Topic: AC drain line

[67gta289]

Murf pointed out the screw hole, I have included that as a close up and identified in the picture below.

By the way, the pictures of the holes are from 7T01C144xxx.

The picture of the hose was from 7F01C129xxx.  Sorry for any confusion.

[67gtasanjose]

on 11/2/66 there was no tiny hole on my car. I won't speak about other cars as it seems my car is by itself on many things, that or somebody came by one weekend and changed out my floor pan and I didn't catch them.
My door hinges are different than others except for at least one more pair I have from 12/13/66 car...these are a couple of the oddities I have found on mine.

[ruppstang]

Sorry about my crappy attempt humor. After rereading this comment and after seeing I left an important word out of the sentence, I see I caused two problems.

The larger of the problems would be causing any anger. I wasn't trying to discredit anyone. I am sorry Marty. I respect your knowledge and your help.

The second problem is the "missing" word from my intended comment, maybe that helps explain my crappy attempt at humor some.

Putting it in context, it was intended to read:  "... just as this (quite probable) wrong hose got the condensation water out"

Other than trying to make light of things, I am still learning about some inconsistencies on the assemblyline and trying to point out, where I see them, inconsistencies of the things I have found on my car as compared to what is discussed here on this forum.

I will more likely now just read items of interest and keep my "inconsistencies" to myself. I cannot document that I bought the car brand new, so therefore anything that doesn't match up to discussions in this forum might be incorrect, even if I know for fact the truth.

Since I have installed a few factory options, I know by definition, that my car will not ever be fully Concours. I get that. My intended MCA class, should I enter it in any MCA shows, would require me to claim as Modified. My goal as Modified would allow anything I wish changed. My wishes have and always will be that the car looks like it was made exactly the way it is and that everything is (undocumented) completely stock from the factory. Saying that, isn't any attempt to change anything "gospel" about SJ 67 Mustangs, I am simply trying to be as thorough as I can within my budget to accomplish my goals.

67gtasanjose checking OUT. 



First thank you for the apology. Some of the most respected Mustang enthusiasts hang out on this site. I am grateful to be able to learn from them. Most if not all of us have made a mistake or misspoke at one time or another. We keep each other in check.  Since you are the third owner of your car we must be a bit skeptical of the inconsistencies that you offer. A better way you may to ask has anyone seen this? We all know there were many inconsistencies in the production of these cars. The thing that is tough to nail down is, was this a one time mistake or a change in production. Jeff has worked years to document changes at the San Jose plant and has thousands of photos and interviews.
 When I first became a certified MCA judge I thought I really had it all figured out but as time passed I discovered the more I learned the more there was to learn. I know you are excited about your car and we want to help you with it, just take it down a notch.
If you ever show in the MCA you may want to look at the Occasionally Driven class. You would get killed in Modified as you would not have enough modifications.

As far as this drain hose clamp the very early 67s may not have had the clamp. Then it was discovered that if bumped the hose could come out of the floor  so they added the clamp and screw.  I need to check the assembly manual to see if it is shown there. That may answer the early car question.  I suspect that the hose may have come with the clamp assembled so all the worker had to do is add the screw. It is possible if a worker got a hose with no clamp he would have just let it go. If we can find a early car that has no clamp or screw it would be great to see if there is a grove in the rubber for the clamp or not.
I guess that is enough for now.
Marty

 

[67gtasanjose]

  Then it was discovered that if bumped the hose could come out of the floor  so they added the clamp and screw. 
Marty

This might explain how the ONLY thing rusty at all on any of my floorboards is the inside of the passengers side, pretty much everywhere below this hole. Recommendations for "best repair technique" will be brought up after removing the rust to see how bad it really is. (at a glance, only a small slit is rusted through, about the size of the tip of a butter knife)

Once the surface rust is gone, I'll start that thread or look for ideas in other ones. If anyone could steer me towards such a thread, that would help. The bottom side of the floorpan still looks really well, so I am hoping the rust isn't too deep everywhere.

A side note: I believe I am more likely the 2nd owner.(not 3rd, though I have no previous owner records & haven't been able to find any) I  bought it in early 1978 and at that time I am sure it was completely unmolested anywhere I looked. (and I looked everywhere)  I wasn't a rookie working on Mustangs at the time and could easily spot cars that had been tampered. This aspect was the sole reason I chose to keep this car as a life-project, that is, since the paint, interior, engine, transmission, suspension, & all were completely original at that time. I say this only for clarity over any of the things I discover.

Richard

[67gta289]

Dredging this one back up.  Picked this up at the Columbus swap this weekend.  Kind of confirms the corrugated hose style.

What is interesting is that the embossed part number is C7ZA-19728-C.  I can't find that number in the 67 MPC.  Instead I come up with 19858.  Refer to the attached pics.

[ruppstang]

Nice find John that metal clamp ring is often rusted badly and it is tough to cut a new one.