Topic: REPRODUCTION WIRING HARNESSES

[196667Bob]

Recently, a Post that started in regard to 1967 Alternators evolved into the wiring harnesses for same. This was appropriate for me as I was restoring my ’67 Convertible and needed to replace my original Alternator harness which was hard, brittle and the rubber boots were cracked. In looking at three of my “go to” suppliers (CJ,MU and NPD), I found none that looked like my original. I started looking for NOS and found one, which I ordered. When it arrived, it looked just like what the suppliers were offering; a big rubber yoke and incorrect colored wires for ’67. While the NOS one was in a package clearly marked “C7ZZ-“, the harness had a wire tag marked “C8ZZ-“. So Ford’s service parts , like the suppliers', would work for both 1967 and 1968’s, but not correct for my ’67. Thinking that this may because mine is an early (January 1967) car, possibly it was different, I took the opportunity of posting a picture of my harness and posing that question. While I expected more replies, the ones that I did get noted that it was correct for all ‘67’s, early or late, with no Plant differences noted. I ended up having one made, exactly like my original.

Next came the Engine Gauge Feed harness. Again, mine was brittle. I looked once again at my three “go to” suppliers, and initially couldn’t find it. Finally, after looking at the different years and options (67,68; 289, 390; with and without tach; etc.), I finally found it. One listed it for 289 with tach (mine is without tach). It has the red 3 prong connector at one end, and the push on connector for the water temperature sending unit and woven covered black wire with female spade connector for the button top oil pressure sending unit on the other end. It was there, but not listed for my application.

Then, the latest; the Primary Distributor to Coil wire – simple, right ? Not. Once again, all three suppliers show this as having a ring connector for the coil, which means you have to use a nut. However, mine, as well as the 1967 Electrical Assembly Manual and Mannel’s book show this as having the 90 degree push on connector. Again, I looked for NOS. I found both parts listed as correct (C1VF-12216-A and C2OZ-12216-A), and both had the same ring connector on the end as the Repros. I guess that this is another that I’ll have to have made.

My point is this; after three times in a row running into the “incorrect” parts, it appears that what is being reproduced (at least for many of them) are “Service Parts” as opposed to Factory, or Assembly line parts. While the “Service Parts” will function correctly (in most cases), as those of us restoring these vehicles, is that what we want ?  Shouldn’t the suppliers be advised of this by someone with a little clout” as opposed to a “Joe Blow” individual whom they may think is just complaining to complain ?  To borrow a phrase from Jeff, isn’t “anything worth doing, worth doing concours” ?

OK, I’ve had my “sound off” time, now it’s your turn.

Bob

[J_Speegle]

Many of us have experienced the same frustration with reproduction parts.  After you understand how the reproduction parts business got started and that they felt that the best practice was (at the time) to copy NOS parts you see how much of this turned out this way. Since few realize the differences and simply rely the idea that the supplier knows more than them or at least trusts that they have done the research the reproducers lack the need or motivation to redo or correct the current supply in many examples.

Recall well asking a we'll known maker of reproduction decals why he made a decal that was never produced for an application. His response was that he made them because people bought them. Of course a discussion about the fact that people bought them because he made them available and listed them in his catalog

But bottom line - we feel your pain. Good think is that your dealing with it now not on show day. We get really agree owners on the show field when you inform them that the "concours" reproduction part on their car isn't correct



 

..........My point is this; after three times in a row running into the “incorrect” parts, it appears that what is being reproduced (at least for many of them) are “Service Parts” as opposed to Factory, or Assembly line parts. ..................

[WT8095]

Bob, one way to help combat the problem is to document your experience here. Your description is a great start, but photos would make it even better. Photos of incorrect parts would be best labeled directly within the image, to prevent them from being mistaken for correct when the photos find their way around the net.

Parts suppliers may not make the effort to research their parts the way they should, but hopefully buyers will. Posts from this forum routinely show up in Google searches, so your information may help others avoid running into the same problem.

[Bob Gaines]

Recently, a Post that started in regard to 1967 Alternators evolved into the wiring harnesses for same. This was appropriate for me as I was restoring my ’67 Convertible and needed to replace my original Alternator harness which was hard, brittle and the rubber boots were cracked. In looking at three of my “go to” suppliers (CJ,MU and NPD), I found none that looked like my original. I started looking for NOS and found one, which I ordered. When it arrived, it looked just like what the suppliers were offering; a big rubber yoke and incorrect colored wires for ’67. While the NOS one was in a package clearly marked “C7ZZ-“, the harness had a wire tag marked “C8ZZ-“. So Ford’s service parts , like the suppliers', would work for both 1967 and 1968’s, but not correct for my ’67. Thinking that this may because mine is an early (January 1967) car, possibly it was different, I took the opportunity of posting a picture of my harness and posing that question. While I expected more replies, the ones that I did get noted that it was correct for all ‘67’s, early or late, with no Plant differences noted. I ended up having one made, exactly like my original.

Next came the Engine Gauge Feed harness. Again, mine was brittle. I looked once again at my three “go to” suppliers, and initially couldn’t find it. Finally, after looking at the different years and options (67,68; 289, 390; with and without tach; etc.), I finally found it. One listed it for 289 with tach (mine is without tach). It has the red 3 prong connector at one end, and the push on connector for the water temperature sending unit and woven covered black wire with female spade connector for the button top oil pressure sending unit on the other end. It was there, but not listed for my application.

Then, the latest; the Primary Distributor to Coil wire – simple, right ? Not. Once again, all three suppliers show this as having a ring connector for the coil, which means you have to use a nut. However, mine, as well as the 1967 Electrical Assembly Manual and Mannel’s book show this as having the 90 degree push on connector. Again, I looked for NOS. I found both parts listed as correct (C1VF-12216-A and C2OZ-12216-A), and both had the same ring connector on the end as the Repros. I guess that this is another that I’ll have to have made.

My point is this; after three times in a row running into the “incorrect” parts, it appears that what is being reproduced (at least for many of them) are “Service Parts” as opposed to Factory, or Assembly line parts. While the “Service Parts” will function correctly (in most cases), as those of us restoring these vehicles, is that what we want ?  Shouldn’t the suppliers be advised of this by someone with a little clout” as opposed to a “Joe Blow” individual whom they may think is just complaining to complain ?  To borrow a phrase from Jeff, isn’t “anything worth doing, worth doing concours” ?

OK, I’ve had my “sound off” time, now it’s your turn.

Bob

FYI the 67 duel point distributors (289/427) used the ring connector .

[196667Bob]

Bob :I didn't realize that. However, that being the case, shouldn't the suppliers then note something like "Correct for 289 and 427's with dual point distributors. Will work for other applications with the addition of a nut for the coil" ? This is kind of one of my points.

[Bob Gaines]

Bob :I didn't realize that. However, that being the case, shouldn't the suppliers then note something like "Correct for 289 and 427's with dual point distributors. Will work for other applications with the addition of a nut for the coil" ? This is kind of one of my points.

Shoulda ,woulda ,coulda . .

[preaction]

Bob, is your 67 a 390 ?

[196667Bob]

Nope; C code 289.