Topic: Valve stem extensions for 1st Gen cars with wheel covers ?

[carlite65]

i believe NPD has the correct ones minus the center color. maybe scott will chime in on this.

[rodster]

Charles,

Thanks for bringing up this topic. It's something that I have always wondered about too. I tried to find some vintage images, but it's always tough to see the valve stems.

Anyway, do you have any pictures of the style of extensions that were most common? Also, what length do you think were used?

Here's what's I found on the original wheels for my 67.

[CharlesTurner]

Here's what's I found on the original wheels for my 67.

That looks like the correct 7/8" one.

[Scott302]

i believe NPD has the correct ones minus the center color. maybe scott will chime in on this.

Dill was and still is (last I checked) Ford's supplier of tire valves.  Dill has always had these extensions.  They have changed slightly over time.  The original had an aluminum center plunger whereas the current production has a white plastic plunger.  We note this in our description and tell people to paint the plunger silver to replicate the original look. 
The Ford books identify 2 lengths of these extensions.  B7AZ-1705-A was the 1 1/4 inch and C0DZ-1705-A was 7/8 inch (Dill offers a 3/4 inch now). 
Refer to the Bob Perkins article in Mustang Monthly September 2005 page 52 for a description on correct valves, caps and extensions.  It was this article that caused me to contact Dill about these and subsequently found a distributor to supply us.
To support Mike Murray's response; Ford used a standardized valve on the wheels when they mounted the tires.  If you think about it Ford probably would not know what hub caps would be used with the wheel/tire combo.  It makes sense that they included the appropriate extension with the wheel cover.   It seems to me that the wire wheel covers would need the longer extensions and the standard wheel cover would use the short extensions.

[CharlesTurner]

Thanks Scott.  This might be a good item to get in the MCA rulebook so the same mistake in deducting points is not made in the future.

Appreciate everyone's response!

[Murf]

So--- for 1965 the styled steel wheels would have no extension, only a two inch tubeless valve stem? , the standard hubcap with or without spinner would have a 2 inch valve stem and a 7/8" extension?, the wire type hubcap would have a two inch stem and a 1 1/4 inch extension? Then there was the "competition handling package" with 15 inch wheels and What kind of hubcaps and extensions?  Also I assume the very early cars with thirteen inch wheels had its own set of equipment? - If someone is going to propose this to the MCA we must arm them with the most correct information possible.  Your comments please.

[carlite65]

it has been proposed and is being looked into before revisions are made. agree that we need a little further clarification. maybe bob p. can chime in on this & advise.

[Richard P.]

Dill was and still is (last I checked) Ford's supplier of tire valves.  Dill has always had these extensions.  They have changed slightly over time.  The original had an aluminum center plunger whereas the current production has a white plastic plunger.  We note this in our description and tell people to paint the plunger silver to replicate the original look. 
The Ford books identify 2 lengths of these extensions.  B7AZ-1705-A was the 1 1/4 inch and C0DZ-1705-A was 7/8 inch (Dill offers a 3/4 inch now). 
Refer to the Bob Perkins article in Mustang Monthly September 2005 page 52 for a description on correct valves, caps and extensions.  It was this article that caused me to contact Dill about these and subsequently found a distributor to supply us.
To support Mike Murray's response; Ford used a standardized valve on the wheels when they mounted the tires.  If you think about it Ford probably would not know what hub caps would be used with the wheel/tire combo.  It makes sense that they included the appropriate extension with the wheel cover.   It seems to me that the wire wheel covers would need the longer extensions and the standard wheel cover would use the short extensions.

I recently received the 2017 NPD Parts Catalog. I'm going to provide some information in reference to 1965/66 Mustangs only. On page 79 of the NPD Catalog it shows 1705 Extension, Tire Valve 3/4",1965/73 part # 1705-2 and 1965/73 part # T-1705-1, 1-1/4" I looked in my January 1965 and January 1966 parts and Accessories Catalogs and the finding are as follows, 1965 1705 Extension - Tire Valve F=Mustang CODD 1705-A 7/8" long and A,B,X (A=Galaxie Series include wagon, B= Fairlane Series and X=Falcon Series) 1-1/4" long. If this information is correct the ONLY tire extension used in the 1965/66 F=Mustang was 7/8" in length. The same information is repeated in the 1966 catalog. The NPD Catalog lists 1705-1A Valve Tire as 1-1/4"long and I believe this is correct length. Their is some discussion about putting this in our rules and I hope that we can get it right. If there is more information on this topic I'm sure we'd all welcome it. I provided a e-mail with the above information to Scott Halseth at NPD. I don't have the capability to post the above information here but, I'd be more than happy to e-mail this to anyone else.

[CharlesTurner]

Agree with the 7/8" vs. 3/4", but do you think a 1/8" difference would be noticeable installed on a car with an otherwise correct extension?

[Richard P.]

Agree with the 7/8" vs. 3/4", but do you think a 1/8" difference would be noticeable installed on a car with an otherwise correct extension?

This isn't about what I think, this is about what Ford Motor Company printed. What someone thinks can lead to bad information. One of the things that is stressed in this hobby is documentation. I provided some no more no less.

[CharlesTurner]

This isn't about what I think, this is about what Ford Motor Company printed. What someone thinks can lead to bad information. One of the things that is stressed in this hobby is documentation. I provided some no more no less.

It has a lot to do with what we think because we as judges will determine what is acceptable and what is not for judging.

We have gone from having an (incorrect)deduction for an item that is 'documented' by Ford to splitting hairs between 1/8" difference.  I personally do not believe it would be obvious when judging and would accept the 3/4" ones that NPD sells as long as the plastic inserts are painted silver to appear as metal.  I totally get the wrong vs. right thing, but in this case, I really don't think anyone could visually tell the difference once they are installed.

I also would suggest that if the judging rules are updated that they allow with or without the extensions.  These came in a small envelope with the wheel cover box placed in the trunk of the car at the assembly plant.  I am sure there are examples out there with the extensions not installed as it was strictly a dealer-prep item (except for SS wheels).

BTW, the MPC information was already posted in this thread a few days ago:
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=14639.msg91330#msg91330

[Bob Gaines]

I think it is definitely a item that can be compromised on if restoring and a person can't find the genuine one because few could tell the difference. With that said if a judge can tell the difference it would be grounds for a deduction however minor or at least a mention. It may get missed and it may not. We can't forget if it would be fair to the guy who goes the extra trouble to get them dead on. Just my thoughts.

[CharlesTurner]

It's like what another fellow judge has said, if a detail doesn't draw attention to be scrutinized, then it will usually get a pass.    

One other thing to throw into the mix is that Dill may not have been the only supplier.  I'm not sure how we could know for sure they were the only one?  As a judge, we give the benefit of a doubt to the car.  I think there's enough foggy area here to say 3/4 or 7/8 would get a pass so long as the rest of the appearance is correct.

[jwc66k]

A recap:
P/N - B7AZ-1705-A - 1 1/4 inch long - MPC 75 ed, sec 10 pg 60
P/N - C0DZ-1705-A - 7/8 inch long - MPC 75 ed, sec 10 pg 60
P/N - C6AA-1705-D2 - 1 1/4 inch long - Mustang Monthly, Sept 2005 pg 52, picture (smooth base vs grooved base)
The manufacturer was Dill, and their name appeared on the tip. Their base was grooved, at least on the samples I have.
I don't see how any determination of correct length can be made based on what is currently known, for both original factory equipment and current NOS availability. The MPC lists two different lengths. The MPC is also the source for service replacements, it's what Ford determined what would fit and could be used as a common replacement. The manufacturer of those MPC replacement was not indicated.
The criteria used in MCA judging is the extension should be present on Mustangs with wheel covers, and more likely than not, should have a visible silver pressure stop. Length is difficult to determine without disassembly.
Jim 

[Richard P.]

I think it is definitely a item that can be compromised on if restoring and a person can't find the genuine one because few could tell the difference. With that said if a judge can tell the difference it would be grounds for a deduction however minor or at least a mention. It may get missed and it may not. We can't forget if it would be fair to the guy who goes the extra trouble to get them dead on. Just my thoughts.

+1