ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Suspension => Topic started by: ruppstang on February 08, 2011, 12:41:43 AM
-
I am cleaning up my 68 High Country Special upper control arms. I noticed that one appeared to have the outer edge ground off I presume for tire clearance. I decided to look for another that had not been ground off. I since have looked at several different 68 and 69 cars that had the upper arms ground the same way. Did Ford make this change? Marty
-
I am cleaning up my 68 High Country Special upper control arms. I noticed that one appeared to have the outer edge ground off I presume for tire clearance. I decided to look for another that had not been ground off. I since have looked at several different 68 and 69 cars that had the upper arms ground the same way. Did Ford make this change? Marty
Yes Ford did that and for the clearance reasons you suspected. Because of cracking in the area between the rivets which was because the cutback design the control arm was changed back for 69 without the cutback clearance . In 70 it went back to the cutback version but because of the three rivet configuration instead of four there was not the cracking issue like in the 68 version. Bob
-
Thanks Bob,
For the information. I thought some one here would know. Does it seem odd that the two versions were on the same car? Thanks Marty
-
Thanks Bob,
For the information. I thought some one here would know. Does it seem odd that the two versions were on the same car? Thanks Marty
Marty,at the badgering of one of my ill tempered country cousins (southern Indiana variety) ;D it has come to my attention that I needed to be more specific on when the cutback design transitioned out of production and was well into the 69 model year probably around April . I always have thought it coincides with the introduction of the F 60 15 wide oval tires but not sure. Marty when I read about the one side being different it could be that the non cut back arm was left overs from the earlier 68 production . The non cutback style was used in 67 and maybe early 68. I hesitate to think that the cutback design started exactly at the beginning of 68 production because these things rarely wait for the production year change and are integrated into production as needed. I have seen other examples like one type of rear shock being used as if to use up old stock and the other side being the updated engineering number (hence different design). Ford may have been using up supplies . The most likely explanation is that it was a service replacement for some reason. You will have to be the final judge if that was the case or not. Bob
-
Marty you might want to check for a date on the arms and compare that with your cars build date
Just a thought ;)
-
Marty you might want to check for a date on the arms and compare that with your cars build date
Just a thought ;)
I would be interested to see if you find any date codes. I have often wondered if it was a vendor think or? I don't recall seeing any date codes on post 66 arms. Bob
-
IIRC, Tim's original uppers and lowers from his '68 GT350 were date-coded...
-
IIRC, Tim's original uppers and lowers from his '68 GT350 were date-coded...
Charles ,I find it a interesting observation. I am not disputing the observation just relating that I haven't observed that on the ones I have seen. I can not remember observing any on post 66 Mustangs. I have found it somewhat strange that I haven't given the large cross section I figure I have seen but then again the line I am in is always the longest at the grocery store as well ;D They must not all be marked in that way with a date code. I certainly have seen a lot 67-69 upper and lowers that didn't have a date code and a large majority were not service units. That is if service units didn't receive the date codes like assemblyline units. I have a large pile of 20 pairs recently scavenged from AZ to go through yet on my floor so i will be looking closely. Bob
-
I do not recall seeing any date codes on either of them when I cleaned them. I will check again tomorrow. The 68 HCS is a 7-16 build date and by what Bob said probbly should have cut back arms on both sides. Our 68 fastback is also a late build and has the cut back arms on both sides. I'll check them for build dates. Marty
-
The dates are hard to find if you don't know where to look. I was surprised to see them on '68 and even some '67 arms. Hopefully Tim can confirm.
-
I would be interested to see if you find any date codes. I have often wondered if it was a vendor think or? I don't recall seeing any date codes on post 66 arms. Bob
Can't report for sure that San Jose's supplier used them after 66 just have not checked closely to the 68 SJ cars I own or owned but thought (considering others from other plants have been found) it might be a possibility to help confirm that they were original or possibly replacement(s)
-
The dates are hard to find if you don't know where to look. I was surprised to see them on '68 and even some '67 arms. Hopefully Tim can confirm.
If they are in the same relavent place as the 65/66 ,thats where I have looked is there another place? Bob
-
If they are in the same relavent place as the 65/66 ,thats where I have looked is there another place? Bob
Same place as the earlier one.
Can anyone confirm that there were different suppliers? I haven't noticed any differences in the arms, other than possibly the boot retainer plates for the LCA's. Of course, just talking about assembly line parts here, not service replacement.
-
The dates are hard to find if you don't know where to look. I was surprised to see them on '68 and even some '67 arms. Hopefully Tim can confirm.
Bob,
I will confirm. The 67 Metuchen coupe that I finished last spring had the original UCAs and LCAs and all 4 were date coded (and matched the assembly date). Also, the 68 Metuchen coupe that I am nearly finished with has correct date coded UCAs. The date codes are very hard to notice, expecially if you are not looking. Sometimes they look like extraneous stamping marks from the stamping process. I believe the dates were hand stamped after the ball joint was installed (another reason they tend to be faint).
For the record, look for the date code on the UCAs around the ball joint end, on the top side and on the LCAs on the side between where the U channel end and where the ball joint is. I think I have pictures of the UCA date codes on my home computer. Will look and possibly post tonight.
Oh, and since I still have the original UCAs from my long gone San Jose 67 convertible, I can confirm that these were date coded as well.
Regards,
Pete Morgan
-
I looked these over pretty well and found nothing on either one. It was too cold here today to get under the fastback.
I would like to see one so I know what to look for. Marty
-
Check in the circled areas for codes, usually 2 character, like C4 or D8
-
I checked 16, 67 and 68 uppers today from a recent AZ junk yard trip and here is what I found. 9 had faint date codes 3 had marks that I couldn't recognize as a number or a letter (slight nicks in the metal) but I guess it could be considered a less then faint date code because it was in the same area as the readable date codes and 4 had no sign what so ever of a date code. They were smooth metal in that area.The 2 pairs of 65/66 ones I had all had date codes. So from these small sampling observations I can conclude that not every arm got stamped or they were so poorly stamped it didn't leave a impression. Bob
-
The ones that are showing smooth, are you sure they aren't service replacements?
-
The ones that are showing smooth, are you sure they aren't service replacements?
They don't appear to be service parts since first off these ones in question are the cut back 68 style which I haven't come across a service replacement of that early style so if they were serviced, that stock must have been used up long ago. They are plugged and not zerted ball joints and early style spring perch still bolted on . For those reading the factory plug in the ball joint is commonly replaced with a grease zert when service replaced by a mechanic and topped off with grease and left in for later service. The untouched plugs and the early assemblyline spring perches give the impression of assemblyline . Charles is it your contention that service replacements weren't date code stamped? Bob
-
So far, I have not run across any service replacement control arms that were date-coded like the assembly line pieces we're seeing. There are also other subtle and not so subtle differences in the service replacements. Of course, we also see one or more different variations of service control arms.
-
So far, I have not run across any service replacement control arms that were date-coded like the assembly line pieces we're seeing. There are also other subtle and not so subtle differences in the service replacements. Of course, we also see one or more different variations of service control arms.
With the faint stamping to a almost non existent non readable stamping to no stamping at all seems to indicates a progression range of possible assemblyline variations in my small sampling. I am confident the control arms in my sampling are assemblyline. Special Ed picked them out. He would have turned up his nose at anything service :D
-
I checked the two I posted found no marks on the unsaved one and some kind of mark on the shaved one. I checked to more shaved ones and found no marks. I also had to 65-66 ones they both had date codes. Does not seem that Ford was too committed to marking all of them. Marty
-
............ Does not seem that Ford was too committed to marking all of them. Marty
Don't think it was Ford but a contractor such as TRW or Moog. In that case it might be that one did and one didn't. If they did the same with two suppliers (such as this) as they did with other parts then one supplier provided parts for San Jose while the other got the Dearborn and NJ contract - though shipments could be shipped to another plant if the additional supply was needed
Just a consideration
-
Check in the circled areas for codes, usually 2 character, like C4 or D8
None of the pictures in this thread are visible on my computer.
I'm looking for a date. Where do I need to look? I'll post a couple of pics in a couple of hours to get an expert opinion if these are assy-line OEM for MAR Metuchen.
-
I found a set of control arms. The uppers are stamped with a "K". I can't find any markings on the lowers.
I'm almost positive these are original assembly line parts. What do y'all think?
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/bryancobb/DSCN3473.jpg)
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/bryancobb/DSCN3480.jpg)
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/bryancobb/DSCN3482.jpg)
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad350/bryancobb/DSCN3483.jpg)
-
This shows the lower control arm details and where to find a date code:
http://65kresto.blogspot.com/2010/05/5310.html
-
Thanks Charles
-
Both of my lower A-arms for my Oct 65 (month "K", and they have never been touched before) are stamped "H5" and both upper A-arms are stamped "K". We (others in the restoration group I'm in) assumed the "K" was for an October manufactured item. We also have several non-stamped factory upper A-arms we've accumulated so stamping seems to be 'optional'. If Bryan's car is an October or November build, I guess we can assume that it's a date stamp. If not, either his A-arms were replaced of the "K" is a factory/sub-contractor ID.
Jim
-
Jim,
These are not off my MAR 66 car. These are a set of 2 uppers and 2 lowers I got from a guy that I plan to restore and put on my car.
The P.O. of mine took off the OEM ones and trashed them. He put on aftermarket CSRP power discs and repop control arms and a 1" stabilizer bar.
I just got the entire OEM setup with all date code stuff removed from a Metuchen car that was built a couple of months prior to mine. The original drums, spindles, control arms, 5/8 dia stabilizer bar.
His parts appear to be all OEM. I was just trying to verify the lower control arms since I couldn't find a date. I'm pretty confident the "K" on the uppers is the date.
-
Bryan: If you need those arms tumbled to a finish like in my pics, send me a PM to discuss. I have a large tank tumbler.
-
Thanks Charles,
You a fine gentleman! They, like yours, need a little gouge repair so when I get that done, I'll blast them and then contact you.
Bryan
-
I am going to post some pictures here of the upper control arms so we have a visual of what the cutback versus non-cutback style looks like. They are essentially the same control arms with some very minor differences and you can see where they literally cut back the front portion of the arms here. Although I dont know if I agree that there was a defined date late in 69 assembly where the cutback was exclusively used or changed over. I have plenty of examples on cars where the cutback was already being used as early as October 68 time frame.
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z213/azscj/DSCN0975.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z213/azscj/DSCN0976.jpg)
And from this side you can see exactly where you have the issue of the wheel/tire rubbing against the control arm if you look at the upper control arm in the photo:
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z213/azscj/DSCN0979.jpg)
And here is a more visual reference when installed on the car the clearance issues you can run in to:
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z213/azscj/DSCN0957.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z213/azscj/DSCN0955.jpg)
-
I am going to post some pictures here of the upper control arms so we have a visual of what the cutback versus non-cutback style looks like. They are essentially the same control arms with some very minor differences and you can see where they literally cut back the front portion of the arms here. Although I dont know if I agree that there was a defined date late in 69 assembly where the cutback was exclusively used or changed over. I have plenty of examples on cars where the cutback was already being used as early as October 68 time frame.
Marcus, The progression was non cut back in 67 then it changed to cutback in 68 and when a pattern of problems with fatigue cracks developed because of the metal taken away in the cutback design. Ford changed back in 1969 to the former design that had more strength. I am sure special Ed will be along to elaborate .
-
I believe cutbacks were introduced around 4/68 when the CJ cars came out because of the 70 series tires
-
I had to think about this and re-read the comments here. I mis-read some of the previous posts. And looking at the parts book (for what its worth) it shows three different variations of the upper control arms from 1967 to 1969....in other words there is a C7-A, -B and -C version which probably is the three different version arms we are talking about here. So I cant comment on exact dates when they changed over from one to the other but for sure we know there is different versions out there. In my opinion there is probably two versions of the non-cutback but I dont have anything now to show that side by side (non-cutback 67 and non cut-back 69).
-
And I am also seeing a pattern of at least two different vendors of the upper control arms which probably makes sense from Ford's perspective.
-
What is the part number of the 3 rivit upper ?
-
I'm in Oregon now so don't have access to parts book but I know it's a D0 part number.....probably with same basic part number I would guess.
-
What is the part number of the 3 rivit upper ?
Have some with the (later) D5DZ-3082-C and the 72 MPC shows a D00Z-3082-A part number
-
The c7oz a & b look the same but the c (trimmed off c7oz-b) was done for clearance for the new wide f-70-14 polyglas tire being used on 68 1/2 cj cars & the rims were getting wider as the tires were. In late 69 when they beefed up the spindles rotors tie rods drag link etc for the shelbys & b2s to use the new f-60 -15 tires they went back to the c7oz-b upper arms as they were stronger & they were using a new 15'' taller rim. If you look closely at a c7oz-c (trimmed back upper) that has many miles on it you will see a crack going to outside from the outer 2 rivets to the end where it was trimmed off making that stressed area weak from where the metal was trimmed off. In 1970 ford redesigned the upper arm (dooz) to a new rounded off end by putting a 3 rivet ball joint on arm with a rivet to the center inside style. This made it alot easier having 1 upper arm to use from 70 to 73 instead of 3 different upper arms in 69.
-
Another oldie but goodie.
My two 65 upper control arms show a single date code with the character M.
My 67 upper appears to only have a number.
Marcus shows a later (than 67) upper arm which appears to show an alpha and a number.
Is there any later data, especially 67 examples?