Topic: 67 GTA 289 Coupe, Spring Codes and Markings, San Jose

[67gtasanjose]

Since GTA COUPES are an anomaly in their own right, and without having original springs in place, what would we be looking for in Rear Leaf engineering number stampings, plus rear leaf paint stripes?

...and while we are at, we might as well answer what the 289 front coils would be most likely marked. (I believe there was another thread on front springs ~on fastbacks though)

*related options that could affect answers:
 ~COUPE GTA
 ~289
 ~C4 Trans
 ~WITH Select-Aire
 ~without Competition Suspension

(I recently saw an image of an unrestored GTA Coupe in this thread:  http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=17310.0;topicseen

I'm hoping such details may have been noticed 

[J_Speegle]

A couple of questions that might narrow it down before I look through the data

AC - non AC?

When was the car built?  (Marks and parts can change during the production year)

If you had your original rear springs it would help since I  have records of springs with marks out of cars (no VIN or car info attached) but with marks so that is another was to relate marks to vehicles

[67gtasanjose]

A couple of questions that might narrow it down before I look through the data

AC - non AC?

When was the car built?  (Marks and parts can change during the production year)

If you had your original rear springs it would help since I  have records of springs with marks out of cars (no VIN or car info attached) but with marks so that is another was to relate marks to vehicles

Yes AC (in my specs as "Select-Aire", so factory air), Car built 11/2/66 (in signature) and no, do not have original rear springs, which is why I ask

[J_Speegle]

Yes AC (in my specs as "Select-Aire", so factory air), Car built 11/2/66 (in signature) and no, do not have original rear springs, which is why I ask

Sorry wasn't sure that this was for the car in your signature since it didn't mention the GTA and some of the other details. No problem

So looked through what I have - starting from easier with stronger proof to less

- No buildsheets that match your cars options and time period   

- No pictures of paint marks identified as matching your cars options and time period 

- Went to a 67 MPC to see what they had. It shows that your car may have been equipped with front springs marked with a Violet and an Orange stripe. Rear springs identified  (Ford change the type of rear spring 13 days later)  as a C7AZ-AJ. Unfortunately cross referencing that number with my other pictures came up with no matches.

Best I have right now. No idea if we will get lucky tomorrow and find something that would help

[67gta289]

All I can offer is this, acknowledging up front that San Jose data is the most elusive, and the other assembly plant colors may not cross over.  But since there is a lack of data...

1. Front springs, 7T01A260xxx, GT coupe (manual trans), no air, YELLOW VIOLET - same as what I found on my San Jose GTA C code fastback.  Copy of Jan 67 MPC attached.

2. Rear springs, 7T01A260xxx, GT coupe (manual trans), no air, ORANGE PINK - unfortunately my originals (C7ZA-5556-AE) were sand blasted off in 1981.

Unfortunately that's all I have.

[J_Speegle]

All I can offer is this, acknowledging up front that San Jose data is the most elusive, and the other assembly plant colors may not cross over.  But since there is a lack of data...

Have a handful of GT's also - just no GTAs. Richards car also is a thermactor car with make it different from the NJ examples you and I have also  

 
Thought we might get lucky  but appears timing is off this time

[196667Bob]

At the risk of adding to the "spring confusion", I am attaching copies from the 1960-68 MPC of the 1967 Rear Leaf Springs (1 sheet) and of the front coil springs (5 sheets). It appears to me that these listings are more detailed and easier to follow than those in the 1967 only MPC, and definitely more appropriate than those in the 1965-72 MPC.
Admittedly, there is no differentiation as to what one Factory might have done compared to another, Therefore, treat the attached as what Ford intended.

Bob

[67gtasanjose]

Sorry wasn't sure that this was for the car in your signature since it didn't mention the GTA and some of the other details. No problem

So looked through what I have - starting from easier with stronger proof to less

- No buildsheets that match your cars options and time period   

- No pictures of paint marks identified as matching your cars options and time period 

- Went to a 67 MPC to see what they had. It shows that your car may have been equipped with front springs marked with a Violet and an Orange stripe. Rear springs identified  (Ford change the type of rear spring 13 days later)  as a C7AZ-AJ. Unfortunately cross referencing that number with my other pictures came up with no matches.

Best I have right now. No idea if we will get lucky tomorrow and find something that would help

I always appreciate everyone's help in such matters. Thanks everyone. I see the front springs do match what the 68 MPC show but Jeff, I have to wonder if perhaps you mis-read the MPC on the rear springs after seeing Bobs image from the 68 MPC. (see attachment image ~I do not have "Competition Handling").

Presumably, by what the 68 MPC is showing, a 65 Body Type GTA or GT (coupe) would have "Improved Handling"??...am I reading things correctly? If I am reading things correctly, then it looks as though a Fastback ought to have had the same FRONT & REAR SPRINGS as a coupe would have had on it?

If this is true, then it boils down to just the "other options", not so much "Coupe Only"...again, this can be a "research-changer" on looking at other unrestored examples.


Thanks also John & Bob, mostly the images from the 68 MPC that seem to help tremendously with this discussion.

Below I have attached the images of what looks to be the correct findings in that 68 MPC. Again, check my findings please. I know all of the various options can add to the load requirements for the springs. Perhaps we can find other vehicles such as fastbacks that may have the correct paint stripes on them that ought to be found on my Coupe, that is according to the build date and location.

[J_Speegle]

I always appreciate everyone's help in such matters. Thanks everyone. I see the front springs do match what the 68 MPC show but Jeff, I have to wonder if perhaps you mis-read the MPC on the rear springs after seeing Bobs image from the 68 MPC........................

Went back and cross referenced  known cars, paint markings, spring numbers and the MPC and I can see where this got a bit jumbled for me.

Here is a picture of a page from April 68 MPC. You will notice that the ordered that the info is presented is standard, for competition handling GT only then & improved handling only. Its interesting that the and sign was inserted between the engine size and the suspension description in the improved section but not in the other two.  This difference in order may have added to my confusion.

Now to confirm the applications I took spring numbers from know cars (taking into consideration options and accessories) and they seem to match in all but a couple of examples. Apparently one set of data may have come from a comp suspension car that I and the owner did not realize.  Seems a bit strange to have located a fair number of these very rare cars. 

There are a couple of springs used in 67 production that are not included in any of the MPC's  and there is no mention of the substitution or replacement but realize that the real guide to this is a separate/book book that shows casting numbers and conversion (new) part number that was published often. Right now can't find anything that shows application for C7AZ-Y and C7AZ-AY

Another thing that added a twist is export cars with the improved or standard suspension parts.

So as right now my understanding that for this exercise and for rear springs 
"improved" equals GT and GTA application in 67 while & competition handling GT  equals Shelby's and cars ordered with competition suspension.

Here is a picture of the April 68 page for rear springs




So in an attempt to find an answer to your first question would you agree that your car likely/possibly came equipped with rear springs marked C7ZA-5556-AU or AV? 

Believe the "C7ZZ" is just a typo

[67gta289]

For what it's worth, my original date coded rear springs, 67 GTA 289 fastback, have the AE springs, and those are not listed in the 67 or 68 MPC.

[J_Speegle]

For what it's worth, my original date coded rear springs, 67 GTA 289 fastback, have the AE springs, and those are not listed in the 67 or 68 MPC.

Yes one issue with using the MPC for info over the year is that it appears that it does not always show the original parts but only what was available to the parts counter workers at the time of printing to sell so there are gaps and holes in the info.  Because of this practice Richards are may have originally had a different spring that what is listed on the page and in turn different markings (paint marks)

Thanks for another data point for the old spreadsheet 

[67gtasanjose]

For what it's worth, my original date coded rear springs, 67 GTA 289 fastback, have the AE springs, and those are not listed in the 67 or 68 MPC.

Yes one issue with using the MPC for info over the year is that it appears that it does not always show the original parts but only what was available to the parts counter workers at the time of printing to sell so there are gaps and holes in the info.  Because of this practice Richards are may have originally had a different spring that what is listed on the page and in turn different markings (paint marks)

Thanks for another data point for the old spreadsheet 

These two points (John's original example and the fact that not all springs are listed in the MPC) are exactly what have me baffled at the moment. If I am reading the 68 MPC (pictured previously) correctly, it would seem the "load rate" for fastbacks and coupes would essentially be the same as long as the options stack up to achieve the same load.

This may end up going into the old "educated guess" category.

If (and I emphasize "IF") the load rate of a 'similarly equipped fastback' is essentially the same, it would SEEM (and I emphasize the word "seem") that a GTA coupe would likely have been issued the same rear spring as a GTA fastback. Would others agree or have an opinion along this train of thought? (basing the decision/opinion using 'current known research', since original examples are all but impossible to locate).

[J_Speegle]

This may end up going into the old "educated guess" category.

A second choice , since the end goal is the correct paint marking, is to choose not to apply a mark until you have better info to base the choice on.  Just a consideration.

If (and I emphasize "IF") the load rate of a 'similarly equipped fastback' is essentially the same, it would SEEM (and I emphasize the word "seem") that a GTA coupe would likely have been issued the same rear spring as a GTA fastback. ......................
[/quote]

- So I guess that your (going by the MPCs) looking at -AV or -AU rear springs. Who's rating (625 lb) matches 4 other spring groups -S, -AF, -AJ, -AN, -AR,

A few thoughts

- First if those were the original springs we don't currently know if both had the same paint marks. Your original focus and purpose for the thread

- Comparing other cars and springs (in this example S code GT and GTA) with more documentation that we have for the small block GT and GTAs conflicts appear. The posted MPC pages and buildsheets show/suggest that the coupe and fastback built at the same time, equipped the same way would have received different rear springs.

For example all from about the same time period - After the date listed as the change date in the MPC

GT fastback - projected build date (PBD) of Dec 6 - One set of colors
GTA fastback - projected build date (PBD) of Jan 24 - Different set of colors

- Another twist. Looking at 67 small block GTs without AC I have two different paint markings but the changeover does not align with the MPC date unless the car was built two weeks earlier or its an example of the listed date being a soft date.

- Did anyone else notice - or maybe I'm missing it on the MPCs, where is the section listing 67 with improved suspension (as we're accepting represent GT and GTA)  built before 10/26/66?

As mentioned before been here before and it becomes a circular exercise at points but maybe we can figure something out. 

[67gtasanjose]

Thanks again for your input Jeff.

Yeah, I suppose I should just wait it out, not likely ever to be doing this example Thorobreds, just trying to get as much as I can, correct as possible as I move through these segments of the project. I get the feeling that if I leave it "unmarked", I'll never get back to marking them.

[J_Speegle]

Yeah, I suppose I should just wait it out, not likely ever to be doing this example Thorobreds, just trying to get as much as I can, correct as possible as I move through these segments of the project. I get the feeling that if I leave it "unmarked", I'll never get back to marking them.

Not really about some made up class but instead the goal of restoring and your need/wish to return the car as close and complete as possible to how the car was originally built.  Once we find the answer it will feel so much better to have something you can fell confident applying - and the info will pop up.  By posting and having this discussion you have allot more eyes keeping a look out for you