Topic: 64 1/2 Brake Hose Markings

[J_Speegle]

As far as retainers here are some poor pictures but see if you can get anything from them. No one that I know have been collecting pictures of this specific detail and not easy to see on most cars

5F07F1717xx




5F07T3531xx




5F07A2706xx




5F07C6759xx




5F08C7275xx

[FXguy]

I knew if I went through enough pictures I'd find a couple of that might help with the horseshoe clip and the markings.  These are from another 09F planned build date car.  The date stamp on the inner fender apron below the RH hood hinge is 6 26 2D.  See pics below,  horseshoe clips on RH/LH hoses and white line is clear on the LH brake hose.

-Scott

[FXguy]

As far as retainers here are some poor pictures but see if you can get anything from them. No one that I know have been collecting pictures of this specific detail and not easy to see on most cars

Many thanks Jeff.  I ended up finding some pretty good pics as shown in my prior post.  A couple of the pics in your set look like they may be the integral flange type, particularly the last one - it looks to be a little smaller in diameter, but without seeing all the way around really can't be sure.

-Scott

[ChrisV289]

So I cleaned up one of my brake hoses. Found a stripe on it along with a little mark. I don't know 100% if they are original. Wheel cylinder on the passenger side says 18293 C26 made in USA. No brand on it and is the smaller bleeder screw.

[266ks]

My Dec 22 1964 original 41000 mile fastback has the original brake lines and are like the takeoffs you have pictured. Who makes the best reproduction lines to replace them? While I was looking at the brake lines,I checked to see the stamped number below the hood hinge on the passenger side. Mine is stamped very clearly 12 23 2D and the door which is original reads 22M. I have the original bill of sale from Frank Vego Ford in Atlanta Georgia dated 1-14-65. This is a tight window from stamping to date of sale.

[J_Speegle]

My Dec 22 1964 original 41000 mile fastback has the original brake lines and are like the takeoffs you have pictured. Who makes the best reproduction lines to replace them? ................

Currently there are no "best" reproductions IMHO since none have the same design or visible features. Only substitutions that can be made slightly better by the removal of the markings

[Maksim27]

Here is NOS hoses I have.

[CharlesTurner]

Here is NOS hoses I have.

What's the part number on the boxes?

[Maksim27]

One NOS box says C5DZ-2078-A and the second NOS box says C5AZ-2078-A

[jwc66k]

Neither are Ford recommended service replacement hoses for Mustangs. In the 1975 edition of Ford Car Parts (aka the MPC), C5AZ-2078-A in a 12 1/4 inch long hose for full size Fords (both sides), 1965 all fronts, 1966 drum fronts only. C5DZ-2078-A is listed as 13 15/32 inch long, a service replacement for 1965 Falcons (both sides). Both hoses are listed in the 60-68 MPC for the same applications. Mustang drum replacement hoses (both sides) are 13 1/4 inch long and should be service number C5ZZ-2078-B, and for dick brakes, C5ZZ-2078-A, 15 inches long.
For Mustangs before 8/17/64 (a 64 1/2 Mustang), the service number is B7AZ-2078-A, 15 inches long.
Jim

[Maksim27]

Are these the correct C5ZZ-2078-B service hoses that have the double crimps. 

[carlite65]

imo, no. assembly line hoses were single crimp.

[J_Speegle]

imo, no. assembly line hoses were single crimp.

+1  Double crimp = later (non-factory) service replacements or aftermarkets

[Maksim27]

Is it still safer to drive if I find NOS single crimp brake rubbers.  I know if I find used surface cracking lines then that will be more unsafe during driving.

[J_Speegle]

Is it still safer to drive if I find NOS single crimp brake rubbers.  I know if I find used surface cracking lines then that will be more unsafe during driving.

The focus here is not safety but how the cars were originally built. And don't want to offer my feelings on the possibilities based on my knowledge or experiences in a way that might influence what should be your personal choice

As far as safety that's an evaluation each of us makes.  If your going to compare it to modern vehicles a case can be made that any of these cars could be considered unsafe. For examples (given the section this is posted in) you have a solid steering column  that in a front end accident could cause great harm to the driver, no locking bucket seats, no head or neck support, unsafe front fender design, no shoulder belts (often aged ones at that), some worry about the gas tanks configuration and there are many more. At the same time over a million cars built driven, without incident for trillions of miles.