Topic: 65 and 66 Driveshafts Interchangeable?

[65fastbk]

Are 65 and 66 driveshafts interchangeable?  Were there any differences?  Can automatic yoke work with a 4 speed manual trans?

[CharlesTurner]

Are 65 and 66 driveshafts interchangeable?  Were there any differences?  Can automatic yoke work with a 4 speed manual trans?

Probably ought to post this question in one of the other sub-forums, but the answer to that depends on the application.  Typically, 4 sp drive-shafts are a little longer than auto.

[jwc66k]

From my understanding, the 289HP drive shafts are the same for the top loader and C4 in 1966. They are 49 23/32 inches center to center of the U-joint holes. The same replacement item, C5ZZ-4602-E, applies to both 65 and 66, therefore they are all the same.
Jim

[CharlesTurner]

From the Jan '65 single year MPC, drive-shaft lengths:

-260/289 exc K code, w/C4 : 51.00"  (C5ZZ-4602-C)
-260/289 exc K code, w 3/4sp : 50.78"  (C5ZZ-4602-D)
-289 K code (only 4sp) : 49.70"  (C5ZZ-4602-E)

From the Jan '66 single year MPC, drive-shaft lengths:

-289 all w/C4 : 51.06"  (C5ZZ-4602-H)
-289 exc K code, w 3/4sp : 50.78"  (C5ZZ-4602-J)
-289 K code 4sp : 49.70"   (C5ZZ-4602-E)

So, automatics are actually longer.  The length should be measured from the center of the u-joint cup hole on each end.

[jwc66k]

Oh pleeze! The tranmission tail shaft length along with the longer third member makes it impossible to fit a standard 289 (A and C codes) drive shaft in a HP Mustang without a lot of unwanted while driving "grinding" noise no matter what transmission.
Jim

[CharlesTurner]

Oh pleeze! The tranmission tail shaft length along with the longer third member makes it impossible to fit a standard 289 (A and C codes) drive shaft in a HP Mustang without a lot of unwanted while driving "grinding" noise no matter what transmission.
Jim

Since you seem to rely on most of your information from Ford docs, thought you'd appreciate what was published in the single year master parts catalogs... which as you ought to know are generally more accurate in areas than the '75 MPC version.

[jwc66k]

I base my information on Tony Gregory's book on HP Mustangs, 4th ed.
Jim

[CharlesTurner]

I base my information on Tony Gregory's book on HP Mustangs, 4th ed.
Jim

The same book that says ALL K codes are supposed to have the reinforced rear frame rails for the hangers?  Same book that says HEH-T transmissions were phased out in early '65 production?  lol!

[jwc66k]

The same book that says ALL K codes are supposed to have the reinforced rear frame rails for the hangers?  Same book that says HEH-T transmissions were phased out in early '65 production?  lol!

I'll leave corrections to the book up to Tony, but the date used on the HEH-T is the same as in the Ford Car Parts, and the frame rail statement seems to be elusive. Got a page number in the 4ed?
On a similar note: Jeff's pictures (and others') are excellent tools as to "how" something was done, looks or was installed. The "what" however seems to be elusive. A good example is the pictures of the fuel line clips on 69 and 70 Mustangs. We can see "how" and "where" but the "what" is missing. I don't have a 69 or 70 so I use the pictures as info only. To those that are interested in the "what" they seem to be left in the dark in this, and other areas, and I know you, and we all, can do better.
Jim

[CharlesTurner]

p.86

Not knocking the effort that went into compiling the information and most of it is good.  When the 4th edition was being written, it was a prime opportunity to address some of the errors in the book, but unfortunately, it appeared more important to get it published than to get it published right.  The K code forum was thriving at the time too, and there were many knowledgeable folks participating that could have really stepped up the content of the book.  Hopefully there will be another edition with these items corrected.

Oh, and let's face it, the Ford docs aren't always right either.  Or, they're right for one assembly plant during a certain time in production.  Sometimes I feel like Ford couldn't give a crap about all the details we fret over on a daily basis.  Seems like we have to do archaeology work to make up for Ford's bad records retention and quality control systems.

[65fastbk]

so they are size differences between manual and auto k code driveshafts?

[CharlesTurner]

so they are size differences between manual and auto k code driveshafts?

It appears that way looking at the Ford '66 MPC, but I would add an asterisk to it and want to verify the length of some known original shafts.

[jwc66k]

The "old" HiPo forum lost all of it's history in a "server/software" crash so it's a moot point.
Yup, the crush plates did not become into being till late in 64 after the transverse and Arvenode era, and the so called muffler plates were omitted on some GT's and "K" cars. That's documented. The assembly line just forgot. Quality control was not the number one priority in the early Mustang era. It was sell, sell, sell!
Jim

[sgl66]

I have my original Metuchen K 4 spd drive shaft out for a clean up. It measures 50 1/8"

Also found black and blue stripes, similar to pictures I've seen of a few 66 Shelby's and different than colors found on an A code 4 spd built in Metuchen 2 weeks after my car which would make sense comparing the 9" vs. 8"

Will either append a more relevant thread or start a new one with more details and some pictures