Topic: 1967 C4 dip stick tube finish(es)

[jwc66k]

A few things to add to round this discussion out:
1. The service part number is C6OZ-7A020-A (to help with future search hits). 

Slightly off topic, but thank you for including a service part number. Many posters seem to have a fear of using a part's identification number.
Jim

[67gta289]

Yes it is interesting that the MPC would call out "Nickel plate". Are you implying that it should be Nickel plated based on what the MPC has printed or just commenting that it was interesting because that doesn't seem to be the case?

No implication or agenda.  It is uncommon for a plating type of finish to be called out in the MPC, and I found it ironic that it happens to be on the piece that I'm asking about.  I agree that it does not seem to be the case - at least for assembly line parts.  Perhaps the service part received a different treatment to keep it looking new since it might be on the shelf for a while?

Wonder if they (Ford) was referring to the lower section of the dipstick since it often looks very silver as if it were bright zinc or something similar. In some cases it appears to be smoother finish than zinc when I've viewed these sections

But the use of the term "cap" to me would mean the upper part, like a cap on a head.  It is confusing.

Slightly off topic, but thank you for including a service part number. Many posters seem to have a fear of using a part's identification number.
Jim

SOP for me, as you know.

[67gta289]

Ok here are the results after a Rust911 soak. 

There appears to be the remains of a (now) gray color plating on the "cap" portion only.  It might look a bit like corrosion, so I scraped a small area clean, and there is no corrosion underneath.

[J_Speegle]

Ok here are the results after a Rust911 soak. 

There appears to be the remains of a (now) gray color plating on the "cap" portion only.  It might look a bit like corrosion, so I scraped a small area clean, and there is no corrosion underneath.

Sure doesn't look like nickel but does look like a coating/plating of some other type. Thanks for taking the time and sharing

Looks like some of the areas in some of the examples I posted on page 1 of this discussion


I held back from posting the examples below since we all realize that service replacements can have different finishes and look (as well as the whole picture/monitor things) but here are three examples. The upper left is a blue and white early label NOS/service example from likely 65-67 and the other three are later service parts from the late 80's or much later.  To me it appears that a phosphate or similar treatment would likely reproduce a similar look depending on the lighting. In some it appears zinc phosphate while in other pictures magnesium phosphate would be a better choice

[jwc66k]

One "quirk" that seems to have been overlooked is that many service parts have a different finish than what was initially installed on the assembly line. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it must be considered.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

One "quirk" that seems to have been overlooked is that many service parts have a different finish than what was initially installed on the assembly line. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it must be considered.
Jim

Think that is what I wrote in my reply #18

Of course when the car were being made a portion of the parts were directed to the service line to supply the dealerships and their needs at the same time the cars were being built. The reason the upper right example was interesting and a nice IMHO find to include in the picture set since it was likely one of those types of parts

Maybe we need, for entertainment and discussion another thread that just provides how far off of the original design some service replacements were from the original design. I've got a drivers side thermactor tube from a FE that was made out of a dozen or so individual sections all soldered together. What a odd looking assembly that is . Well back to the dip stick discussion