Topic: 67 289 POWER STEERING HOSES & PARTS I.D.

[67gtasanjose]

That repop would not do it for me.
Marty

It closer resembles the original style as much as the NOS did...the NOS was not exactly the same either, only it was with a Ford label on it.

Curiousity asks why it "would not do it for" you Marty. It would be nice seeing all three hoses (original, NOS & repop) in the same picture, alongside each other but what characteristics set off a "red flag" Marty?

[ruppstang]

The first bend out of the pump is not sharp enough to fit in to the indexing bracket, the center hose crimp is not flaired enough to keep the hoses anchored in the rubber retainer and the finish on the lower hose protector is incorrect. I would deduct for this hose. It is too bad Blue dot does not make these as they do a great job. I really do not understand why they do not because there are probably more of these pressure hoses used than any other model.
Marty

[67gtasanjose]

The first bend out of the pump is not sharp enough to fit in to the indexing bracket, the center hose crimp is not flaired enough to keep the hoses anchored in the rubber retainer and the finish on the lower hose protector is incorrect. I would deduct for this hose. It is too bad Blue dot does not make these as they do a great job. I really do not understand why they do not because there are probably more of these pressure hoses used than any other model.
Marty

OK, thank you Marty for explaining the reasoning but since this is the best reproduction I have found (at this time) and NOS usually is not just available anywhere/everywhere, I wonder then why a deduction would be in order? I ask this since I will be going as occasional driven and as previously mentioned not wise to use an original hose over. What other options are available. I imagine I could wait out the next NOS one and put something like a $7K bid on it but seriously, why a deduction?

[ruppstang]

Sorry on this forum I default to Concours thinking only. If you are in occasionally driven there would be no deduction because it is based only on cleanliness, workmanship and condition. Authenticity is only considered in the Tbred, Unrestored and Concours classed in the MCA.
In Concours judging you must deduct regardless if it is available or not because you must give credit to the owner's car that has that correct part.
Hope this helps.
Marty   

[carlite65]

'In Concours judging you must deduct regardless if it is available or not because you must give credit to the owner's car that has that correct part.'

wish that were actually the case. after this years rules meeting it does not seem to apply to all parts.

[67gtasanjose]

Sorry on this forum I default to Concours thinking only. If you are in occasionally driven there would be no deduction because it is based only on cleanliness, workmanship and condition. Authenticity is only considered in the Tbred, Unrestored and Concours classed in the MCA.
In Concours judging you must deduct regardless if it is available or not because you must give credit to the owner's car that has that correct part.
Hope this helps.
Marty   

Yeah, I guess I already knew that about "Concours Judging" and probably could have worded my questioning a bit better, along the "Driven Class" since that is MY goal.  By default, without mentioning a JUDGED class, Marty's initial answer would be correct to assume going along the Concours direction. Thanks again Marty

[J_Speegle]

Agree with Marty - the default here should be 100% concours. We present the information as to what it was original and leave it to the reader to decode that info to their level of application. Too hard IMHO for use to adjust to each and every members individual level of commitment.

Believe this provides a better service to all the members and reduces confusion to current and future members who read what is written

wish that were actually the case. after this years rules meeting it does not seem to apply to all parts.

Agreed that its not always consistent but we have come along way and there can be improvement if individuals will speak up and remind others.  Every year we have some judges that wish to pull that group backwards to the "good enough"  and "lets make them all happy"  standards of old. It's much easier to accept this since there is less whining (from owners) and complaining to board members as well as officials.

Without the consent pressure for these positive changes, new, better reproductions will not be produced and the standard will become more like public education and trophies will be considered participation awards - as they have been in the past at times. IMHO  - sorry  now back to the core of the thread

[67gtasanjose]

The first bend out of the pump is not sharp enough to fit in to the indexing bracket, the center hose crimp is not flaired enough to keep the hoses anchored in the rubber retainer and the finish on the lower hose protector is incorrect. I would deduct for this hose. It is too bad Blue dot does not make these as they do a great job. I really do not understand why they do not because there are probably more of these pressure hoses used than any other model.
Marty

I went ahead and bought a pair of "Concours" Pressure & Return hoses from NPD and did a side-by-side comparison to the OE assembly line hoses.

Addressing Marty's notes of incorrectness ON THE PRESSURE HOSE first because we are attempting to keep discussion towards "Concours" and these NPD hoses are sold as being "Concours".

1.) The first bend is the same angle as the OE hose. I believe in the picture, the fitting is wobbled sideways some and looks decieving. (IMHO="pass")

2.) The crimp IS NOT flaired as much, TRUE. I did a test fit using the new hose in the original (used) rubber grommet. It feels very tight. When I install it into the other opening of the grommet (wher the return hose had gone through) it will not even close around the hose. Translation~ If I use a new grommet or if I reverse the rubber grommet, the hose would be squeezed into the rubber and ought to stay secured just fine, even without the flair. Concours correct? NO, not concours correct. Close? IMHO, Close enough till another builder can duplicate a better Assembly Line likeness.

3.) Finish on the lower hose protector is a gold coloring of plating, also, the tubing color and fitting color are gold. (dichromate?)  I thought pressure hose tubing & fittings were more silver in color. I'm not sure it does it well on this note, but others might help explain "correctness" on this better than I can.
 
4.) Other notes: The rubber slide-over hose protector is not the sponge-rubber variety like the original is. It is a 3/4" pressure-rated hose used like a sleeve. Hoses have gold lettering in the rubber, original hose lettering was in white.

5.) Matching bends in tubing, overall length as well as the rotation, THIS PRESSURE HOSE WILL FIT VERY WELL AND WILL LOOK VERY RESPECTABLE TO THE ERA OF THE 67 Model YEAR. No, I feel it is NOT fully concours correct but a very close match that only MCA's finest 67-8 judges would spot as incorrect, possibly even a mile away

now for the RETURN HOSE:

Well, I might be sending that one back. EPIC FAIL in fitment, that is in matching of the bends and the hose crimping looks so bogus, I doubt it could be considered Concours at ANY level...Functional...Possibly. Better than others? Probably. IMHO,n I would more than likely have the old one re-hosed before using this knock-off.

Richard

[67gtasanjose]

a few NEW QUESTONS.

Same 67 Mustang, 289.

I am rebuilding the POWER STEERING CONTROL VALVE.

1.) What is the correct color of finish on the metal cover over the ball/socket boot, where the pitman arm shaft attaches. I have a bare steel one a zink one and I've seen what might be a dichromate (yellow) finish on a NOS item before. I also have an aftermarket one that is yellow/gold.

2.) What finish should the screws that hold the metal cover together be?

3.) What finish on the end cap screws?

4.) What finish on the main cast iron body of the control valve.

5.) What finish on the clamp (also bolt & nut) that secures the valve to the drag link

6.) What finish on the flat plate between the end cap and main body be?

7.) Grease Fitting or Plug? (on the bottom) What is the finish and which should it be, grease fitting or plug?

8.) Did I miss anything else?

[J_Speegle]

I'll take the easy ones (I think) to start

3.) What finish on the end cap screws?

I've always darkened them

4.) What finish on the main cast iron body of the control valve.

Bare cast iron

5.) What finish on the clamp (also bolt & nut) that secures the valve to the drag link

Bare steel - normally I gun blue then work it back to a medium finish

6.) What finish on the flat plate between the end cap and main body be?

Bare steel - Normally just clean it - if rusty then wire brush, gun blue with steel wool application and work it to a bright finish

7.) Grease Fitting or Plug? (on the bottom) What is the finish and which should it be, grease fitting or plug?

Plug

Don't forget the worm hose clamp at the base and around the hardlines

[67gtasanjose]

Don't forget the worm hose clamp at the base and around the hardlines

Thanks for the answers on the finishes...I have a good start with those.

As far as the worm clamp goes, I think Bob G. mentioned the "pinch style" (pictured earlier in the thread) was correct for my time period. Are there different schools of thought on this clamp? Running changes, plant location etc.?

All parts I am rebuilding were originally removed from a later production '67 (Late March or early April '67) and other parts from the same car I ended up with lead me to believe it was a San Jose build but no definite confirmation on anything except the ram cylinder for dates. ALL of it, even the hoses and clamps looked unmolested over the years so probably never tampered with. I'll go with whatever the popular consensus is about the worm clamp.
Finding pictures of these details (considering the production differences) are tough since so many items got replaced over the years.

[J_Speegle]

As far as the worm clamp goes, I think Bob G. mentioned the "pinch style" (pictured earlier in the thread) was correct for my time period. Are there different schools of thought on this clamp? Running changes, plant location etc.?

Forget it - just details blurring across years again 

Finding pictures of these details (considering the production differences) are tough since so many items got replaced over the years.

Yes especially the short hoses. Then its kind of boring - so hard to force yourself every time to take another picture of what ever detail it is after tones of other ones.

Have discovered - you can rarely predict what someone here on this site will ask for help with

[67gtasanjose]

UPDATE: Just home from Columbus Oh. swap meet I came away a NOS Pressure and a NOS Return Hose.
Price was fair too, both pressure and return hoses cost only about $10 more than the previously mentioned ebay sale that I did not end up with (when shipping is figured into the equation). Add in a few other items needed I found and I can say it was a good trip to the 'ole swap meet!

PS: Anybody need a couple NPD reproduction CONCOURS hoses? Buy the pressure hose at cost and I'll throw in the return hose no extra, just pick up shipping.

[Bob Gaines]

UPDATE: Just home from Columbus Oh. swap meet I came away a NOS Pressure and a NOS Return Hose.
Price was fair too, both pressure and return hoses cost only about $10 more than the previously mentioned ebay sale that I did not end up with (when shipping is figured into the equation). Add in a few other items needed I found and I can say it was a good trip to the 'ole swap meet!

PS: Anybody need a couple NPD reproduction CONCOURS hoses? Buy the pressure hose at cost and I'll throw in the return hose no extra, just pick up shipping.

Some service hoses have later evolved incorrect double crimped ends compared to the correct assemblyline single crimped hose ends. hopefully you got the single crimped ends . I thought I would mention it before you get rid of the more correct looking blue dot repros (compared to double crimped)  .

[67gtasanjose]

Some service hoses have later evolved incorrect double crimped ends compared to the correct assemblyline single crimped hose ends. hopefully you got the single crimped ends . I thought I would mention it before you get rid of the more correct looking blue dot repros (compared to double crimped)  .

Bob, your statement here seems to add confusion a little, mostly when I go back and look at the "original hoses" in the first set of images I posted when I began this thread. I'll look again at the "original" set of hoses I have, i know the "shortie" hoses were "single crimped",  but I'm not sure the other locations of the pressure and return hoses were all single crimped.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Blue Dot does NOT duplicate the small block hoses at this time. Now BIG block cars, that is another story. I called Blue Dot only a few months ago to double check. It would seem the closest "concours correct" replacement hose (for the majority of "judged" classes) at this time is any Ford Service replacement hose. (for applications like mine, early '67 small blocks with the 1/4" control valve end fitting and I believe this is also true of the later 5/16" control valve end hoses)

What I feel might help to see the differences in the pressure and return hoses is to upload some pictures of the 3 versions I now have. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I'll try and do that later this evening, if time allows.