Topic: 67 steering column seal and retainer

[67gta289]

Looking for some help in validating the correct application between two different seal retainers for 1967.

The shop manual calls for seal retainer 3B633 (no split) for "Mustang except 390", and retainer 65017A51 (split) for "Cougar and Mustang 390".  In both cases the seal is part 3513.  Refer to the attached picture.

The Jan 67 MPC is in general agreement, but adds details for the tilt steering option:

1. 3513: "Seal - Steering Column Weather":
               A (Ford), B (Fairlane), X (Falcon), and U (Bronco) listed, no F (Mustang) at all.  Probably a simple omission error.
2. 3B633: "Plate - Steering Column Opening Cover":
               F (Mustang) (except 8 cyl 390 & tilt steering wheel) C7ZZ 3B633-B
               U (Bronco) C6TZ 3B633-A (upper)
               (no other listings)
3. 65017: "Retainer - Steering Column Opening Cover":
               F (Mustang) C7ZZ 65017A50-A (R.H. - use with tilt wheel)
                                  C7ZZ 65017A51-A (L.H.)
4. 01738: "Seal - Steering Column Opening Cover Plate":
               A (Ford) (Refer to chassis group 3513)
               U (Bronco) C6TZ 9601738-A (Rubber)

My interpretation based on these documents and observations is:

1. All Mustangs received the 3513 rubber seal.  But I don't have a full part number since it is missing from the 67 MPC
2. All Mustangs used the non-split cover plate C7ZZ-3B633-B except for:
3. Mustangs with 390 -or- with tilt steering used the split cover plates C7ZZ-65017A50-A and C7ZZ-65017A51-A

Any comments to the above?

[WT8095]

The December '67 revision (Change No. 30) does not add any information, other than listing attaching screws:

67 F (except 8 cyl. 390)   Screw (attaching) - No. 14-10 x 1" - tapping   qty 4    42154-S7-8 (U256)

The '68 chassis manual (I don't have a copy for '67) has a triangle note by the seal. The note reads "part of 3C529 assy." (the steering column). Maybe the seal wasn't serviced separately? Seems unlikely.

[J_Speegle]

1. 3513: "Seal - Steering Column Weather":
               A (Ford), B (Fairlane), X (Falcon), and U (Bronco) listed, no F (Mustang) at all.  Probably a simple omission error.
2. 3B633: "Plate - Steering Column Opening Cover":
               F (Mustang) (except 8 cyl 390 & tilt steering wheel) C7ZZ 3B633-B
               U (Bronco) C6TZ 3B633-A (upper)
               (no other listings)
3. 65017: "Retainer - Steering Column Opening Cover":
               F (Mustang) C7ZZ 65017A50-A (R.H. - use with tilt wheel)
                                  C7ZZ 65017A51-A (L.H.)
4. 01738: "Seal - Steering Column Opening Cover Plate":
               A (Ford) (Refer to chassis group 3513)
               U (Bronco) C6TZ 9601738-A (Rubber)

My interpretation based on these documents and observations is:

1. All Mustangs received the 3513 rubber seal.  But I don't have a full part number since it is missing from the 67 MPC

Haven't looked at the illustration so can't comment on that yet

Looking at a Feb 68 version there is nothing in that one either. Does the piece and or part number show up in the Assembly Manual?

Wondering if a different base or part number was assigned to the Mustang application. Do see screws for the Mustang applications (except for the "390" application) listed in that section. Same service part number as the Fairlane application

2. All Mustangs used the non-split cover plate C7ZZ-3B633-B except for:

Listed in the Feb 68

C7ZZ-3B633-B
67/ = (to Feb 68) Mustang (except for 8 cyl 390 & tilt column)
67/ = (to Feb 68) Mustang  (8 cyl 289- 4/B with 4/S or C4
NOTE: Except for 289 with E70x14 tires without P/S

Then lists screws for the non 8 cyl 390 & tilt column

3. Mustangs with 390 -or- with tilt steering used the split cover plates C7ZZ-65017A50-A and C7ZZ-65017A51-A

C7ZZ-65017A50-A & C7ZZ-65017A51-A = NOTE: Use without collapsible column

C7ZZ-65017A50-B & C7ZZ-65017A51-B = NOTE: Use with collapsible column

68 is listed as a different two piece part

Think we need to find C7ZZ-65017A50-A & C7ZZ-65017A51-A to see if they were included with a seal. That would explain why its not listed by itself. Not unusual for Ford to not sell a part of an assembly. There are examples were Ford sold certain individual parts then changed their minds and made the small parts only available as part of a larger subassembly. Believe its very possible in this case

[krelboyne]

What you have is determined by which steer box you have.

Most 1967 Mustangs used the steering gear box with the long spear or shaft, that is the one that takes the non-split bracket and seal.

All 1967 Cougars received steering columns (fixed and tilt away) with couplers to go with the short shaft, or 1968-70 style steering box.
Cougars were about quiet and lack of vibration, hence the use of the rag joint coupler between the steering box and steering columns.

Just a WAG, but the Mustang long shaft steering boxes were probably absorbing too much heat from the 390 engines. All of that heat was probably felt by the driver through the column.

[67gtasanjose]

What you have is determined by which steer box you have.

Most 1967 Mustangs used the steering gear box with the long spear or shaft, that is the one that takes the non-split bracket and seal.

All 1967 Cougars received steering columns (fixed and tilt away) with couplers to go with the short shaft, or 1968-70 style steering box.
Cougars were about quiet and lack of vibration, hence the use of the rag joint coupler between the steering box and steering columns.

Just a WAG, but the Mustang long shaft steering boxes were probably absorbing too much heat from the 390 engines. All of that heat was probably felt by the driver through the column.

That is how I saw it Scott, I simply have not documented enough of them to have declared it. I started a response and then deleted it.

[196667Bob]

I have checked my January 67 MPC, 1960-68 MPC (Dave, mine is Dated February 1968 like Jeff's, Change 31 in Section 35), 1965-72 MPC, the Body, Chassis, Interior and Weld/ Sealant Assembly Manuals, TSB's, Ford Course Manuals and Rotunda Diagnosis Manuals, and found nothing to add to the Part numbers previously noted. The only thing I did find was in the Body Assembly Manual, it notes " (ESB-M2G43-A) adhesive, applied around perimeter of steering column seal assembly and attaching screws (4 places)". Of course, there is no differentiation noted as to Model, with or without Tilt, etc.

All of that being said, I am attaching a couple of pictures of the Tilt Column that picked up in the early 1980's that I am going to install on my '67. Note that it does have the (a) rubber seal included. Note that it appears that the inside part of it may have a small lip or boot that goes around the steering column cover; I'll find out for sure when I disassemble it. I'll also look then to see if any Engineering Number may have been cast with the rubber.

Wish I could be more help, for all of us "tilted" people.

Bob

[67gta289]

What you have is determined by which steer box you have.

Just a WAG, but the Mustang long shaft steering boxes were probably absorbing too much heat from the 390 engines. All of that heat was probably felt by the driver through the column.

Coupling that with Bob's last post, I think I have it.  Referring to the first attached picture, comparing the two retainer profiles, there is a reason why the split shaft with rag joint style has the two piece retainer design.   Consider the long shaft design with the column tube that is fixed at the gear box.  Then consider the split shaft design. While the shaft is connected at the rag joint, the column tube is floating (not fixed to the gear box).  The two piece retainer actually clamps the column tube at the firewall and provides rigidity, not allowing it to float. The one piece retainer does not have the z dimension (less than 1/4") to do much to actually affix the column tube. 

As to why Ford called it the "390" retainer or "390/tilt" retainer is unknown.  But that is misleading.   As Scott said well - it's all about the gear box used. 

There are no part numbers stamped on either retainer.  I have 4 rubber 3513 seals but they have no number either.

Next it would be interesting to know if any 67 390s got the one piece column. 

[krelboyne]

My Mercury MPC lists the seal part number for 1967-68:

C7ZA-3513-D  -  also noted "improvise".

[preaction]

Coupling that with Bob's last post, I think I have it.  Referring to the first attached picture, comparing the two profiles, there is a reason why the split shaft with rag joint style has the two piece design.   Consider the one piece design with the column tube that is very fixed at the gear box.  Then consider the split design. While the rod is connected at the rag joint, the tube is floating.  The two piece retainer actually clamps the tube and holds it in place. The one piece retainer does not have the z dimension (maybe 1/4") to do much to actually retain the column   

As to why Ford called it the "390" retainer or "390/tilt" retainer is misleading.   As Scott said well - it's all about the gear box used. 

There are no part numbers on either retainer.  I have 4 rubber 3513 seals but they have no number either.

Next it would be interesting to know if any 67 390s got the one piece column.

When you say one piece do you mean the one piece retainer ?

[67gta289]

When you say one piece do you mean the one piece retainer ?

Good point - I used a few terms interchangeably.  I've fixed the original post.  Thanks.

[preaction]

I asked because I have two 67 390 cars one tilt and one not.

[67gta289]

Does the non-tilt have a one piece shaft or two piece with rag joint?

[preaction]

Both cars have a rag joint and both have the two piece retainer plate.

[krelboyne]

Both cars have a rag joint and both have the two piece retainer plate.

Both of your 1967 cars are Cougars.
1967 Cougars have rag joint connectors with two piece retainer plates, regardless of engine.

[WT8095]

My Mercury MPC lists the seal part number for 1967-68:

C7ZA-3513-D  -  also noted "improvise".

Good thinking! I should have checked my copy. See the attached image for more on the retainers. It's a reasonable supposition that Cougar usage was similar to Mustang.