic (C6ZF-F) and the older looking one is a manual (C6ZF-C), and both have the hole at the bottom throttle shaft. Now I don't know if it's different on other carbs, I did notice that one picture in an earlier part of the thread showed what you are talking about.
Also, the way I had it originally with the spring going to that hole on the throttle end plate worked great, so there was no performance issues with that setup, actually made more sense than the spring to the linkage arm IMO ;)
Jason
-
Lets remind ourselves that the focus is a 66 A code just for clarification and in case this discussion is taking a new path ;)
-
Lets remind ourselves that the focus is a 66 A code just for clarification and in case this discussion is taking a new path ;)
Yes, agreed, sorry for the thread direction change :)
Jason
-
The shop manual offers some clues (it validates the clip discussed earlier) and seems to imply a very simple 1 spring attachment like Jim's post (Post #18). I've scanned the page I referenced.
Ron
-
The shop manual offers some clues (it validates the clip discussed earlier) and seems to imply a very simple 1 spring attachment like Jim's post (Post #18). I've scanned the page I referenced.
Problem is IMHO and in experiences the shop manual is full of generic pictures for many of the repairs.
For all - please do not take this discussion as the final word and alter your car. We are discussing possibilities and findings nothing more IMHO at this juncture. We do this all the time off line, in person, through emails and in phone calls.
-
Anyone else notice the bottom edge of the throttle shaft end plate (for lack of a better term)?
So far the automatic examples have a round hole at the bottom and the manuals don't. Maybe its the angle of the pictures but we have a number of pictures posted so far from multiple angles
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/7/6-220617190636.jpeg)
IF so why did the maker make the difference and provide a hole/loop for an attachment?
Keep in mind that the throttles shafts can be interchanged when rebuilding. So long as they are from the same type 4100, the 1.08 or 1.12 . I can easily see where someone would swap out the throttle shaft for one that has better plating/condition.
Just discussion possibilities and observations ;)
-
Keep in mind that the throttles shafts can be interchanged when rebuilding. So long as they are from the same type 4100, the 1.08 or 1.12 . I can easily see where someone would swap out the throttle shaft for one that has better plating/condition.
That's why I posted to new carbs not rebuilt or factory re-manufactured ;)
-
Sorry, missed that... :o
-
Had an opportunity to actually go out and look last night because I wasn't sure and was curious, especially about that lower hole being discussed.
We also have the same setup as Jim's #18 posting. We have that lower hole (the item I couldn't remember for certain). I think I've rebuilt this original carb at least 4 times over the years and I know I've never changed the configuration regards to bracket, spring and where it attaches.