Topic: 1969 Metuchen PS pump.

[Raven R Code]

Detail question concerning PS pump. Many people are saying this pump is NOT correct for a ‘69 428cj car. Mainly that the upward pointing return and misc hardware is incorrect. The pump pictured is off my R code that I got with 3,100miles on it and I have an identical pump off my Q code with 35,000 (off the road since 1973). Also, any idea what the purpose of the misc bracket on the back is for? The chance that I have two low mile cars with replaced pumps is slim to none.

Thanks,
Dave

[krelboyne]

Yeah, that is the wrong reservoir. Correct one should have the low pressure barbed fitting going out straight. Looks like two indexing brackets? neither one is correct for an FE.

Unless Metuchen is different?

[Vcode]

Here's some info on the pump.

https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-ps-pump

I have never seen that type bracket before - there is a hose indexing bracket that is used.

https://www.428cobrajet.org/forum/index.php?topic=21710.msg145884#msg145884

[J_Speegle]

BTW when you repaint the next one the tag was on the pump when painted 

[Bob Gaines]

BTW when you repaint the next one the tag was on the pump when painted 

+1 and to add since the tag was held on by the nut it is also painted but the hose index bracket (should only be one as mentioned) and the "second" nut that holds it on are not painted .Typically those items are a light phosphate and oil.

[Raven R Code]

Thanks for all the responses. Still time to update the finishes......but really puzzled by the bracket type and spout issue. Could the power steering cooler have something to do with the spout direction? I just can’t believe I have to low mile 428 cars with pump housings that are both wrong.

If they aren’t correct for a mustang, anyone know what car should have them. I will say that I can’t find any pictures or diagrams that depict the pump configuration that I have.

Dave

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks for all the responses. Still time to update the finishes......but really puzzled by the bracket type and spout issue. Could the power steering cooler have something to do with the spout direction? I just can’t believe I have to low mile 428 cars with pump housings that are both wrong.

If they aren’t correct for a mustang, anyone know what car should have them. I will say that I can’t find any pictures or diagrams that depict the pump configuration that I have.

Dave

67 and 68 Shelby’s used that style can. It was because of the PS cooler that Shelby engineered to include on those cars. In that case it was sourced from a truck.  However the 69/70 GT 500 used the same PS pump and cooler as regular Mustang which did not have that bend. There are other applications that used that same can with the bend besides trucks.

[7Lscjracer]

67 and 68 Shelby’s used that style can...

Therein lies the clue.
Are your two cars very early 69's using leftover 68 reservoirs?
Could have been a lack of availability of 69 versions for who knows what reason.
I wouldn't change out anything on a 3100 mile car.
People can say what they want to say about it.

[Raven R Code]

Interesting Bob.....thanks for the info. My R code was built 3/28/69......Q code was earlier. Pictured is the hose that went from pump to the PS cooler. I have to believe the foam cover on the hose is original but I could be wrong.

[Bob Gaines]

Therein lies the clue.
Are your two cars very early 69's using leftover 68 reservoirs?
Could have been a lack of availability of 69 versions for who knows what reason.
I wouldn't change out anything on a 3100 mile car.
People can say what they want to say about it.

I have seen numerous early double digit 69 GT500's all with the typical Mustang setup.I wouldn't jump to a conclusion based on such circumstantial evidence. That same pump regular Mustang pump was used on the more plentiful SB too. No doubt a lot of the same pumps given that. If the Shelby's got the regular pump so goes the regular Mustang. Most likely a later car anyway if it has the foam on the hose. The foam is apparently a early late thing. Foam being later.