Topic: 67 steering column seal and retainer

[preaction]

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

Scott you are correct. I was under the impression that most parts like these are the same between the two cars. Your statement in post #3 Was something I was unaware of thanks for the info.

[67gta289]

Looking at the 3513 rubber insulator a bit more closely, I compared the few that I have to what is currently available at a large national supplier.  The first pic shows their 67-68 version, along with the 69-70 for contrast.

As these things tend to go, so there should be no surprise, the replacement part does not match the factory ones that I have.  Those are the subsequent pictures.

Starting with the easy stuff, I'll call the firewall surface the X-Y surface.  The original parts, as best as I can figure, follow the flat plate 3B633 outer shape in all dimensions, including the radii.  Moving inward, the four mounting holes line up, but the diameter of the holes in the rubber are about 1/2" whereas the steel retainers are at 5/8".  Moving toward the center, the hole in the rubber is much smaller, providing a seal against the column, whereas the steel provides quite a gap.  I would put the rubber at about 1-7/8" and the 3B633 plate at just under 3.5".  Quite a difference indeed.

I need to note here that the rubber seals are about 1/16" thick, but they are not "flat".  There is a "Z" dimension that allows for a proper seal against the column.  I would peg that "Z" dimension at between 1/4" and 3/8".

If you look at the catalog (first) pic, you will see that the 67-68 part is flat as a pancake.  I wonder by the way if they are selling like pancakes, but I'll get back on task.  The 69-70 has a wild (in comparison, no offense intended) Z dimension compared to the 67-68 part.  Looks more like a manual shift boot.  Anyway, the factory truth for 67-68 is in between those two.

Part of the problem that I see is that when I pull these out of original cars, they are knarly, dude.  Probably installed in a hurry, then exposed to the elements, time, etc.  This is why some of the dimensions I noted above are "about" this or that.

Note that the two piece retainer has a slightly different profile.  But the 3513 rubber parts all look pretty much the same.  I can tell which one was under the two piece retainer, since some of the rubber seal got caught in the gap.  But when stretching it out, it looks to be the same as used under the one piece retainer

[WT8095]

I know the original question was regarding '67, but I have an observation on my '68 SJ that raises a general question about the column seals. While following this discussion, I took a look at photos of my column, which I don't have access to at the moment. I noticed that there are two pieces (or possibly one that wraps around) of black fabric tape holding the seal to the column flange. The tape is the same type that is found in various places protecting sheet metal edges. If it's original, my guess is that it was used to hold the seal in place while the column was installed. Is this something that has been observed on other vehicles?

Next time I get back to the car I will take a closer look at the tape.

[gtamustang]

That would be the gaffers tape that was fairly common on the assembly line. I have seen that on many 68 steering column to firewall plates. I believe it was used to hold the two pieces together while the column was fitted to the lower dash and to the steering box. The two hex head screws were tighten after the column was in place.

Regards,
Pete Morgan

[67gta289]

Pulled out a tilt column I removed from an early Dearborn car (can vin later if needed).  Note that I disconnected the column at the rag joint and never removed the column retainer or seal.  The car was mouse and raccoon infested and it was not "duty free" if you get my drift.  So time in the car under the dash was kept to a minimum.  Anyway referring to the pics note (1) the fold-over of the seal towards the engine compartment.  Another pic shows the intact paint which is evidence that it left the factory like that.  (2) the shape of the seal follows the one piece retainer shape leading me to believe that there was only one type (at least early 67 models).  This agrees with the MPC and other cars I've worked on.

Comparing to what is available at NPD (close to home) I did confirm that their 67-68 version is completely flat.  That said the hole might be smaller than the tube and fold over like the factory ones.  I'll pick one up and test it.  The 69-70 version (pic below) would have to be cut a lot, both in the part that runs along the column and the flat area that is much larger than the plate. 

[67gta289]

Dredging this back up due to finding an unrestored 390 car (7F02S223501) that has the long shaft column with no rag joint.   Just a point of reference.  Also has tach not listed on Marti report, we have discussed that in other posts.  Car is currently on eBay if you want to look at a few more pics.  I've attached what is pertinent to this topic though.

[67gtasanjose]

Dredging this back up due to finding an unrestored 390 car (7F02S223501) that has the long shaft column with no rag joint.   Just a point of reference.  Also has tach not listed on Marti report, we have discussed that in other posts.  Car is currently on eBay if you want to look at a few more pics.  I've attached what is pertinent to this topic though.

Hodgepodge of parts, No July car has that gear box though I just judged a May built car that did (smallblock) and made a note on his Judges Sheet. That owner admits he got the car "in boxes" so...

[Bossbill]

I came to understand the reason for the rag joint on 390 and 428 cars was that it was not possible to remove the spear version of the gearbox without engine removal.
Someone in engineering found this unacceptable.
It is possible to remove the spear version on small blocks.
So calling the rag version the 390 version makes sense.

[J_Speegle]

The steering box difference is on the long list of "changes" right now. Though it will likely not be a running change we will be able to document and support the findings with hundreds if not over a thousand of examples. Data will provide us support

[Bob Gaines]

It is my understanding that the rag joint box was typically used on the 390 and tilt cars . The non tilt smallblock used the long shaft box up until I think May of 67 (can't exact date) when even the non tilt smallblock cars started to be transitioned over to the rag joint box. It probably happened at different times depending on the plant. I have always assumed that Ford knew that the mandatory for 68 collapsible column would require all to change over to the rag joint box anyway so they started to incorporate the change in preparation. I will let someone else do the fact check on the changeover date in 67 production. If that be the case a running change would be a good description.