Topic: 64 1/2 Brake Hose Markings

[FXguy]

The original front brake hoses on my 64 1/2 June K code convertible appear to have two separate thin lines, about 3/16" apart.  Way back in the 90s a friend of mine (MCA gold judge at the time) sent me pics of his 64 1/2 K coupe restoration and in that batch of pictures I found a shot of his front brake hoses.  The hoses on his car had a single line approximately 3/16" wide (see pic below).  My originals have a horseshoe shaped clip where it affixes to the bracket on the car (see pic below), the ones on his car were hidden the pic so i don't know if they had the horseshoe clip or a flange molded into the fitting.

I have seen a variety of NOS hose markings.   Some of the early single crimp hoses have just a label affixed to each hose (no box), with a broken white stripe about 1/16th inch wide with printing in between the breaks in the line with a solid flange where it connects to the bracket on the car.   Others in the early 60s ford blue and white box have makings that seem similar to my factory originals, with the horseshoe shaped clip where it connects to the car, and then other ones (with the double crimp fittings), with a small red band near each fitting and with a line and printing similar to that of the early ones with the labels and no box.

I know that the single crimp is correct, but what other markings are factory correct for this car? 

TIA.

-Scott

[FXguy]

I have an update, the markings on th double crimp and some of the post DOT single crimp hoses, marked "DOT GY xx/xx/xx(date)" cannot be correct because DOT was formed on April 1st 1967.  So basically that eliminates any brake hose with the DOT stamping of any kind for this period of production.

-Scott

[Bob Gaines]

I have an update, the markings on th double crimp and some of the post DOT single crimp hoses, marked "DOT GY xx/xx/xx(date)" cannot be correct because DOT was formed on April 1st 1967.  So basically that eliminates any brake hose with the DOT stamping of any kind for this period of production.

-Scott

FYI the double crimp is the most visual indicator of assemblyline or service replacement. If it has it then a replacement. Regardless of DOT markings which can be removed the double crimp hose was not used 65-69.

[FXguy]

FYI the double crimp is the most visual indicator of assemblyline or service replacement. If it has it then a replacement. Regardless of DOT markings which can be removed the double crimp hose was not used 65-69.

So from an MCA thoroughbred judging standpoint, even though a single crimp hose is correct  would a DOT stamp on it carry a point(s) deduction?  Also, i have noted that some of the later single crimp hoses with DOT stamp have the mounting flange as an integral part of the fitting that attaches to the body mounting bracket, while earlier single crimp hoses have a horseshoe clip (as pictured above).  Would using a single crimp with integral flange incur a deduction?

I should add that I am using NOS hoses that are identical to the originals, but I am curious how using single crimp hoses, but with the incorrect stamping on the hose and/or an integral mounting flange would affect judging.  Pics of original hoses attached.

Thank you,

-Scott

[Bob Gaines]

So from an MCA thoroughbred judging standpoint, even though a single crimp hose is correct  would a DOT stamp on it carry a point(s) deduction?  Also, i have noted that some of the later single crimp hoses with DOT stamp have the mounting flange as an integral part of the fitting that attaches to the body mounting bracket, while earlier single crimp hoses have a horseshoe clip (as pictured above).  Would using a single crimp with integral flange incur a deduction?

Thank you,

-Scott

Scott, the main point in thoroughbred is for the part to be Ford and that it look new assemblyline. Any aspect that is not new assemblyline has a possibility of deductions. Nuance differences for a part typically incur deductions on a sliding scale. A DOT marking for instance depending on the hose can be removed and skillfully replaced with a stripe marking for instance. The crimping on the other hand can not be modified to look more authentic. The look is what you want. How you achieve that look is the skillful challenge.  For those reading thoroughbred class is the hardest to aspire to. Keep in mind that thouroughbred is a class where no reproduction are expected, only original type appearing finish on metal and paint, and date codes and markings are expected to be assemblyline nominal . That means tires ,batteries etc. The trailered concours class is written to be the same thing with the exception of allowing for well made reproduction parts ,faux finish on metal and less emphasis on markings or date codes.

[FXguy]

the main point in thoroughbred is for the part to be Ford and that it look new assemblyline....thoroughbred class is the hardest to aspire to. Keep in mind that thouroughbred is a class where no reproduction are expected, only original type appearing finish on metal and paint, and date codes and markings are expected to be assemblyline nominal . That means tires ,batteries etc.

Thank you for that Bob.  Truth is, I'm driven to make this car as it was delivered to the original owner, not specifically for it to do well in judging at the thoroughbred level - though that's where it's at now.  The first time that I talked to the original owner, he talked my ear off  about how he fell in love with the car the first time he saw it and drove it - just like I did.  I've been hooked ever since on making the car as it was when he first saw it, down to the finish, markings, and placement of every component and fastener. 

So I guess to conclude this, the hoses should have the horseshoe clip, white line, and single crimp fittings.  Seems to be some variation in whether there were a couple of thin white lines or a single thicker white line, but no other printing on the hose.

-Scott

[Bob Gaines]

Thank you for that Bob.  Truth is, I'm driven to make this car as it was delivered to the original owner, not specifically for it to do well in judging at the thoroughbred level - though that's where it's at now.  The first time that I talked to the original owner, he talked my ear off  about how he fell in love with the car the first time he saw it and drove it - just like I did.  I've been hooked ever since on making the car as it was when he first saw it, down to the finish, markings, and placement of every component and fastener. 

So I guess to conclude this, the hoses should have the horseshoe clip, white line, and single crimp fittings.  Seems to be some variation in whether there were a couple of thin white lines or a single thicker white line, but no other printing on the hose.

-Scott

Many people build their car using the various concours guidelines even though they do not intend to compete in the venue. Some build the car to compete in trailed concours and although not necessary for that class include detail items required for thoroughbred.   It is better to build the car to be more then needed rather then to build it to a less then needed standard. that is when concours competition is the goal. Personal goals of course can be any combination .  Your observations will help with the overall data base of knowledge. In any event the best of luck with the project  .

[J_Speegle]

So I guess to conclude this, the hoses should have the horseshoe clip, white line, and single crimp fittings.  Seems to be some variation in whether there were a couple of thin white lines or a single thicker white line, but no other printing on the hose.

The number or size of the stripes likely IMHO based on how other parts were marked, identified the supplier or subcontractor.

Are you focusing on a specific time period or plant? Didn't see any mentioned ( may have missed it) but limitations or focus could help others add their observations without adding details outside the range and muddying the research and results as we can seen in the past with some threads.

[FXguy]

The number or size of the stripes likely IMHO based on how other parts were marked, identified the supplier or subcontractor.

Are you focusing on a specific time period or plant? Didn't see any mentioned ( may have missed it) but limitations or focus could help others add their observations without adding details outside the range and muddying the research and results as we can seen in the past with some threads.

Sorry Jeff, I posted that info in a couple of other posts, but not this one.  Here are some additional specifics  about timing: 

The vessel number was assigned May 29th, 1964 (I have the Ford Accounting assignment document that states this), the planned build date on the door tag is June 9th, 1964.  The most recent body panel on the car is stamped 6 20 2D, so stamped during the 2nd shift in the plant on Saturday June 20th (panel is welded to the uni-body), then the car was built sometime on or after June 20th.  The original "FIRST ASSIGNMENT" paperwork states that the car was sold to the first owner on June 8th, 1964, but the car was reportedly delivered to the dealership in Charlotte, NC before Saturday July 4th, 1964.

That narrows the actual build date down to sometime between June 20th and a few days before July 4th weekend 1964, (depending on shipping time from Dearborn to Charlotte)

-Scott

[Bob Gaines]

Sorry Jeff, I posted that info in a couple of other posts, but not this one.  Here are some additional specifics  about timing: 

The vessel number was assigned May 29th, 1964 (I have the Ford Accounting assignment document that states this), the planned build date on the door tag is June 9th, 1964.  The most recent body panel on the car is stamped 6 20 2D, so stamped during the 2nd shift in the plant on Saturday June 20th (panel is welded to the uni-body), then the car was built sometime on or after June 20th.  The original "FIRST ASSIGNMENT" paperwork states that the car was sold to the first owner on June 8th, 1964, but the car was reportedly delivered to the dealership in Charlotte, NC before Saturday July 4th, 1964.

That narrows the actual build date down to sometime between June 20th and a few days before July 4th weekend 1964, (depending on shipping time from Dearborn to Charlotte)

-Scott

Scott,since the stamp on the panel represents the day the sub assembly was stamped out I see a slight issue . Not that it matters much but logistically it would be very unlikely that the sheet metal was formed into a usable panel and then welded into the chassis all on the same day even if mfg on site . Someone else might have information on if the sheet metal was formed and stamped on site (skeptical) or at another remote location (more likely IMO).   

[J_Speegle]

..............That narrows the actual build date down to sometime between June 20th and a few days before July 4th weekend 1964, (depending on shipping time from Dearborn to Charlotte)

Agree with Bob that its very unlikely that someone got the panel from one side to the other in the same day. Why the July 4th date as a limitation?

Also what panel was dated for June 20th? Might be able to provide a better guess as to a possible real date.

[ChrisV289]

Is the horseshoe clip an indication of an original hose?  I removed mine off my car couple of months ago and they have this clip.  I am replacing them with some service replacement parts that do not have this clip since the rubber was cracking towards the end. 

[FXguy]

Agree with Bob that its very unlikely that someone got the panel from one side to the other in the same day. Why the July 4th date as a limitation?

Also what panel was dated for June 20th? Might be able to provide a better guess as to a possible real date.

My intent was to provide the full range of possible dates, and allow others, such as you and Bob, to narrow it down based upon your knowledge of the plant and shipping processes/timing.  I agree that the probability of the car being built towards July 20th is remote, and it is also remote being built closer to July 4th.

The "FIRST ASSIGNMENT" and "MANUFACTURER'S STATEMENT OF ORIGIN TO A MOTOR VEHICLE" documents indicate that the car was delivered to Courtesy Motors in Charlotte, but was in the possession of another dealership at the time when the first owner, Bill, a physician, drove it and subsequently bought it July 8th.  He told me that the car was the only High Performance Mustang in the region and had been touring other dealerships in the area to entice orders for K codes.  He also stated that he had driven the car just before the July 4th holiday weekend.   So it it was at least sometime shortly before July 4th that the car was delivered to Charlotte and may have been to some other dealerships before it went to the local dealership - and it if it had, it would have been a few days or more before July 4th that it had arrived in Charlotte.

The body panel with the 6 20 2D stamp is on the RH inner apron below the hood hinge.  See attached pic.

-Scott

[FXguy]

Is the horseshoe clip an indication of an original hose?  I removed mine off my car couple of months ago and they have this clip.  I am replacing them with some service replacement parts that do not have this clip since the rubber was cracking towards the end.

The service replacements that I've seen with the integral flange (not a horseshoe clip mounted in the groove in the same area) have had a DOT stamp on the hose, and a date of 10/14/75, though they DO have single crimp fittings.  But that doesn't mean that some supplier in the early 60's didn't have the same integral flange design,  I just haven't seen one.  I also don't know if that date is the date of manufacture or the date of the DOT standard that the hose is in compliance with.

-Scott

[J_Speegle]

So back to the forcus

For markings on the front hoses on 65 Dearborn cars I only found one example on a set of original hoses. This example come from one of Mike M's great cars - the other two cars showed no markings on the hoses in the pictures. Those were drum brake cars

This car is 5F08C7275xx and is equipped with factory disc brakes

Two white stripes. Look to be 180 degrees from one another on the hose