Topic: Need help identifying correct snorkel for 68 390

[WT8095]

S tube may be (my guess) a CJ S tube rather than a S code one.

Ok for my part tonight - went out to the trailer and found what may be a FE snorkel with the forward bend. Didn't locate a rearward and don't think I've had one of those.

Took a little work (the snorkel opening wasn't exactly nice and perfect but did get the S tube ( a 428 CJ one I had on the shelf) over the snorkel end. Was a snug fit much more than many of my other cars but no way was it going inside as far as I was willing to force and reshape the metal opening

The inside of the S tube and the OD of the snorkel measure somewhere around 2-3/4" and 2 13/16"

Note: I have no idea of what car or application this snorkel came off of

I've seen the style that I have (seams all the way up) listed variously as CJ or 390. I don't know if the same one was used for both, or if I'm just not finding a clear explanation. I hadn't seen the "short-seam" type until E35 posted his photos. Sure looks like that style was designed to go INSIDE the snorkel opening, unlike the "full-seam" style. Not exactly the easiest part to find closeup shots of!!!      Even harder than finding photos of spacers on intake bolts 

[E35Pilot]

I like the 1968 Chassis Asembly reference...I've purchased a copy of this book tonight and will keep it in the trunk.
However, another thought came to me, anyone think the fact this engine was built in Nov 67, emediately after the UAW strike, could help explained any anomalies to this s-tube and snorkel application?  Most of the date coded parts one the engine were from prior to the strike.  The car was eventually assembled on Dec 1.  Thoughts?

[J_Speegle]

I like the 1968 Chassis Asembly reference...I've purchased a copy of this book tonight and will keep it in the trunk.
However, another thought came to me, anyone think the fact this engine was built in Nov 67, emediately after the UAW strike, could help explained any anomalies to this s-tube and snorkel application?  Most of the date coded parts one the engine were from prior to the strike.  The car was eventually assembled on Dec 1.  Thoughts?

Production or design change - maybe but changing direction seems like a big change.

Connected to the line strike - not IMHO  since it does not save time, cost or labor.

Know there to be one of the parts guys (like Kerry) that has gone over and over this before since I know its been an ongoing discussion for many years. Just not allot of need to settle things since it relates to not allot of cars.

[E35Pilot]

Thanks everyone for the feedback on this topic.  While there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence, it appears a forward offset snorkel seems to be a standard for the 68 Mustang 390-4V GT engine, at least one that many believe to be correct.  However, the 1968 Chasis Asembly manual is a question mark on this issue that is particularly perplexing.   
 

As remarked throughout this forum, there were many differences, inconsistencies, changes Ford made between factories, and the time of year/production that have made it difficult for the mustang purists.   Not to mention the other inconsistencies for some early 68s as a result of the 66-day UAW strike...all of which has played havoc on our ability to sometimes decider the "real truth" for our mustangs.  So, for now, I guess I'll stick with my rear offset snorkel until a forward one drops in my lap, and of course, I'll keep a copy of the Chassis manual in the glove box.  Thanks again.

[70cj428]

I figure I'd chime in better late than never....

I finally went and pulled out some stuff to photograph, figured since I own a 68 390GT mustang and a 70 428CJ and have hoarded a pretty big pile of parts, maybe I could help.


Snorkles..

The 68 390 GT Mustang snorkles I have (one I bought NOS in 1979 with the ugly cougar piece I also photographed, one I bought later, but both are Identical, and match the beat to hell one that came with my car...) both sweep back like a 428CJ, but the snorkel is shorter overall. The flange on the bottom is the same size on both, but the 390 flange has 2 small circular notches cut in where the s tube seams line up.
The 390 GT snorkel I photographed has been repainted and restamped, but is definitely an original.

S Tubes.....

The 390 GT S tube "big end" is smaller, and fit's inside the flange instead of outside like the 428 setup. The seams are cut back so they don't hit the snorkel flange.

As for the other snorkel I photographed, it's sweeps forward and is marked C8WF-9A626-A and I assume it's the 390 2bbl part. Believe it or not, I bought that new from the dealer in 1979, when I opened the box, I found that stapled together mess, right from ford. When I went to return it, the Dealer gave me my money back and told me to keep it. It's been in my parts pile ever since. ( I still have the box.....) I figure I could fix it at some point if I ever needed it.

Hope this helps, John

EDIT...
I Just read through this whole post (after I posted....  ), and realized there was some controversy over the forward vs rearward swept snorkel. I always assumed that the rearward one was correct, as the NOS one I bought was rearward swept, and when I bought my 68 390 car, it had what I'm sure was the original air cleaner with it that also had the rearward swept snorkel. The car was a really unmolested original 390 4 speed GT fastback, a really late (7/18/68) Metuchen built car that was involved in an accident in 1973 with 70K miles and hidden in a barn till I bought it. The only thing missing was the smog, The date on the air cleaner motor was consistant with the build date of the car (late may if I remember correctly). I still have the air cleaner and snorkel somewhere ( I never get rid of anything), I'll try and pull it out along with the NOS C8OF snorkel and take a few more pic's.( The original air cleaner was beat up by someone trying to open the hood after the accident with a prybar, They also broke the original distributor)  Again I'm 99.9% certain that my car was built with a rearward swept snorkel as although the car was collision damaged it was pretty much unmolested, down to the original hoses and plug wires. The S tube I photographed was off my car ( It's been repainted by me...)

I wonder if anyone has one of the forward swept snorkles that still has it's ink stamped part number, I'm curious if it's the Cougar/2 bbl part or something else.  I'm comfortable with using the swept back snorkel as it matches the one that I'm sure the car came with, and it matches the part that both the MPC and the assembly drawings call out.

Sorry to confuse things worse, John

[Brian Conway]

Thank you.  Very nicely done.  Brian

[J_Speegle]

70cj428 Thanks for another observation and data point for this ongoing challenge

E35Pilot does the opening at the bottom of your snorkel have two notches in it like the one 70cj428's ?

[E35Pilot]

70cj428 Thanks for another observation and data point for this ongoing challenge

E35Pilot does the opening at the bottom of your snorkel have two notches in it like the one 70cj428's ?

Thanks 70cj428, your pictures and explanation match what I have on my 68 690.  It appears there my be every reason to believe what I currently have is in fact original to the car.

Jeff, I posted some pics of my snorkel and s-tube earlier on pg 2 but have reposted the the one I believe answers your question...Yes, the s-tube fits inside the snorkel which has the notch mentioned by 70cj428 providing room for the s-tube seem.

....this conversation just keeps getting better and better.  Thanks!




   

[E35Pilot]

I figure I'd chime in better late than never....

Thanks John, I'm glad your did.  Great explanation and supporting pictures.

[WT8095]

Excellent information, John, thank you for posting. What you're seeing jives with the assembly manual, but I still give a lot of credibility to Jeff's photos. I'm suspicious that there was some substitution or mixing or an outright change during production.

Regarding the s-tubes, if the short-seam style was the 390GT, then per the 68 chassis manual, it would be P/N C8WF-A. The long-seam (CJ) style is apparently C8AZ-A (I only know the service part for this one). Note that the May '75 MPC lists C8AZ-A as a replacement for all the 390 & 428 applications. If this was the service part, there could be more of them in circulation than what originally came on CJs from the factory. Also note the MPC lists a clamp for the tube-to snorkel (duct per MPC nomenclature) connection for 68/69 Fairlane & Mustang, presumably for the short-seam (C8WY) tube, as a clamp would not fit properly around the full seam on the other style tube. Has anyone seen these with a clamp on them? The size they list, 2-3/16, is smaller than the snorkel flange, which doesn't make sense.

[J_Speegle]

.............Also note the MPC lists a clamp for the tube-to snorkel (duct per MPC nomenclature) connection for 68/69 Fairlane & Mustang, presumably for the short-seam (C8WY) tube, as a clamp would not fit properly around the full seam on the other style tube. Has anyone seen these with a clamp on them? The size they list, 2-3/16, is smaller than the snorkel flange, which doesn't make sense.

Think that's a typo for the 68 application. Not the first one found in these documents

Did you notice my question above - for you?

Does your snorkel have the two notches in the bottom opening for the S tube?   My forward style one does not have this feature.

[70cj428]

If this was the service part, there could be more of them in circulation than what originally came on CJs from the factory. Also note the MPC lists a clamp for the tube-to snorkel (duct per MPC nomenclature) connection for 68/69 Fairlane & Mustang, presumably for the short-seam (C8WY) tube

This would make sense as the CJ style would work for both applications, it just slides over the flange instead of inside. (actually, the little groove for the screw that holds it to the heat shield would be in the wrong place, but I've seen the CJ S tubes with 3 little grooves for the screw, these may be the service parts ( 428CJ mustang, 68  390 mustang, KR Shelby ?? )

As for the clamp, there is at least one 69 mustang application (69 390 Mustang comes to mind, possibly 69 Boss 302) where they use a paper tube clamped on the bottom of the tube. There's a pic of one of these snorkels somewhere in this post. Ford just spot welded a reducer to the bottom flange of a CJ style snorkel.

As for the prevelance of NOS S tubes, I have had one NOS CJ S tube that I found in the late 1980's and have only seen 2 or 3 in 35 years of looking... I've never seen a " short seam" style S Tube NOS. I think all of these were discontinued pretty early, that's why the are so scarce.

A lot of "research" on what makes up the snorkels has been done by some dealers, as you can "build" many of the rare snorkels by drilling out the spot welds on several more common snorkels and welding the correct combination of parts back together. That's why I look REAL close at the part before buying any " restored" snorkels, It's much better to buy an unrestored part and restore it yourself.
John

[WT8095]

Think that's a typo for the 68 application. Not the first one found in these documents

I agree, it must be an error. They were consistent, though - the part number listed is the correct one for a 2-3/16 clamp per AMK's fastener guide.

Did you notice my question above - for you?

Does your snorkel have the two notches in the bottom opening for the S tube?   My forward style one does not have this feature.

Sorry, I thought you were asking E35pilot. Yes, my rear-offset snorkel has the small notches. One is somewhat visible in the photo I posted of how the s-tube and snorkel fit together.

[WT8095]

Found these photos of an NOS C8AZ-A on http://www.thecoralsnake.com/NOS

Note the full-length seam. This one has the flared top, and three small holes that I haven't seen on any previously. The rectangle FoMoCo logo on the label suggests it's quite early.

[70cj428]

I always thought the flaired top  on the S tube was a late 69 / 70 thing to make it easier to assemble, the 428 S tube I photographed came off of a 69 Mach1 built in Nov.68 and dosent have the flared top. The NOS S tube I have has the same flaired top and had the same service part sticker (till I stripped and painted it.... ) but it doesn't  have those three holes.

Another one I know of (been trying to buy for about 10 years) has a white sticker with just the part number in black, and has the three notches for the heat shield screw.

just another piece of the puzzle, John