Author Topic: Rocker Panel Molding retainer 10-24 stud w/foam pad  (Read 884 times)

Offline Angela

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
Rocker Panel Molding retainer 10-24 stud w/foam pad
« on: July 17, 2016, 09:56:25 PM »
I need at least one (prefer two) rocker panel molding retainer (10-24 stud, 7/8” long, with black sponge washer). I thought that AMK sold these, but I can't find them. Part No. 380873-S100 The foam pad is important for me. If you can spare one or two of these please contact me and let me know what you want for them. Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 10:23:47 PM by carlite65 »

Offline 67gtasanjose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
  • "Take the MUSTANG PLEDGE"
Re: Rocker Panel Molding retainer 10-24 stud w/foam pad
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2016, 12:12:26 PM »
Angela, do the rear valance ones come close? (no foam pad) AMK B-12017 Mastic sealer pads on page 167 of 2014 catalog

I ask because I need one for my rear valance AND one for a rocker molding ;)
Richard Urch

1967 (11/2/66, S.J.) GTA Luxury Coupe, 289-4V w/Thermactor Emissions, C-4, Int./Ext. Decor +many options

2005 (04/05) GT Premium Convertible, Windveil Blue, Parchment Top w/Med. Parchment interior,  Roush Body Appointments

Offline Angela

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 836
Re: Rocker Panel Molding retainer 10-24 stud w/foam pad
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2016, 12:46:14 PM »
The rear valance retainer studs are 8-32, whereas the RPM studs are 10-24. Also, the rear valance studs use mastic washers, whereas the RPM calls for foam washers. I don't know why Ford wanted foam at the RPM instead of Mastic, yet I'm sure there's a good reason.

Offline 67gtasanjose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
  • "Take the MUSTANG PLEDGE"
Re: Rocker Panel Molding retainer 10-24 stud w/foam pad
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2016, 01:24:02 PM »
The rear valance retainer studs are 8-32, whereas the RPM studs are 10-24.

My Osborn Assembly Manual suggests this one for the rear valance. It is 10-24x1"

https://www.amkproducts.com/bulk3.asp?part=B-12017


I don't know why Ford wanted foam at the RPM instead of Mastic, yet I'm sure there's a good reason.

I cannot see how the purpose could differ. (mastic vs. foam) The thoughts I have for difference in usage are that mastic might bond easier to a painted surface, possibly removing the paint if separated at some point after initial assembly. No paint could cause premature rusting?

Maybe some of our other "experts" can offer some sage advise ;)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 02:13:01 PM by 67gtasanjose »
Richard Urch

1967 (11/2/66, S.J.) GTA Luxury Coupe, 289-4V w/Thermactor Emissions, C-4, Int./Ext. Decor +many options

2005 (04/05) GT Premium Convertible, Windveil Blue, Parchment Top w/Med. Parchment interior,  Roush Body Appointments