Topic: 358352-S - J-Clip -

[22mafeja]

I am surprised that you don`t appreciate the joy it brings you when you have made something from nothing.
I made my j-clip when I wanted it using pictures from this forum (not drawings).
 When I later found the right one in a forgotten box I saw that the two clips were very much alike. So the right one is
waiting for a restoration and is available if somebody wants it. I might make a couple more just for fun when I have
a model now.
I guess I am not 100% concours myself....
Ralf

[rodster]

Lots of great info on here! Thanks for sharing.

When I first discovered my J clip was missing, my plan was to make one from the picture of my original clip. That, like many things, just hasn't happened yet.

And there is always the chance I'll come across it in a box of parts. 

[196667Bob]

There are several 1/16 inch differences. Your length is calculated down, then back up on the "hook" side, plus the amount needed to make the curved base of the hook. We're now short 3/16 inch (est). You also don't know the thickness of the steel.
Jim

Jim : Here is the Repo 378350-S100 clip. All of the dimensions are "spot on" with your drawing; length, width, hole size, the 2, 1/8'' radii, and the 11/32" radius of the loop. The only difference I can find is in the thickness of the steel. While it is thick enough that I can't bend it by hand, I only miked it at 0.039", compared to the 0.050" that you show on your drawing. Also, when measured at the coated portion, it only measured 0.047", which means that the coating is only 0.004" thick, compared to the 0.025" that you show. In zooming into the picture of the original that you showed, it appears like there are bubbles in the coating, most likely from the heat in the Engine Compartment, thus giving you a thicker than original coating measurement (although, still thicker than the coating on the 378350-S100 clip).

Even with the minor steel and coating thickness differences, for $1.94, IMO, it seems like a bargain, and just as "correct" as a "made from scratch" one would be.

Bob

[jwc66k]

My intent was to document an item that has no currently available documentation for identification and possible fabrication. Apparently it worked. But -

- it appears like there are bubbles in the coating, most likely from the heat in the Engine Compartment, thus giving you a thicker than original coating measurement (although, still thicker than the coating on the 378350-S100 clip).

Any dipping process, paint and other coatings, usually leaves flaws. The most common types are runs (drips), voids and buildups. Gravity is one of the factors that determines this. Quality inspectors have a lot of leeway in acceptance from a perfect item. I doubt a bubble is from the engine compartment heat, or all the rubber items would be destroyed.
Just to refresh the topic, would you call out your source.
Jim

[196667Bob]

The clip pictured above, in my Reply # 32, is from National Parts Depot. It is actually noted for a 1957 Thunderbird ; entering the Part Number (358350-S) in their "Search" in the Thunderbird Catalog will bring it up (of course now, if you go to their Site, it shows "Out of Stock" at all of their locations  guess I cleaned them out).

As far as the "bubble" on the coating, it's not just a "bubble", but many small "bubbles" (zoom in to see them). Over the years, I have seen them do this not only on Mustangs, but on my '57's and '59's also. I truly believe that the "bubbling" effect is caused from engine heat acting upon an "ultrathin" layer of rubber coating. Obviously not hot enough to affect thicker rubber components, but enough to affect the thin layer on clips.

Bob

[67gtasanjose]

The clip pictured above, in my Reply # 32, is from National Parts Depot. It is actually noted for a 1957 Thunderbird ; entering the Part Number (358350-S) in their "Search" in the Thunderbird Catalog will bring it up (of course now, if you go to their Site, it shows "Out of Stock" at all of their locations  guess I cleaned them out).

As far as the "bubble" on the coating, it's not just a "bubble", but many small "bubbles" (zoom in to see them). Over the years, I have seen them do this not only on Mustangs, but on my '57's and '59's also. I truly believe that the "bubbling" effect is caused from engine heat acting upon an "ultrathin" layer of rubber coating. Obviously not hot enough to affect thicker rubber components, but enough to affect the thin layer on clips.

Bob

I tend to disagree. The two similar clips I removed from behind the instrument cluster of the 66 Thunderbird this weekend, were bubbled and never exposed to any extreme heat. Perhaps only a manufacturing "acceptable" defect as Jim suggests.

[196667Bob]

OK, I'll agree. An acceptable manufacturing defect is a possibility, and maybe more prevalent, also (is there an emoticon for foot in mouth ?).

I guess whatever the source, the "bubbles" will show a thicker coating than a smooth coating.

Bob