Topic: Correct 69 Mach rear leafs?

[Andrew@MagMustangs]

I am waiting on an email confirmation on the exact wording on the spring stamps. It sounds like it also might be Julian format, but I'm not sure until I can read exactly how it is printed. He did say that the stampings are Perpendicular to the side edges of the springs, Not Horizontally aligned with the side edges.

Car is NJ built. IIRC about July 26, 69. A Very Late Build.

The owner of the car in question is watching this thread. I told him about the site, maybe someday he will join up. 

[J_Speegle]

Sounds fine - hope the owner sees that your doing your home work 

[priceless]

  just the pattern of the way the information is applied to the leaf and those dots at the end of the engineering number.

   

I don't understand what your trying to say.....pattern of the info....and the dots??? Please explain more of your reply.

[priceless]

Feb 4th might make it a quick trip from the supplier to the car plant but not knowing the distances it should be possible.   

Also, as per Marti report, the car was produced on Feb. 24th, 20 days between the 4th and the 24th don't sound like it would be impossible. Got to remember, in '69, Mustangs were being produced as fast as the customers were ordering them. From my understanding, '69 was a year for "supply and demand",cause of the popularity of the Mustang,especially the Mach 1. Might suggest the 20 days is not impossible at all from supplier to plant.

[Andrew@MagMustangs]

OK, here is exactly how the springs are Stamped.

(Ford)
C7ZA  AT
09  95

Maybe Service Parts? Were Service Replacements available in 1995?

1969 Mach 1 NJ 351W 4V Auto car built Late July, 69. GT on the Buck Tag

[J_Speegle]

OK, here is exactly how the springs are Stamped.

(Ford)
C7ZA  AT
09  95

Maybe Service Parts? Were Service Replacements available in 1995?

1969 Mach 1 NJ 351W 4V Auto car built Late July, 69. GT on the Buck Tag

Guessing that (Ford) is the Ford oval - have not seen ones stamped in that pattern yet. Apparently we're up to three or four different patterns/suppliers in 69

The 09  95 IMHO is likely an application of the Julian calendar as Scott mentioned - making that April 5, 1969 well before the car was assembled.

Lacking any addition information We can guess that they are the original springs the specifications for the spring are heavy duty and kind of match what would have been used IMHO for Mach I applications. But my MPC does not cover that new of a car

[Andrew@MagMustangs]

Wonderful, that should make him very happy. I believe the springs have already been re-installed on the car.

Yes, it is the (Ford) Oval that is used even today. Its not the (FoMoCo) or [FoMoCo]. His build date does seem to be around the timeframe that a lot of parts started getting the switch from (FoMoCo) to (Ford) Logos. ( a little earlier then I have noticed) typically I see a lot of that change on Model Year 1970 parts.

Thanks Jeff!!!!

[kammertime]

Jeff,
I noticed you posted a picture of a leaf spring with the id of C9ZA  5556G  80E
I have a set with the identical markings. What does that date code translate to ?

Thanks,
John

[J_Speegle]

Jeff,
I noticed you posted a picture of a leaf spring with the id of C9ZA  5556G  80E
I have a set with the identical markings. What does that date code translate to ?

C9ZA 5556 G would identify the spring and in turn the applications it was used on

The 80E we believe identifies that the spring was made on the 80th day of the year  (starting Jan 1) at the plant identified by the E in this case likely the source Eaton who was a marker of springs that was often contracted to supply springs to car manufactures and the aftermarket market

Much of this is covered by the Date Coding article in the Library of this site this article is pretty big and includes dating charts that can be used to convert the 80th day of the year to month and date depending on if it was a standard or leap year

[Brian Conway]

Using the library info: 87P would be March 20 th and presumably 1968 ?  No new information on production plant P ?  Metuchen car if that narrows the field ? Brian 

[J_Speegle]

Using the library info: 87P would be March 20 th and presumably 1968 ?

 

Most likely if on a 69 then the date was in 69 IMHO - good or decent match for an April- May 69 built car.    If it were 68 - maybe used on a very early 69 Mustang built first month but that appears to be a bit of a streach

No new information on production plant P ?  Metuchen car if that narrows the field ? Brian

I've not heard a suggestion of an identification of the provider or plant for the "P" used on some spring sets

[Brian Conway]

Thank you Jeff.  March 20, 1968 is probably the perfect date for leaf springs installed on a September 19, 1968 built Metuchen Mach 1.  The letter, in this case, P, is currently thought to be a production plant ?  Could just as well represent an inspector, alloy mix, weather conditions ?  Brian

[J_Speegle]

............... The letter, in this case, P is currently thought to be a production plant ?  Could just as well represent an inspector, alloy mix, weather conditions ?  Brian

Yes believe, based on other markings used on other parts, its most likely plant or supplier.
We should take note that your example has a stamping pattern (font, font size and stamping orientation)   that is different from some of the others were other letters in that similar position

I think the supplier makes more sense than the other items you mentioned and follows patterns we see on items like shocks sheet metal and others.

[dcenicco]

Dearborn 428, 3.25 rear non-staggered, C6 - built 1/9/69
Both of mine are the same and look like this.

[J_Speegle]

Dearborn 428, 3.25 rear non-staggered, C6 - built 1/9/69
Both of mine are the same and look like this.

If I may ask is the 1/9/69 from the door tag or from a Marti report?

Thanks just attempting to understand the data points.