Topic: San Jose Headlight -or- Headlamp Bulbs

[67gtasanjose]

Sticking only with San Jose Built Mustangs for model years 64.5 thru 73 at this time...

What bulb manufacturer and time frames were certain brand name bulbs "typically" found on these various months & years (64.5 thru 73), or possibly the typical date ranges of use that is known at this time?

Maybe a poll of original examples?

[Bob Gaines]

Sticking only with San Jose Built Mustangs for model years 64.5 thru 73 at this time...

What bulb manufacturer and time frames werere certain brand name bulbs "typically" found on these various months & years (64.5 thru 73), or possiblythe typical date ranges of use that is known at this time?

Maybe a poll of original examples?

I have seen more GE then TS in 65/66. And more TS then GE in 67. I have not seen  any Westinghouse in those years. 65-67 are the years I have the most observations of at SJ. Just my observations.

[rockhouse66]

My 3/69 built SJ car has GE bulbs and no Ford or FoMoCo logo anywhere.  The bulbs are date stamped on the back.

[69cobrajetrugae2]

My 69 San Jose has/had the original GE high beam headlights with date codes and other stamps. Don't clean the headlights with water until you clear coat the stamps, don't ask me how I know...

[DTruitt]

My March 68 built GT fastback had TS headlights and fog lights.

Danny

[Richard P.]

My 3/69 built SJ car has GE bulbs and no Ford or FoMoCo logo anywhere.  The bulbs are date stamped on the back.

Many years ago I worked on a 1965 GT Coupe with a little over 10,000 miles on it that was built at the Metuchen, NJ. plant. This Mustang had Westinghouse (W) headlamps. I won't forget this car as on one side of the fender aprons was all star washers and the other side had all flat washers. I also have GE headlamp bulbs with no FOMOCO logo anywhere that are date stamped on the back. I took these out of a 1968 Mustang.

[Bob Gaines]

If a headlight bulb was replaced (for what ever reason) on a 68 car back in 1968 for example by a PO wouldn't the replacement of the same maker, if bought at a auto parts store be a plain non FOMOCO etched bulb ?It would typically also have a date stamp of the era too. I am not saying that a non etched bulb couldn't have mistakenly found it's way on the Ford assemblyline but I do think that Ford was pretty fussy about making sure their suppliers complied with their specifications which included the FOMOCO trademark. There was a time when it was uncommon to find a non etched FOMOCO bulb ( 65-69 ) from the assemblyine  and a time when it was more common ( 1970 I think) . Just my input and opinion. Others may have different.     

[mgmradio]

 My Aug 64 Dearborn coupe (4500 miles) has 2 GE bulbs installed with no FOMCO etching on the face. They are the originals. However thy are marked Ford on the backside of the bulb along with having the correct date code.

[mgmradio]

Remember , with FORD never say never or always.
 That said , I would expect to see etched bulbs in a restored car.
  Mike

[Richard P.]

Thanks for replying Mike. I remember going over that car with you and this is something that we discussed. Mike is a Gold card Judge with MCA and served as Assistant National Head Judge for1964-1966 Mustangs for several years with MCA. He has three nice very earl low mileage unrestored 1965 Mustangs. I have seen several early Mustangs with headlamps made by GE that didn't have the FOMOCO etching across the front. If I judge a car with original style GE headlamps that's good enough for me.

[Bob Gaines]

Remember , with FORD never say never or always.
 That said , I would expect to see etched bulbs in a restored car.
  Mike

+1  I have learned (taught? ) to stay away from "never " and "always" .  You CAN say there is typical and not so typical . +1 on what is expected to be seen on a restored 65-69 Mustang.

[Bob Gaines]

My Aug 64 Dearborn coupe (4500 miles) has 2 GE bulbs installed with no FOMCO etching on the face. They are the originals. However thy are marked Ford on the backside of the bulb along with having the correct date code.

Pictures are the kind of great evidence that help educate someone who questions this out of the ordinary anomaly on a 64 Dearborn car. Once installed trying to convince someone of the possibility given the prevailing conscientious of opinion on the subject is problematic. Without that kind of provenience the justification for the use on THAT particular car comes off sounding like some kind of excuse. At least from my point of view. The only problem I see in a typical show setting is that many people who see the car and don't have the benefit of someone explaining with proof. Those people will not understand and automatically see it as a mistake. Many people out of courtesy may never bring up the question thinking it is better to stay silent then be perceived as being rude for bringing up .That is the double edged sword of a out of the ordinary anomaly on a car. Of course this only makes a difference if you car what others think.   

[mgmradio]

Bob,
   I agree that this is an anomaly and that without a much larger sampling of Unrestored cars that unetched bulbs should not be allowed in restored classes. The car these are on is an "almost" untouched unrestored car and with out a larger sampling would just be an excuse for not being able to find the correct part. At this point I would say a case or two made it through the etching process when the machine was out of etching fluid.
  It was much easier to document the use of blue fans and pulleys on alternators.

[Bob Gaines]

Bob,
   I agree that this is an anomaly and that without a much larger sampling of Unrestored cars that unetched bulbs should not be allowed in restored classes. The car these are on is an "almost" untouched unrestored car and with out a larger sampling would just be an excuse for not being able to find the correct part. At this point I would say a case or two made it through the etching process when the machine was out of etching fluid.
  It was much easier to document the use of blue fans and pulleys on alternators.

The picture tells a compelling story. I would have no problem allowing most any car in a restored class with a anomaly like this if accompanying comparable reasonable evidence is included. I believe others would too.

[Richard P.]

Mike again thanks for posting. I'd bet that during the time your Mustang was built that there were others that received those same headlamps. I'd rather see Mustangs with General Electric at the bottom, correct glass fluting and no FOMOCO script on the front than those with Wagner on the bottom, FOMOCO Script in the center or a (V)at the bottom for manufacture of the bulb, blue filament in the center with FOMOCO etching. It is my understanding that there were only three manufactures of headlamps for Ford from 1965 to 1973 and they were General Electric (GE), Tung-Sol (TS) and Westinghouse (W). I believe in rewarding the folks that go the extra mile to get things correct. I think forums like this are a great place to discuss these things.