ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1966 Mustang => Topic started by: J_Speegle on March 18, 2024, 05:15:23 PM
-
Recently I was reminded about the two different style of passenger side trap door frame panel used during 1966 production so thought I would take a closer look and post.
For reference and to define the different panels I offer the two below. Location of panel to help understand its location and relationship to other panels in a 66 fastback
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/20/6-180324161014-202651746.jpeg)
On one the panel is basically flat with a few edge bends to help it smoothly attach to the surround panels.
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/20/6-180324161013-20264649.jpeg)
The other version was stamped with a depression or dimple stamped in the upper surface of the panel as shown below.
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/20/6-010324214736-202181228.jpeg)
If you have 66 fastback with original sheet metal please feel free to post the style of panel your car has if built at Dearborn during 1966 production.
Please remember this thread is for a specific plant and please include the VIN or partial VIN so we can graph and compare.
-
OK, why?
Jim
-
OK, why?
Jim
Effort here, or at least my focus is to document when the panels were supplied to the plants and when they were used in the process of building our cars so that knowledge can be applied during restoration or evaluating past damage or replacement.
Don't have an answer to why some engineer or group of engineers thought it would be worth the extra cost to do it. Gave up trying to second guess why engineers did things. All that seems apparent is that it didn't work or was not worth the cost at this point since the feature was dropped from production.
-
Effort here, or at least my focus is to document when the panels were supplied to the plants and when they were used in the process of building our cars so that knowledge can be applied during restoration or evaluating past damage or replacement.
That oddity most members understand. (I'm more interested in San Jose "quirks".)
Don't have an answer to why some engineer or group of engineers thought it would be worth the extra cost to do it. Gave up trying to second guess why engineers did things. All that seems apparent is that it didn't work or was not worth the cost at this point since the feature was dropped from production.
That was what I was really asking. What is "that bump for" and "why".
Jim