Topic: battery post shield

[67gta289]

Junkyard hopping last weekend I ran across 6F07C399358 and it had what appears to be a flat rubber shield on the inner fender by the positive battery post.  I took some pictures and sketched it out.  Those pictures plus a few other bonus ones included.

[jwc66k]

The shield is supposed to be there on all 66 Mustangs. If you need dimensions, I have a sketch I made 12 years ago for a 66 GT Fastback that had that part of the apron replaced.
Jim

[67gta289]

Ok good to know. I searched through the site and didn't see any reference, so was unsure of the scope of application.

[J_Speegle]

The style/method of attachment differed depending on plant and time period (multiple changes during the production year)

Staples and plastic rivets were both used

[jstefanick]

My 1966 San Jose built(6R08T120933), LA sales district 71 bound convertible (still has the thermactor system intact), with an 18K date Oct 18, 1965- has no evidence of this pad ever being there, neither stapes or hole for rivets are present.

How would they have stapled into the metal? And, being that my car was a somewhat early 66 build, is it possible that they had not shifted over to the battery post shield yet in San Jose? I am all for the right details, but until I was looking in the NPD catalog, I wasn't aware this product even existed.

Maybe all '66's didn't get them?

[J_Speegle]

My 1966 San Jose built(6R08T120933), LA sales district 71 bound convertible (still has the thermactor system intact), with an 18K date Oct 18, 1965- has no evidence of this pad ever being there, neither stapes or hole for rivets are present.

How would they have stapled into the metal?

Those are not holes in the metal between the battery inspection decal and the headlight wiring hole?  Just asking

With a machine similar to the one they used stapling you radiator support to hood seal you can see in your picture. Used for many years at a number of the Mustang assembly plants

And, being that my car was a somewhat early 66 build, is it possible that they had not shifted over to the battery post shield yet in San Jose? ...........

Looking at other examples from October 65 from San Jose have cars before and after that general period (since we really don't know when the cars were specifically built) with staples but its always possible that the gun broke that day so they skipped that process. Do have a couple of others that appear not to have received them with VINs close to yours. Possibly supporting the break down theory. I would collect the stamping date of the inner panel and compare that to your other inner fender panels. Can't see any signs of replacement in your picture and the small patch suggest it possibly original

Hope this explains how all of the cars were suppose to receive the pads/shields while not all of them receiving them

[Richard P.]

The shield is supposed to be there on all 66 Mustangs. If you need dimensions, I have a sketch I made 12 years ago for a 66 GT Fastback that had that part of the apron replaced.
Jim

The battery shield wasn't used on all 1966 Mustangs. Check the MCA Rules in major section Engine Compartment # 4 item D. I have seen many early 1966 Mustangs that didn't have the battery shield.

[jwc66k]

My 1966 San Jose built(6R08T120933), LA sales district 71 bound convertible (still has the thermactor system intact), with an 18K date Oct 18, 1965- has no evidence of this pad ever being there, neither stapes or hole for rivets are present.

How would they have stapled into the metal? And, being that my car was a somewhat early 66 build, is it possible that they had not shifted over to the battery post shield yet in San Jose? I am all for the right details, but until I was looking in the NPD catalog, I wasn't aware this product even existed.

Maybe all '66's didn't get them?

Yet my Oct 18, 65 San Jose "K" code Fastback (DSO 72) and my Oct 15, 65 San Jose "A" code hardtop (DSO 72) both have the insulating pads. I used the dimensions from the hardtop to mark the holes for my Mar 28, 66 "A" code Fastback (DSO 74) that had the RH front fender apron replaced (battery acid damage).

I have seen many early 1966 Mustangs that didn't have the battery shield.

Define "early".
Jim

[Richard P.]

Yet my Oct 18, 65 San Jose "K" code Fastback (DSO 72) and my Oct 15, 65 San Jose "A" code hardtop (DSO 72) both have the insulating pads. I used the dimensions from the hardtop to mark the holes for my Mar 28, 66 "A" code Fastback (DSO 74) that had the RH front fender apron replaced (battery acid damage).Define "early".
Jim

I'd suggest that you read the current  MCA rules for 1965/66 Mustang and MCA current rules for 1965/66 Shelby. I can't speak for your cars however I've seen the battery shileld pad omitted on some early 1966 cars. This is kind of like the myth that all K Mustangs had VIN stamped engine blocks, it wasn't true.

[Bob Gaines]

I'd suggest that you read the current  MCA rules for 1965/66 Mustang and MCA current rules for 1965/66 Shelby. I can't speak for your cars however I've seen the battery shileld pad omitted on some early 1966 cars. This is kind of like the myth that all K Mustangs had VIN stamped engine blocks, it wasn't true.

Not a good example IMO. There is typical K code assemblyline block (VIN stamped ) and out of the ordinary (not VIN stamped) . Way more of the ordinary then a minimal amount of anomalies. Out of the ordinary situations can expect reasonable suspicion by observers that a not original situation exists unless reasonable evidence to the contrary.

[jwc66k]

This is kind of like the myth that all K Mustangs had VIN stamped engine blocks, it wasn't true.

It's been 50 years of rumors about this. My take is that this may have happened more in New Jersey than elsewhere. When you try to nail it down, my cousin's friend saw one, or was it my friend's cousin?

There is typical K code assemblyline block (VIN stamped ) and out of the ordinary (not VIN stamped) . Way more of the ordinary then a minimal amount of anomalies. Out of the ordinary situations can expect reasonable suspicion by observers that a not original situation exists unless reasonable evidence to the contrary.

The lesson here is if you see one, be suspicious.
Jim

[Richard P.]

Not a good example IMO. There is typical K code assemblyline block (VIN stamped ) and out of the ordinary (not VIN stamped) . Way more of the ordinary then a minimal amount of anomalies. Out of the ordinary situations can expect reasonable suspicion by observers that a not original situation exists unless reasonable evidence to the contrary.

Some of these things have been around long enough and talked about enough that they should be known by most everyone. IMO to say that the battery shield was used on all 1966 Mustangs and I had two cars that had them isn't enough documentation. Ford built over 500 thousand Mustangs in 1966 and they weren't all a like. I hear a of lot  people say that this car couldn't have this and that because my 1966 didn't have it have. We have MCA judging rules meeting and discuss these anomalies and publish the findings. All one needs to do is look at the rules.

[jstefanick]

I thank all for the feedback and interesting peripheral subject matter my post brought to mind. I am not going to put the shield on my car for now, with most evidence that it may not have had it to begin with. (of course, Mr.Speegle could be correct and the inner wheel well could have been replaced, but with 9 28 date code( 10-18 approx. build date) for my outer fenders that have no rust , I am going to guess the inners are original too, they seem to be as such)

Question I would have, if I was to be judged at a show, would the judge know enough to look for evidence of staple holes or rivet holes, see no evidence of that on my car and not mark me down. Or, would they just not see the pad and pretty much figure it is something I just didn't correctly have, when I may have not had one to begin with and deduct some points? (I am not going to invest in the industrial stapler to put this pad on my inner fender since it seems most if not all 66 San Jose cars built in the 65 calendar year seem to have the stapes vs. rivets!)

[J_Speegle]

........... (of course, Mr.Speegle could be correct and the inner wheel well could have been replaced, but with 9 28 date code( 10-18 approx. build date) for my outer fenders that have no rust , I am going to guess the inners are original too, they seem to be as such)

Not to be misunderstood I only asked if it could be since that panel is likely the most replaced panel in the engine compartment due to battery rust through. Just checking the boxes. If the dates support the panels found elsewhere on the other inner panels IMHO that supports the idea that the panel is the original one

Question I would have, if I was to be judged at a show, would the judge know enough to look for evidence of staple holes or rivet holes, see no evidence of that on my car and not mark me down. Or, would they just not see the pad and pretty much figure it is something I just didn't correctly have, when I may have not had one to begin with and deduct some points?

Any of those scenarios is possible that is why (in cases where there is a possibility) that the owner be prepared with the issue and documentation. Then during the introduction of the judging team (if done) introduce the subject in a non-defensive manner and simply lay out your case for your choose. Something like "before you start can I offer something I found during the restoration of the car" or something like that. They may (during the introduction) ask you if there is anything unusual or different about your car you wish to share before "we" start judging the car.  Any car owner I've help restore their car has to practice their "speech" with me in preparation and this technique has been offer for consideration at Judging seminars I've instructed over the last 30 years at least (so to both owners and judges) in an effort to smooth over this possible issue and give the owner the opportunity to explain before things get started.  Team still has the task of accepting or no the information based on their experience and knowledge . Hope this helps

In many of these examples you as owner has to choose if the issue was an oversight or mistake and if so if you want to fix what Ford didn't want your car to look or function like. But that is another big can of worms for another discussion 

(I am not going to invest in the industrial stapler to put this pad on my inner fender since it seems most if not all 66 San Jose cars built in the 65 calendar year seem to have the stapes vs. rivets!)

Most of us just use a drill to drill the holes for the staples then insert the pad and new staples then twist them as they would have been originally. Allot easier with the fender off before painting

[Bob Gaines]

Some of these things have been around long enough and talked about enough that they should be known by most everyone. IMO to say that the battery shield was used on all 1966 Mustangs and I had two cars that had them isn't enough documentation. Ford built over 500 thousand Mustangs in 1966 and they weren't all a like. I hear a of lot  people say that this car couldn't have this and that because my 1966 didn't have it have. We have MCA judging rules meeting and discuss these anomalies and publish the findings. All one needs to do is look at the rules.

On the contrary the cars with the pad are the normal . The out of ordinary cars are the ones without. That doesn't mean it didn't happen however. It just means suspicion should be expected and reasonable documentation to justify the issue IMO. As I posted previously "Out of the ordinary situations can expect reasonable suspicion by observers that a not original situation exists unless reasonable evidence to the contrary.