Topic: 67 gt 350 brake booster line

[Brian in PA]

Was the factory steel used from the manifold to the rubber hose to the brake booster?  Or was this changes at Shelby?  Thanks

Ps any pics?

Thanks Brian.

[J_Speegle]

Hope these help

[Bob Gaines]

Was the factory steel used from the manifold to the rubber hose to the brake booster?  Or was this changes at Shelby?  Thanks

Ps any pics?

Thanks Brian.

To add -it is important in understanding some off the process's for the conversion that the aluminum intake was installed on the engine as  (oil pressure line installed at SA) at the Ford engine plant and then installed on the SJ assemblyline like any other Mustang.  SA got Ford to do a lot for cost saving reasons. About the only thing that SA had to install engine related was the SW oil pressure line (and things related to that installation)regardless of if GT350 or GT500.

[Brian in PA]

Thanks fellas!  It looks like some inconsistent lines too.  Maybe what was laying around or just hand made to fit application? 

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks fellas!  It looks like some inconsistent lines too.  Maybe what was laying around or just hand made to fit application?

Mostly consistent.  Inconsistency in this case would be more likely attributed to PO handling of metal line more so then a Ford difference IMO.

[Brian in PA]

Ya good point Bob. It looks like the 428 line from MU will do the job.

[Bob Gaines]

Ya good point Bob. It looks like the 428 line from MU will do the job.

It is not the 428 line.  It was the same vacuum tube used on the 67 289 cast iron intake with power booster.

[Brian in PA]

Here lies my confusion. I got one from NPD that is for a 67 289 it looks like an S shape. On their website the 428 one looks like the piece in Jeffs pics. Unless I missed something. Thanks for your patients Bob. 

[J_Speegle]

Here lies my confusion. I got one from NPD that is for a 67 289 it looks like an S shape. On their website the 428 one looks like the piece in Jeffs pics. Unless I missed something. Thanks for your patients Bob. 

Yes repo pieces verses originals - what could go wrong. Agree that the visual difference in one in pictures are most likely from a heavy hand at some point - especially #3  was using that more to show the attachment to the intake fitting

[Bob Gaines]

Here lies my confusion. I got one from NPD that is for a 67 289 it looks like an S shape. On their website the 428 one looks like the piece in Jeffs pics. Unless I missed something. Thanks for your patients Bob. 

I feel your frustration. I can only tell what is correct but sorry in this case can't tell you what company is going to be knowledgeable enough to sell you the correct piece. As the pictures shows it is more a simple "L" shape more so then anything else. 

[Brian in PA]

Well said guys. I'll get the one that looks right regardless of what it says it's for. Thanks again for the time and pics!