Topic: 67 Trunk Latch Strikers

[67350#1242]

My Feb 1 67 GT350 has the 2 window and 2 hole per side version.  both the oval holes and the round holes in the wings appear to be stamped by the factory.  Thanks Jeff for your picture as at one time I thought some PO had drilled the round holes.  They actually are not used for mounting and if you try, you can't get it to line up properly with the latch.
Kurt.

[C9ZZ-16228-B]

Thanks for the responses and thanks, Jeff, for all the pics. 

I wonder now if the 2 hole per side striker is the S7MS version... just thinking out loud here, maybe a prototype or the first batch of fiberglass decklids had mislocated captive nuts, and Ford ran some strikers with the extra hole under the Shelby part number to fit those, then mixed them back in the with the regular production strikers, which would explain why they ended up on regular production Mustangs too... 

[J_Speegle]

I wonder now if the 2 hole per side striker is the S7MS version... just thinking out loud here, maybe a prototype or the first batch of fiberglass decklids had mislocated captive nuts, and Ford ran some strikers with the extra hole under the Shelby part number to fit those, then mixed them back in the with the regular production strikers, which would explain why they ended up on regular production Mustangs too...

Since the two were installed at different times and at different locations (NorCal verses SoCal) don' think that may be the explanation. Can't see why, if they did a limited run of these, there was be any reason to send some to San Jose since they would still work fine with the standard bolt pattern at Shelby. Will have to look and see when they were installed to see if there is a pattern. Or at least see when the cars that have them were built to see if that uncovers some pattern to help. Believe I do have one or two where the holes are used on cars but they are restored cars if I recall correctly.

[J_Speegle]

NOTE: This thread is a break-out from a more general multi-year discussion so that we can focus only on one year and some interesting and specific findings

Can you guys help me confirm my hypothesis on 67-70 trunk latch striker variations?  I've come across three different versions, you can see in the pictures.  They all have "M-S" stamped on the backside that is hidden when installed.

1967 Mustang - Pic 1 right, with two "windows" for the latch to catch (I assume so the striker could be installed either way)

1967 Shelby - not pictured.  Not 100% sure what the difference is, but at http://www.thecoralsnake.com/NOS he mentions seeing some early strikers with rounded corners to facilitate fitment (to the fiberglass decklids)  Interchanges with 67 Mustang version................

From my bookwork, I've found the following:

Ford MPC Service Part #: C7ZZ-6543252-A
Ford Master Cross Ref Engineering #'s:
C7ZB-6543252-A (April 1966)....................

Branda's 67 Shelby Assembly Manual on pg 30 shows: S7MS-6543252-A
Ford O.S.I. from January 1970 shows: S7MS-6543252-A MW (mix with) C7ZZ-6543252-A

The illustrations in the 1967-1970 Body Assembly Manuals seem to confirm my thinking, but I'm just curious how accurate this is in the real world.  I find it mildly unusual that Ford would have the same engineering number across two versions (the 67 and 68 body assembly books both show C7ZB-6543252-A) but not unheard of.  So, any thoughts?

Went through my picture collection to see what they installed on the cars originally and came up with the following. Focused this pass through the pictures on mainly San Jose for 67, NJ and San Jose for 68 and  Dearborn for the 69-70 to increase the size of the sampling for this survey

1967 Mustang/Shelby - Two windows with either the oval mounting holes or two holes on both mounting "wings"



Seen this version a few times but rarely. Not some home made modification IMHO have over a dozen examples all made the same way and not of the "extra" holes have been used so not really sure the purpose.



As for Shelby specific. The earliest unrestored examples I could verify this detail on were in the 50's so I have no documentation from the very very early cars.


-----------------------

[J_Speegle]

  So to continue the discussion. Yes thought the holes were owner/body shop added the first time I saw them. After seeing a dozen then there was apparently something going on and not a bunch of owners who all drilled theirs the same way .... and didn't use the holes to mount them.  They have just been an oddity since there didn't appear to be a pattern or reason at that time.

At this point here are the cars with VIN's I have them installed on. Have seen, as reported, many times more just didn't take pictures of every single one over the decades. In my first response I only looked through San Jose built cars but this time (since its only a single year) I expanded the review to all three plants and this produced more applications of the four hole version.

Mustang with the four hole striker -
7F12493x - not used
7F12918x - used
7F13734x - not used

7R16808x - not used
7R17214x - not used

7T17341x - restored - not used
7T23779x - not used

Shelby with the four hole striker -
67-16x - steel lined trunk - not used
67-21x - steel lined trunk - not used
67-24x - restored - steel lined trunk - not used
67-32x - restored - steel lined trunk - not used
67-63x - fiberglass lined trunk - not used
67-67x - fiberglass lined trunk - not used
67-80x - fiberglass lined trunk - used
67-80x - fiberglass lined trunk - not used
67-122x - restored - fiberglass lined trunk - not used
67-250x - restored - fiberglass lined trunk - not used
67-301x - restored - fiberglass lined trunk - used

Plenty of the other version on other Shelbys.

[J_Speegle]

When going through the pictures found the following. Not sure if there is an explanation for this but at least something to look for on late 67 Dearborn built Mustangs


7F01C227419 

[Bossbill]

In a previous discussion:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=20098.0
this picture was shown:


Were the strikers really that bright? That looks like bright Cad rather than the zinc I thought it as supposed to be.
I have a few pics from some restored Shelbys and the finish is much duller.
I went for restored rather than originals since the finish will dull a lot over time.

I went a bit duller as the attached pics show.
Last one compared to a brighter cad I just plated.

[J_Speegle]

...........Were the strikers really that bright? That looks like bright Cad rather than the zinc I thought it as supposed to be.
I have a few pics from some restored Shelbys and the finish is much duller.
I went for restored rather than originals since the finish will dull a lot over time.

I went a bit duller as the attached pics show.
Last one compared to a brighter cad I just plated.

I recall zinc in years past was not as shinny as it often is done today and it will flash (dull) over time. Some of the jobs over the last ten years have come out almost looking chrome (if the metal in that area is perfectly smooth) and I think its a change in what is being used and sold as zinc. We all make choices to "improve" processes and of course most are not looking to match  a finish that was done 50 years ago just provide good protect of the metal or providing a consistent look currently. I made a similar choice with plating my  own filler necks changing from lead to tin

I often will use some wheel cleaner to do this quicker than it happens naturally. Sure vinegar will likely produce the same affect but too much will remove the plating. In some example's, if storing for a long time or on NOS parts, I've gone to oiling the plating to keep if from oxidizing more and degrading the plating - example dichromate where the underlaying zinc becomes rough over time.

For many of us its about the final look rather than what it took to get there and understand that is what your searching for.