Topic: upper control arm details

[67gta289]

Picked up some very nice upper control arms from an unknown VIN.  Supposedly a 68 California car, but you know how that can go.  Before taking them apart, I figured I would share pictures showing good details.  I've never seen green paint on the spring coil.  Will add more pictures as they get cleaned up, if there is anything of value to add.

[J_Speegle]

Have seen a few (very few) front spring saddles marked on 68 cars.

Thanks for sharing

[CharlesTurner]

Looks like a 65-66 UCA??

[67gta289]

Charles, I did not include a big picture shot, but these match every 67-68 that I have and have had.  I'm not familiar with differences to 65-66 for the upper.

[Bob Gaines]

Charles, I did not include a big picture shot, but these match every 67-68 that I have and have had.  I'm not familiar with differences to 65-66 for the upper.

From the details on the boot and spring perch nuts I would guess 65/66 too.

[67gta289]

OK will look at 65-66 arms and do a comparison.  Thanks.

[gtamustang]

All 67-69 UCA ball joint boots have the C7OA- part number. The C4OA-boot that you have in the picture is not the same size as the C7OA- boot. Like Charles stated, I think you have a set of 65-66 UCAs. 

Regards,
Pete Morgan

[67gta289]

Someone gave me a set of UCA's which could be 65-66 type.  At least I now have something to compare to.  Please take a look at the pictures, with dimensions.  The original post UCA's are sized identically to my original 67 UCA's which is why I think they are from a 67-68.

[Anghelrestorations]

Im not sure if I understand the last posting, but the control arms of the early cars (65-66) will physically be smaller than the later 67-69 style.  Both have 4 rivets to hold the ball joint in place and may look similiar, but the size is very different especially easy to see where the control arm shaft is. 

[67gta289]

Marcus,

There were questions about the validity of the assumption that the original pictures were from the 67-69 type.  The focus was on the C4 dust boot and the spring saddle nut/bolt combo.  The inference was that the control arms were earlier 65-66 type.

The last post was a picture of what I think is a smaller 65-66 type, and confirming that the original pictures were 67-69, at least in overall control arm physical dimensions.  If that can be confirmed by someone, we are back to the question - how did these clean 67-69 type control arms end up with riveted ball joints with C4 boots, and 65-66 style spring saddle mounting hardware.

Does this make sense?

[CharlesTurner]

You're correct that the 65-66 and 67-8 arms are dimensionally different.  Maybe the arms you have with C4 boots and early perch bolts/nuts are some very early '67 control arms?  Could have been a run over of parts possibly. 

[67gta289]

Charles, that was what I was thinking.  Unfortunately these were procured in a parts stash, so I don't know the VIN or even the assembly plant.  But we can be on the lookout for more in the future.

Also in reference to a spring perch topic that is also going on, the spring perches here did not have any FoMoCo stamp, in line with Marcus' stated observations on 65-66 perches.

[Anghelrestorations]

Ok, got it.  I will take some measurements and look at what I have here tomorrow and confirm with your pictures. 

[67gtasanjose]

You're correct that the 65-66 and 67-8 arms are dimensionally different.  Maybe the arms you have with C4 boots and early perch bolts/nuts are some very early '67 control arms?  Could have been a run over of parts possibly. 

To supplement the suggestion these could be a run over of parts utilized in the sub-assembly, has anyone considered "Falcon" or "Fairlane" when looking at these "unkown" control arms?

Falcon's for example, were 66-70 on interchange and a 66 Falcon (or Fairlane) arm would fit a 67-68 Mustang. Interchange books show that they would actually be a bolt-in fitment. (Interchange is VERY broad on these upper control arms throughout much of the Ford carlines for many-many yearsJ  I'm just trying to help ID these for the O.P. The point being that a 66 Falco/Fairlane could have the earlier Mustang ball joint boot and hardware, likely a later Falcon version (as well as the 3-rivet upper ball joint design) would have updated engineering numbers matching the C7 boots usually found on a 67-up Mustang upper ball joint.

signed,
Retired Junkyard Dog

[Anghelrestorations]

Measurements are correct on the control arm shafts - there is a 1 inch difference between the early and later Mustang upper control arms here.  Its hard to say what happened with these upper control arms.  In general what we expect is to see these upper arms with a difference style spring perch and C7 boots.  Would have been interesting to see the car they came on.