Topic: Front Spring Saddles - Original? Rebuilding? & Related

[67gtasanjose]

That is the same style used in 65/66 also . This was a early late transition . The later 67 was crimped and had course thread. That style continued through 69 (where I lost track).  The vast majority of the early style I have come across did not have the tack welds holding the bushing in place as seen in your picture.

Have also seen/experienced where the alignment shops tack welded the inserts after replacing them so that adds another twist/possibility when inspecting these items

I would side with the "vast majority" line of thinking but I wouldn't rule out any notion that the original provider, "MS"in this situation, didn't do the spot welding of these before sending them to the San Jose plant (in this time period, late October, '66) The example I am working on was as much "un-touched" when purchased at about 10-years old as I have ever seen. Obviously, that puts 10 years into the equation and anything is possible but I kinda doubt these would have been replaced during that period...evidence suggests this, such as nothing else in the front steering or suspension was replaced before I bought the car (such as lower arm inner bushings, strut rod bushings, idler arm, tie rods etc., these were ALL original when purchased and soon thereafter replaced)...but NOT these spring saddle bushings. These remained un-touched till I replaced only one side in '97 (had that arm out for a shock tower crack). Even the side I already replaced the perch bushing on, has evidence of the weld being there in the same spots as the un-touched one shown earlier in this thread. Obviously, memory can error and I have even proved my memory hasn't been 100% so we'll leave that in the equation too  Just my experience as I know it as on this date in time.

[Bob Gaines]

I would side with the "vast majority" line of thinking but I wouldn't rule out any notion that the original provider, "MS"in this situation, didn't do the spot welding of these before sending them to the San Jose plant (in this time period, late October, '66) The example I am working on was as much "un-touched" when purchased at about 10-years old as I have ever seen. Obviously, that puts 10 years into the equation and anything is possible but I kinda doubt these would have been replaced during that period...evidence suggests this, such as nothing else in the front steering or suspension was replaced before I bought the car (such as lower arm inner bushings, strut rod bushings, idler arm, tie rods etc., these were ALL original when purchased and soon thereafter replaced)...but NOT these spring saddle bushings. These remained un-touched till I replaced only one side in '97 (had that arm out for a shock tower crack). Even the side I already replaced the perch bushing on, has evidence of the weld being there in the same spots as the un-touched one shown earlier in this thread. Obviously, memory can error and I have even proved my memory hasn't been 100% so we'll leave that in the equation too  Just my experience as I know it as on this date in time.

you may be on to something . I pulled two choice MS marked spring perches and both had the the tack weld. They don't appear to ever been rebuilt or needing rebuilt from their condition of metal etc. Of course they could have but i don't think so.  I also have a NOS aprox 50 Year old (from style of paper sticker tag) MS spring perch that does not have a tack weld.

[67gtasanjose]

you may be on to something . I pulled two choice MS marked spring perches and both had the the tack weld. They don't appear to ever been rebuilt or needing rebuilt from their condition of metal etc. Of course they could have but i don't think so.  I also have a NOS aprox 50 Year old (from style of paper sticker tag) MS spring perch that does not have a tack weld.

Knowing the one spring perch (saddle) of my example wasn't ever restored till earlier this week and now re-doing the other bushing I replaced 20 years ago, (seeing evidence of the spot weld snapped off in the metal), I feel safe to say there should be many more MS coil spring perches or spring saddles out there with the tack welds or signs of having been tack welded prior to bushing replacement. Sure, this tack welding procedure could have been a select time frame only, but I feel confident it was done to original examples built in the same time period of my example (11/2/66).

FWIW, since the reproduction replacement bushings I have been able to locate ARE NOT the same as the original bushings, I'll not be tack welding them again. . My example will not ever be in any Thoroughbred Class and since the detail is obviously not well known or understood at this time, it makes little sense. Besides that, rubber sleeves welded into any suspension part is simply not a wise choice in my opinion...unless the bore is loose and no other replacement arm (or perch) is available, then...and only then, perhaps welding them in is an option.

Now if I wanted a "truly restored" pair of "MS spring saddles (perches) for my build date, a pair of "MS" saddles with the straight-tube bushings tack welded in, would be in my opinion 100% correct. By straight-tube bushings, I mean like what I pictured earlier ((and now again below) in this thread, ones without the "stop flange" on the one end, as it appears all replacements I have located to date have on them. (I have found NO replacement bushing shafts that are same or similar to what I found as original)

[Bob Gaines]

Knowing the one spring perch (saddle) of my example wasn't ever restored till earlier this week and now re-doing the other bushing I replaced 20 years ago, (seeing evidence of the spot weld snapped off in the metal), I feel safe to say there should be many more MS coil spring perches or spring saddles out there with the tack welds or signs of having been tack welded prior to bushing replacement. Sure, this tack welding procedure could have been a select time frame only, but I feel confident it was done to original examples built in the same time period of my example (11/2/66).

FWIW, since the reproduction replacement bushings I have been able to locate ARE NOT the same as the original bushings, I'll not be tack welding them again. . My example will not ever be in any Thoroughbred Class and since the detail is obviously not well known or understood at this time, it makes little sense. Besides that, rubber sleeves welded into any suspension part is simply not a wise choice in my opinion...unless the bore is loose and no other replacement arm (or perch) is available, then...and only then, perhaps welding them in is an option.

Now if I wanted a "truly restored" pair of "MS spring saddles (perches) for my build date, a pair of "MS" saddles with the straight-tube bushings tack welded in, would be in my opinion 100% correct. By straight-tube bushings, I mean like what I pictured earlier ((and now again below) in this thread, ones without the "stop flange" on the one end, as it appears all replacements I have located to date have on them. (I have found NO replacement bushing shafts that are same or similar to what I found as original)

The steel tube of the rubber bushing is not designed to move in any way. The rubber bushing is designed to cause the perch to snap back when twisted so I am unclear why you  would be concerned about rubber sleeve welded in . The tack welds were just extra precaution IMO that the pressed in sleeve would not move. The interference fit of the pressed in sleeve is proven enough for all others without the tack weld so that is why it was probably discontinued IMO.

[67gtasanjose]

The steel tube of the rubber bushing is not designed to move in any way. The rubber bushing is designed to cause the perch to snap back when twisted so I am unclear why you  would be concerned about rubber sleeve welded in . The tack welds were just extra precaution IMO that the pressed in sleeve would not move. The interference fit of the pressed in sleeve is proven enough for all others without the tack weld so that is why it was probably discontinued IMO.

Enough heat could burn the rubber a bit, perhaps beginning the imminent breakdown of the bond between the steel and rubber (of a driven car). As mentioned, if I were "restoring" a car found to be this way, wanting 100% of original details proven or known of a particular example, I wouldn't hesitate in putting the weld back. For my purposes in the example I am working on, this detail isn't significant enough to justify the tack weld. (as you said, I already figured the pressed fit would suffice )

Essentially, my intentions of restoration will be accomplished to an extent far exceeding the value of my particular car's re-sale value. A "Labor of Love" of sorts If I do minimal damage to such items as I possibly can, perhaps a future restorer (long after I am dead and gone) of another worthy candidate (such as a real Shelby) in such a future date, will appreciate such details as NOT welding this item



 

[Bossbill]

I'd like to rebuild my original perches but can't find a new cross shaft/insulator.

Are these cross shafts/insulators (alone, not the whole perch) available in either NOS or a very good reproduction?

[OldGuy]

I'd like to rebuild my original perches but can't find a new cross shaft/insulator.

Are these cross shafts/insulators (alone, not the whole perch) available in either NOS or a very good reproduction?

I recently went through the exercise of rebuilding a set of spring saddles. I searched for replacement (reproduction) cross shaft/insulator assemblies and was only able to find two sources for these parts that resembled the original units (at least in the pictures on their respective web pages). I purchased a set from one vendor and, upon inspection, quickly ruled out these units. They didn't resemble the pictured units or for that matter the originals. They had smaller shafts, were plated, and the tapered outer sleeve did not match the dimensions of the originals. In fact, they differed (dimensionally) from each other. The vendor pleaded ignorance about the above issues and could only replace the purchased units with more of the same.

Same story for vendor number 2. The only ones that made out on these two purchases was UPS for round trip shipments.

I finally purchased polyurethane bushings which could be used with the original pressed-in tapered sleeve and the cross shafts. I modified the bushings so that they looked like the originals and added a hidden retention clip on the shafts. Cosmetically, they are right on. Functionally, they do not have the "spring back" feature of the original rubber bushings. To date, they have not been road tested.

My recommendation would be to save your time/money by not buying reproduction assemblies from the traditional Mustang supply vendors. They're JUNK!
Buy only NOS Ford units-if you can find them.

I hope this helps.

Frank

   

[carlite65]

if you drive much you may come to regret those poly bushings. expect a harsher ride.

[ruppstang]

I have a pair of NOS perches but they are different than assembly line ones. They possibly could be used for the original style bushings.

[67gta289]

I just noticed that the Jan 67 MPC lists two different versions of the bushings;

C4DZ-5A305-A - Mustang 6 cyl and 289
C7OZ-5A305-A - Mustang 390 (plus all Falcon/Fairlane models)

Marty - perhaps this is behind your statement about your NOS part being different than factory - you might be looking comparing a used factory part for one and an NOS for the other.  But it would be more likely that as suppliers and tooling changed over the years, the appearance changed slightly.

However, this piqued my interest so down the rabbit trail I go...

What is strange is that only one seat and bushing assembly is listed in the 67 MPC:

C7OZ-3388-A - no difference between 6 cyl to 390.

The 3388 assembly includes the 5A305 bushing, as well as 3389 and mounting hardware. If there are two different bushings, technically there should be two different assemblies.

The August 1967 MPC says this:

C7OZ-3388-B (note a change from revision A to B between January and August).  The application includes a whole host of 1966 models ranging from the Mustang "from 2/1/66" to the Fairlane 427 standard transmission.  Obviously a service replacement deal.

It also has two 67 Mustang listings; an unqualified 67 B/F/X (no mention of engine or date), and a second line for Mustang 289-4/B with 4/S/T or C4 "from 11/1/66"

Since the first line applies to all 67 Mustangs, the second line is unnecessary and confusing.

Like many 67 components, change was the word of the day.

Given the location of these parts (difficult to get good pictures), wear and tear, and maintenance over the years, I don't want to say that it would be impossible to figure out exactly what the factory did at various points in time, but this one would be very very difficult.

***revision - I just noticed in the Aug 67 MPC that the bolt 381792-S2 (BB429AA) is identified as "From 11/14/66"

[67gtasanjose]

One of the noticeable changes in the MPC would be the attaching bolts changed from 3/8-24 to 3/8-16.
As already pictured in the thread, my San Jose, 11-2-66 built example still used the 3/8-24.

[Bossbill]

Here is an early March example with course threads and the FoMoCo stamp.

The OD/Dia. of the pivot shell is  approx 1.375".

On edit add staked side.

[ruppstang]

I just noticed that the Jan 67 MPC lists two different versions of the bushings;

C4DZ-5A305-A - Mustang 6 cyl and 289
C7OZ-5A305-A - Mustang 390 (plus all Falcon/Fairlane models)

Marty - perhaps this is behind your statement about your NOS part being different than factory - you might be looking comparing a used factory part for one and an NOS for the other.  But it would be more likely that as suppliers and tooling changed over the years, the appearance changed slightly.

However, this piqued my interest so down the rabbit trail I go...

What is strange is that only one seat and bushing assembly is listed in the 67 MPC:

C7OZ-3388-A - no difference between 6 cyl to 390.

The 3388 assembly includes the 5A305 bushing, as well as 3389 and mounting hardware. If there are two different bushings, technically there should be two different assemblies.

The August 1967 MPC says this:

C7OZ-3388-B (note a change from revision A to B between January and August).  The application includes a whole host of 1966 models ranging from the Mustang "from 2/1/66" to the Fairlane 427 standard transmission.  Obviously a service replacement deal.

It also has two 67 Mustang listings; an unqualified 67 B/F/X (no mention of engine or date), and a second line for Mustang 289-4/B with 4/S/T or C4 "from 11/1/66"

Since the first line applies to all 67 Mustangs, the second line is unnecessary and confusing.

Like many 67 components, change was the word of the day.

Given the location of these parts (difficult to get good pictures), wear and tear, and maintenance over the years, I don't want to say that it would be impossible to figure out exactly what the factory did at various points in time, but this one would be very very difficult.

***revision - I just noticed in the Aug 67 MPC that the bolt 381792-S2 (BB429AA) is identified as "From 11/14/66"

Interesting Richard I have not found any different ones on the cars I have parted or built. The NOS ones I have are a latter service part #s. I will get some pictures of them latter as I am stuck at home we had a blizzard last night. I may try walking to the shop this afternoon.
Marty

[Bob Gaines]

Here is an early March example with course threads and the FoMoCo stamp.

The OD/Dia. of the pivot shell is  approx 1.375".

On edit add staked side.

The FoMoCo in block letters stamp in the rectangle is different then the FoMoCo in cursive stamp in the oval seen on the later service replacements . 

[ruppstang]

Here are the NOS perches I have. The Bushing diameter is the same as the assembly line ones, 1 3/8. I also took a picture of a early service perch with a aftermarket one to show the differences. The D7 ones have a taller spring stop and no center well. The after market one is close but has holes drilled for pads under the springs.